11 Aug 2021

Biden speaks to Pacific Islands Forum to counter China

John Braddock


Leaders of the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) celebrated the organisation’s 50th anniversary in an online summit on August 6. The meeting of the Pacific’s main leadership body took place under conditions of extraordinary global and regional crises, including worsening climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic and escalating geo-strategic tensions.

Leaders of 14 Pacific nations, including Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison and New Zealand’s Jacinda Ardern, met under the chairmanship of Fijian Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama. He began by declaring he had earlier hoped to host the gathering in person with “the worst of the COVID pandemic… behind us.”

US President Joe Biden, March 31, 2021 (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Fiji, however, is in the grip of a deadly COVID-19 outbreak with 24,138 active cases, 299 deaths and the highest official per capita infection rate in the world. Papua New Guinea (PNG) and Australia are also dealing with uncontrolled surges of the Delta variant which is devastating large parts of the globe.

Joe Biden delivered a pre-recorded video speech, the first time a sitting US president has ever attended or addressed the PIF. He emphasised that the US is a “proud Pacific power,” and announced that Washington would donate half a billion COVID-19 vaccine doses to the global COVAX facility. He claimed the move would be “without any strings or conditions” and is “about saving lives.”

In fact, the Biden administration has no interest in “saving lives,” as the uncontrolled spread of the pandemic within the US shows. Washington is escalating diplomatic and economic efforts, begun under the Obama administration and expanded under Trump, to isolate and confront China. So-called “vaccine diplomacy” has not been organised as a global public health strategy, but to advance the economic and strategic interests of competing ruling elites. US imperialism is prepared to use all means, including war, to prevent China from challenging its hegemony.

An August 7 article on the NZ website Stuff titled “The new militarisation of the Pacific” highlighted the “growing number of defence assets operating regularly in the region as Western partners counter China’s growing power there.” The US Coast Guard recently “commissioned three 47-metre fast response cutters in Guam.” Meanwhile, “French President Emmanuel Macron announced France would launch a South Pacific coast guard network.”

The article also noted “reports that Australia’s Special Air Service Regiment will potentially be redirected to focus on operations in the Pacific,” and that Australia is upgrading a naval base in PNG’s Manus Island.

The entire Indo-Pacific is increasingly crowded with warships as US allies join in provocative military exercises targeting China. Last month, a UK-led NATO Carrier Strike Group headed for the South China Sea as part of a 28-week mission that includes joint exercises with the US, Australia, France, Japan, New Zealand. Germany is also sending a frigate to the South China Sea.

Washington is undoubtedly concerned about the fracturing of the PIF, highlighted by the absence of four leaders of the Micronesian sub-group over the organisation’s refusal to assign the post of Secretary-General to their preferred nominee. Palau, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), Kiribati and Nauru have all commenced the process for withdrawal from the PIF by February 2022.

Geo-strategic rivalries fueled by the US-led preparations for war with China are behind the diplomatic stand-off. Three of the defecting states—Palau, FSM, and the Marshall Islands—are closely allied to Washington in compacts of so-called “free association.” Palau’s president Surangel Whipps Jr boasted that he will oppose Chinese “bullying” in the north Pacific and is looking to the US military for new ports, airstrips and bases on islands strategically positioned in the Philippine Sea.

The appointment of former Cook Islands Prime Minister Henry Puna, known to be friendly towards Beijing, to the PIF’s top post was a rebuff to plans to steer the organisation closer to Washington. The impoverished Pacific island states have been forced into a delicate balancing act, reducing their dependence on the local imperialist powers, Australia and New Zealand, while increasing economic and aid relations with Beijing.

Many countries have turned to Chinese-led funding agencies to prop up their budgets after exhausting traditional financing options. At a Pacific leaders’ conference convened in Hawaii in June, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken angrily declared that China was breaching “international standards” and using “economic coercion.”

Samoa’s new prime minister last month signaled a realignment towards Washington by abandoning a Chinese-backed port development. Fiame Naomi Mata’afa said the $US100 million project would have significantly added to the country’s exposure to China, which accounts for 40 percent of external debt. The project played a part in April’s election which ended Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi’s 23-year term as prime minister.

The climate crisis remains the most contentious issue between the Pacific island nations and Australia. Posturing over the existential threat posed to Pacific nations by climate change, Biden declared that the US is committed to reducing emissions by 2030 and “building resilience into vulnerable communities globally.”

None of his empty rhetoric committed Washington to anything. Nonetheless on Twitter, Bainimarama lauded Biden “for bringing America forcefully back to the right side of climate history.” In a barely disguised swipe at Australia, which has resisted calls to commit to net zero emissions by 2050, Bainimarama added: “Fiji and the USA’s net zero commitments by 2050 must become the entire world’s—zero excuses. The Pacific and the planet depend on it.”

The last in-person PIF meeting—in Tuvalu in 2019—almost broke up in bitter recrimination as Australia refused to budge on “red lines” over the defence of its coal industry. Bainimarama slammed Morrison at the time for “alienating” Pacific leaders and warned that it would push them closer to China, adding “the Chinese don’t insult us.”

The outgoing PIF Secretary General, Papua New Guinea’s Meg Taylor, last week told a media conference the Australian government’s stance on climate change and its support for fossil fuels is “affecting the country’s standing in the region.”

Kausea Natano, the prime minister of Tuvalu and outgoing chair, also criticised Japan’s plan to release more than one million tonnes of contaminated water from the Fukushima nuclear power plant into the Pacific Ocean, which he said “places our region at risk of potential nuclear harm.”

The leaders’ declaration said the member countries should retain their existing maritime territories as rising sea levels drown their islands. Ardern said that the group would take the declaration to the United Nations, as “our interpretation” of the existing laws governing the seas, is “a first” in terms of protecting territories as sea levels inevitably rise.

Entirely missing, however, were any concrete demands placed on Australia or other major powers to act urgently. There was no repeat of calls that the PIF made at the 2015 Paris ecological summit to reduce emissions and keep the global temperature increase below 1.5 degrees.

Also off the agenda was any reference to the rapidly deepening economic and political crisis exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Bainimarama’s regime in Fiji is presiding over a social catastrophe, caused by its refusal to control the pandemic. Growing popular discontent over austerity and authoritarian measures has also seen political turmoil in Papua New Guinea, Samoa and Vanuatu this past year.

US admiral warns China “we have the world’s greatest military”

Peter Symonds


Admiral John Aquilino, head of the US Indo-Pacific Command, renewed his warnings of conflict with China over Taiwan at last week’s annual Aspen Security Conference. He expressed concern about China’s actions toward Taiwan, then reassured the audience that the US was in a position to take military action against China.

Asked about the US ability to defend Taiwan, Aquilino dismissed any suggestion that the US was in decline. “I want to be very clear—we have the world’s greatest military on the planet. We are here to continue to operate to ensure peace and prosperity through the region, and we have to be in a position to ensure that status quo remains as it applies to Taiwan,” he said.

US Navy admiral John C. Aquilino, April 2021 (United States Department of Defense)

General Charles Flynn, commander of US Army Pacific, made similar remarks during a press conference last week. Asked about the US ability to counter a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, he declared: “The Army is always able to rapidly deploy. And we have a range of forces out here in the Pacific—from forcible entry forces to motorized forces to sustainment, communications, cyber, electronic warfare, intelligence, security-force assistance… that can move at speed and at scale.”

While Washington constantly accuses Beijing of potential aggression toward Taiwan, it is the US that is upsetting the status quo that has underpinned relations with China for the past 50 years. The establishment of US-China diplomatic relations following President Nixon’s visit to China in 1972 was based on Washington’s recognition of the “One China” policy—that Beijing was the legitimate government of all China, including Taiwan.

Trump and now Biden have been ending the diplomatic protocols that limited contact between Washington and Taipei, in order to allow top-level contact between US and Taiwanese officials. Beijing has repeatedly warned it would use military force to unify the island with China if Taipei made any attempt to declare formal independence. Yet by strengthening ties with Taiwan, Washington is encouraging the Democratic Progressive Party government in Taipei to do just that.

Last week, the Biden administration gave the green light for another sale of US arms to Taiwan, a $750 million package that includes new artillery systems—40 M109A6 Medium Self-Propelled Howitzers—and related equipment. That latest sale comes on top of a $1.8 billion arms deal for Taiwan involving sensors, rocket launchers and artillery proposed last October by the Trump administration.

In its statement, the Chinese foreign ministry “firmly opposed” the Biden administration’s proposed armed sales, warning that it sent the wrong message to advocates of independence in Taiwan, and “seriously damages Sino-US relations and peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.” It warned that China would take “proper and necessary countermeasures.”

The Biden administration has continued and intensified the US confrontation with China that began with Obama’s “pivot to Asia” and was stepped up under Trump, who mounted what can only be described as economic warfare. Despite its propaganda, Washington is not concerned about “peace” or “human rights” but rather is seeking to prevent China from threatening US global hegemony through all available means, including military.

The danger of war was highlighted in March, by both Aquilino and Admiral Philip Davidson, the outgoing head of Indo-Pacific Command. In arguing in congressional testimony for a doubling of the INDOPACOM budget, Davidson warned that the US could be at war with China over Taiwan in the next six years.” Referring to Davidson’s remarks, Aquilino in his testimony declared that “this problem is much closer to us than most think.”

Unlike Trump, Biden has actively sought to marshal the support of US allies. The first overseas trip by Secretary of State Antony Blinken was to Japan and South Korea—Washington’s two key military allies in North East Asia that house major US military bases and more than 80,000 military personnel.

Japan also has been increasingly vocal over the “defence” of Taiwan, which was a Japanese colony between 1910 and 1945. Earlier this month, Japanese Defence Minister Nobuo Kishi, the younger brother of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, called on the “international community” to pay greater attention to the “survival of Taiwan.” Kishi, a right-wing militarist, is known for his close ties with Taiwanese politicians.

Last week Aquilino also lashed out at China over its “unlawful claim to the entire South China Sea” and its negative impact on “all of the countries in the region..... whether it be with fishing or access to natural resources.” He continued: “Those are the things that lead me to believe that our execution of integrated deterrence has to occur now, and with a sense of urgency.”

Washington has no concern about the fishing and economic rights of China’s neighbours. For decades, it ignored the festering territorial disputes in the South China Sea. However, as Obama announced his “pivot to Asia,” Secretary of State Hilary Clinton intervened to declare that the US had a “national interest” in the South China Sea.

Over the past decade, the Pentagon has mounted an increasing number of supposed “freedom of navigation” operations, provocatively sending warships and warplanes to directly challenge Chinese territorial claims. US strategists regard control of the South China Sea, which is adjacent to key Chinese military bases on Hainan Island, as critical to mounting military attacks and imposing an economic blockade of China in time of war.

Aquilino’s call for a “sense of urgency” to mount “integrated deterrence” in these contested, strategic waters is a call to arms not only to Washington, but to US allies. The danger of war is highlighted by the fact that last week, as Chinese and Russian warships engaged in joint exercises in the South China Sea, the Pentagon announced that it had started its Large-Scale Exercise (LSE) 2021 in the area, along with British, Australian and Japanese naval forces.

Aquilino’s remarks last week were echoed again on Monday by Secretary of State Blinken, who told the UN Security Council that a conflict “would have serious global consequences for security and for commerce… When a state faces no consequences for ignoring these rules, it fuels greater impunity and instability everywhere.”

In reality, by provocatively mounting large-scale naval exercises close to the Chinese mainland, the US is creating the conditions for a military incident, whether deliberate or accidental, that could lead to a dangerously escalating conflict between the two nuclear-armed powers.

10 Aug 2021

IBRO Return Home Fellowships 2022

Application Deadline: 10th September, 2021 (11:59 p.m. C.E.T.)

About the Award: Three profiles of scientists will be the main target of the IBRO Return Home Program:

  • Postdoctoral fellows who have finished research training in neurosciences (including clinical research) in a center of excellence of a developed country.
  • Research students who have been trained in a Center of Excellence in Brain Research (CEBR).
  • Scientists who are developing a successful basic/clinical research career in a developed country and wish to return to their country of origin or to a less developed country for personal or cultural reasons.

Type: Grants

Eligibility: At least one letter of reference (two are expected) and a Return Home Acceptance Letter are required in order to be considered for this grant.

Eligible Countries: Less Developed Countries

To be Taken at (Country): Candidate’s Home country

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Up to 20,000 euros

How to Apply: Apply here

  • It is important to go through all application requirements in the Award Webpage (see Link below) before applying.

Visit Award Webpage for Details

Important Notes: Please note: Qualified candidates will not yet have returned to the laboratory where he/she is applying for the fellowship at the time the application is submitted.

Goldman Sachs Women’s Trader Academy 2022

Application Deadline:

15th August 2021

About the Women’s Trader Academy:

Gain real-life perspective on the industry while making invaluable connections

The Goldman Sachs Trader Academy, the first of its kind in the region and industry, provides women students in their penultimate year of studies the opportunity to learn more about trading over three onsite training days. The aim is to upskill and prepare women into future trading roles.

The Trader Academy is an interactive three month programme, open to all degree backgrounds and is designed to introduce students to the financial world through hands on experience.

As a participant, you will:

  • Discover the extensive range of career opportunities in the financial services industry
  • Gain tangible resume-enhancing skills and tips through interactive workshops
  • Work closely with a group of peers to grow your technical and soft skills
  • Network with Goldman Sachs professionals and hear more about their experiences and diverse backgrounds

Interested to Learn More?

We recently connected with past Trader Academy participants, who shared their key takeaways and advice for students considering a career in Trading.

Additionally, read here to hear from Kunal Shah, head of Global Currencies and Emerging Markets Trading in EMEA, speaking about the importance of diversity and his personal investment in the Trader Academy.

Type of Award:

Training

Eligibility:

The Goldman Sachs Trader Academy is open for women graduating in 2023.

Eligible Countries:

Countries in EMEA (Europe, Middle East & Africa)

To be Taken at:

London, UK

Number of Awards:

Not specified

Value of the Women’s Trader Academy:

The Trader Academy is a three-month training programme in London that aims to prepare women students for a career in trading, giving them real-life perspective on the industry and helping them to form invaluable connections.

Duration of the Academy:

3 months

How to Apply for the Women’s Trader Academy:

  • Apply online via gs.com/careers to 2022 EMEA Global Markets Summer Analyst Programme
  • Under the ‘Affiliation / Upload Resume’ section, specify ‘TraderAcademy’ in the Job Code field

Visit Goldman Sachs Trader Academy Webpage for Details

Sanctions May Impoverish Nicaraguans, But is Unlikely to Change Their Votes

John Perry


In 1985, when President Reagan declared Nicaragua “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States,” his words were followed by a trade blockade, a ban on commercial flights and—most seriously of all—the financing of the “Contra” war, which led to 30,000 deaths. When, 33 years later, Donald Trump made the same declaration, its effect was far more limited. Yet presumably neither president saw the absurdity in designating a country as an “extraordinary threat” when it has just six million people, is one of the poorest in the hemisphere, and has only a tiny military budget. Nor, apparently, does President Joe Biden, who has renewed the declaration and added to the sanctions.

Sanctions, called “unilateral coercive measures” by the United Nations, are illegal in international law, yet are deployed by the United States against 39 countries. The Reagan administration used them against Nicaragua in the 1980s in their most drastic form, even mining the country’s ports—for which Nicaragua successfully took action against the United States in the International Court of Justice. When the Sandinistas lost power in 1990, sanctions ceased. But then Daniel Ortega won reelection in 2006 and again in 2011, so his opponents began to lobby the United States to reimpose them. To give one of many examples, Ana Margarita Vijil, then leader of the Movimiento de Renovación Sandinista (MRS)—a party that broke away from the Sandinistas in 1995 and later aligned with right-wing parties—met Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) several times from 2015 onwards to push for sanctions. In 2016, Ros-Lehtinen introduced the Nicaraguan Investment Conditionality Act, known as the NICA Act, in response to alleged fraud in the 2016 election process and the ending of presidential term limits, which had enabled Ortega to seek reelection. He was elected for a third consecutive term in November 2016 with 72 percent of the vote while Congress was still considering the Act.

The legislation fell in the Senate but was reintroduced in 2017 by Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who argued that “Nicaragua and all freedom-loving people in Central America depend on U.S. leadership.” It was passed in December 2018 as the Nicaragua Human Rights and Anticorruption Act. By then a violent attempt to overthrow the Nicaraguan government between April and July 2018 had failed, spurring on the Act’s proponents. The legislation allowed targeted sanctions against Nicaraguan officials and required U.S. officials to oppose loans to Nicaragua from international financial institutions (IFIs), excluding those to address “human needs” or “promote democracy.” Sanctions apply until Nicaragua is “certified” as meeting various requirements, including having “free and fair” elections.

The NICA Act’s targets may have been government ministers, but its victims were Nicaragua’s poorest communities. The World Bank, having praised Nicaragua’s use of international funds to relieve poverty and having financed over 100 successful projects since the Sandinistas first took power in 1979, suddenly halted funding in March 2018. It did not resume work for nearly three years, until late 2020, when the bank belatedly helped respond to the Covid-19 pandemic and two devastating hurricanes. The Inter-American Development Bank and the International Monetary Fund similarly stopped funding large projects, and their help in response to the pandemic and the hurricanes was also delayed. Not surprisingly, opinion polls show that over three-quarters of Nicaraguans oppose these sanctions, and even the Organization of American States described the NICA Act as “counterproductive.”

Trump also imposed personal restrictions on a range of Nicaraguan government officials, a list to which Biden has now added. It is unclear if these sanctions have much effect: they merely block named individuals from having U.S. property, financial dealings, or travelling to the United States. The sanctions are based on very flimsy evidence. For example, the recently deceased Paul Oquist, a widely known negotiator in global efforts to tackle climate change, was sanctioned. The former health minister, Sonia Castro, was falsely accused of instructing hospitals not to treat opposition casualties during the violence in 2018. Much respected for her work in transforming the country’s health services since 2007, Castro had to leave her post when sanctioned, as she could no longer handle international financial transactions.

While sanctions have hit specific projects benefiting poor communities, they have also begun to impact mainstream services such as healthcare, where replacing defective equipment or obtaining supplies during the pandemic has proven to be problematic. Nicaragua is also one of the few Latin American countries to receive no U.S. vaccine donations so far, although this will be belatedly corrected via the COVAX mechanism. To some extent, gaps have been filled using Nicaragua’s strong ties to other countries: for example, Taiwan has sent multiple shipments of medical equipment and Russia has donated Sputnik V vaccines. The Central American Integration Bank, unlike the other IFIs, stepped up its assistance via the Central America Integration System (SICA).

Sanctions are only part of the US “regime change” agenda for Nicaragua. Other measures include “democracy promotion,” in which U.S.-funded non-profits have trained over 8,000 young Nicaraguans with the ultimate goal of displacing the Ortega government. The United States actively organizes and promotes opposition politicians and refuses to accept the legitimacy of elections if they fail to win power. A $2 million program called Responsive Assistance in Nicaragua (RAIN) aims to achieve “an orderly transition” towards a new government, part of at least $160 million spent recently on regime-change efforts. Trump’s National Security Adviser John Bolton labelled Nicaragua, Cuba, and Venezuela the “Troika of Tyranny,” and Biden’s Latin American adviser, Juan González, continues this extreme language in claiming: “The actions taken by the Ortega administration against their own people…possibly constitute crimes against humanity.” The United States mobilizes its regional allies against Nicaragua via the Lima Group and the OAS, and “human rights” issues are weaponized via local bodies funded by the United States. One outcome is a consensus narrative about Nicaragua in international media: that it is a repressive, dictatorial “regime” that is trying to destabilize neighboring countries, despite those countries’ own problematic human rights records.

Doubling Down on a Failed Sanctions Strategy?

If sanctions on Nicaragua were toughened, as some U.S. and many of Nicaragua’s opposition politicians are demanding, the effects could be huge. Nicaragua’s exports to the United States are bigger than those of any other Central American country, while personal remittances and U.S. tourism are vital sources of income. All could be affected if the United States imposes a Cuba-style blockade or forces Nicaragua out of regional trade agreements. Nicaragua would have a degree of protection not available to Cuba—it is self-sufficient in basic foodstuffs and its intra-regional trade links are strong. Nevertheless, family incomes and Nicaragua’s sizeable small business sector would be badly affected. A foretaste of what might happen was provided by the short-lived campaign in the United States to boycott Nicaraguan beef, which put the jobs of an estimated 600,000 low-paid workers at risk.

As in the case of Cuba, Biden’s presidency brings warning signs that sanctions will be tightened, not reduced. The fact that Nicaragua’s anti-Sandinista politicians continue to demand tougher sanctions was one of the justifications the government gave for recent arrests of government opponents, an issue warranting separate examination. Calls for stronger action may succeed with the RENACER Act, short for “Reinforcing Nicaragua’s Adherence to Conditions for Electoral Reform,” recently approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. If passed, this legislation would monitor IFIs even more strictly, expand the targets of personal sanctions to tens of thousands of ordinary Sandinista party members, require closer collaboration with U.S. partners to implement the act, and add Nicaragua to the list of countries deemed to be “corrupt.” Another bill, introduced on June 17, would require the administration to review Nicaragua’s compliance with free trade agreements.

If the U.S. Congress approves RENACER, will it have the intended effect? Nicaraguans go to the polls on November 7. In May, electoral law was updated to include reforms such as gender parity among electoral officials and digital auditing and traceability of voting tallies. On July 24 and 25, 2.8 million voters attended 3,106 voting centers to check they were registered. The latest opinion poll (July 3) shows that 95 percent will have the required identity cards, 73 percent intend to vote, 58 percent say they will vote to reelect the Ortega government, while 23 percent will vote against. Six opposition parties are choosing their candidates, including both “traditional” parties and new ones formed after the 2018 uprising. It is difficult to see any circumstances in which elections would not proceed. Almost as likely, given economic and social advances over the past 14 years, is that the Sandinistas will win.

Past experience suggests the U.S. government will refuse to recognize such a result. However, imposing extra sanctions is not straightforward. A parallel election is taking place on November 28 in neighboring Honduras, where widespread fraud occurred in the 2017 presidential vote; the electoral process is disorganized, and some 400,000 people may be left without a ballot. Honduras is a narco-state, while Nicaragua is more successful than its neighbors in combating the drug trade.

Will the U.S. accept a dubious result in Honduras while decrying a more clear-cut one in Nicaragua? Will it take action against Nicaragua that drives it towards closer relationships with Russia and perhaps even with China? What will it do if Nicaragua—currently one of the safest countries in Latin America—loses its traditional security because the economy collapses and poorer Nicaraguans travel north to look for jobs, as they do from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador? What would be the response if U.S. action caused a humanitarian crisis?

Sanctions are clearly not in Nicaragua’s interest, but they may not be in the United States’ interest either.

The Hidden Face of Animal Research

Martha Rosenberg


Animal disease research in government or government-funded labs often flies under the public radar and it goes way beyond COVID-19 questions. For example few are aware of the existence of the U.S.’ Plum Island Animal Disease Center even though it is located in New York state near the northeast coast Long Island. During the Nixon era, bioweapons were developed there. Now the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service conducts gain of function-like research into vaccines and other countermeasures against foreign animal diseases like vesicular stomatitis virus, foot-and-mouth disease and swine fever.

The 2005 book, Lab 257: The Disturbing Story of the Government’s Secret Plum Island Germ Laboratory,” exposed biological meltdowns, infected workers and virus outbreaks at the facility including lab leaks that were seriously underreported by mainstream media.

Recently, a French laboratory worker was diagnosed with Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) leading to an immediate moratorium on the prion research the worker and others conduct at five public research institutions in France.  Prions, misfolded infectious proteins, cause the fatal brain diseases of scrapie in sheep, mad cow disease in cattle (bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE), chronic wasting disease (CWD) in deer and elk and CJD in humans. The prion-caused CJD brain-based fatal has been confused with Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases in humans because of the severe cognitive and mobility impairments it causes.

While the infected worker is retired, prion research has been halted for three months to determine if a lab accident or exposure explains the illness.

In 2019, a French lab employee who also worked with prions, Émilie Jaumain, died at age 33 of lab-contracted CJD. Jaumain was infected with variant CJD, or vCJD, normally associated with eating prion-contaminated beef, venison or other meat said officials. In humans, CJD can develop spontaneously from no known cause or have genetic causes. Jaumain had stabbed her  thumb with an instrument while cleaning a machine she was using to cut brain sections from transgenic mice infected with a sheep-adapted form of mad cow disease/BSE.

Prions are Widespread and Almost Indestructible

Though prions lack a nucleus, they reproduce and are almost impossible to obliterate as I reported in my 2012 animal disease expose. Prions are not inactivated by cooking, heat, autoclaves, ammonia, bleach, hydrogen peroxide, alcohol, phenol, lye, formaldehyde, or radiation and they remain in the soil, contaminating it for years.

The prion-caused chronic wasting disease (CWD) has become epidemic in U.S. deer and elk and humans can catch it though urban communities remain mostly untouched and unaware. Human cases of variant CJD (vCJD) caused by mad cow disease (BSE) in meat that was eaten have occurred in the U.S. but in recent years have been dismissed as “atypical” and thus not requiring herd and offspring searches for “Cow 1.”

Mad cow outbreaks in cattle threaten beef producers, exports and financial markets and CWD outbreaks in deer and elk threaten hunting income and state revenues. Both are barely reported as public health stories by mainstream media because of their serious financial implications.

And, with Midwest deer now carrying COVID-19 including one half of deer tested in Michigan, how might prions interact with the coronavirus? Why is that possible disease adaptation not being reported?

Brave New Animals Are Created for Lab Research

The creation of transgenic, hybrid and chimeric animals is underreported and disturbing. Transgenic mice like those infected with a sheep prion used by Émilie Jaumain are not new and date back to the early “oncomouse and knock-out mice. “hACE2 mice” were developed to study SARS but interest waned when the COVID-19 predecessor seemed to hide. The mice are now greatly in demand for such research which is back with a vengeance. COVID-19 is, after all, SARS-CoV-2.

Because of the ethical and disease spread/security dangers presented by transspecies experiments, some Western scientists have outsourced such research reported the Sun earlier this year. “Human-monkey hybrids, souped-up viruses, head transplants and gene editing are just some of the tests known to have been carried out by Chinese scientists,” the news outlet wrote.

Most Pandemics Are Zoonotic Including COVID-19

The 1918 flu epidemic originated in birds and the HIV epidemic originated in apes but the zoonosis of COVID-19 has been all but ignored for political reasons. It is now found in U.S. minks, zoo animals and deer.

Whether a fatal animal disease is bred in labs, hunting ranges (CWD), factory farms (BSE) or unhygienic wet/wildlife Asian markets, the possibility of animal-based human pandemics and their variants is the biggest lesson of the 21st century.

Israel launches aerial strikes on Lebanon escalating covert war against Iran

Jean Shaoul


Israel has launched a series of air strikes on Lebanon in a marked escalation of hostilities in response to the launching of a handful of rockets by militant groups in the south of the country.

It is the first time that Israel has admitted conducting air strikes against Lebanon since 2014, although its fighter planes have for years breached Lebanese airspace on an almost daily basis as it prosecutes its covert war on Iran and its allies, including Lebanon’s Hezbollah group, in Syria.

The strikes come in the wake of mounting tensions between Israel and Iran following the drone attack, which Washington, London and Tel Aviv have attributed to Iran, on the oil tanker MV Mercer Street. The tanker is operated by an Israeli-owned shipping company and was sailing in international waters off the coast of Oman.

F-16I Soufa Multirole Fighter in flight (Wikimedia Commons/Israeli Air Force)

That attack, which killed the ship’s Romanian captain and British security officer, was likely in response to the long-running, covert offensive by Israel’s naval, air, security, intelligence and cyber forces against Iran. While the United States and Britain said they would work with their allies to respond to the attack, Israel said it reserved the right to act alone if necessary.

Tensions rose further when several ships were delayed in the Gulf of Oman last Monday, after one of them appeared to hit a mine at sea. Later, the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations agency reported the end of a “potential hijack” of one of the ships by armed attackers, in a sequence of events that are far from clear.

On Wednesday, Israel launched 92 rounds of artillery fire against targets in south Lebanon, reportedly hitting an open area near the town of Mahmoudiya in the Marjayoun district and causing a fire in a nearby village.

This assault was in response to what the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said were three rockets fired into Israel by Palestinian militants in the area earlier that day, without identifying the Palestinian group it held responsible. One of the rockets was intercepted by Israel’s Iron Dome defence system, with two rockets landing inside Israel, sparking fires near Kiryat Shemona. It marked the sixth such incident in the last three months, including three sets of rockets fired at Israel from Lebanon during Israel’s 11-day war on Gaza in May and a further three since then, after reported Israeli airstrikes on Syria, meaning that there were more incidents on Israel’s northern border than on its border with Gaza.

While the IDF attributed all of them to Palestinian militants in southern Lebanon, not Hezbollah, it stressed that Hezbollah was probably aware of their plans.

On Wednesday night, Israel’s fighter jets launched strikes against sites and infrastructure the IDF claimed were used for rocket launches. A spokesman said that Israel held the Lebanese government responsible for shelling from its territories and warned against more attacks. Defence Minister Benny Gantz told Ynet that Israel was prepared to attack Iran, saying both “Israel and the international community must act to curb Iran's actions.” He described Israel’s strikes as “warning shots… It’s obvious we are capable of doing a lot more, and we hope we won’t be dragged into it.”

On Friday, Hezbollah, the bourgeois-clerical group backed by Iran, fired 19 missiles into uninhabited areas in northern Israel. Three fell within Lebanon, while 10 of the remaining 16 were intercepted by the Iron Dome. No casualties were reported.

Hezbollah released a video of its fighters launching the rockets, making it the first time since Israel’s war on Lebanon in 2006 that Hezbollah publicly took responsibility for rocket fire on Israel. It said the rocket fire was in response to Israeli aggression, indicating the killing of a Hezbollah member who had crossed into northern Israel at a protest during the assault on Gaza and the wounding of another in Syria by an airstrike attributed to Israel, as well as the previous day’s aerial attacks.

An IDF spokesman said Israel had responded with further artillery and aerial strikes in a third day of cross-border attacks by “striking the rocket launch sites in Lebanon” and open areas “in order not to escalate the situation,” justifying it with the claim that Iran had fired into open areas in the Golan Heights instead of populated ones. Israel’s TV Channel 12 cited an unsourced report as saying that the Israeli defence establishment had warned there could soon be several days of fighting, although Gantz urged Israelis not to cancel their vacation plans in the Galilee region.

Ned Price, spokesperson for the US State Department, confirmed Washington’s unconditional defence of Israel’s belligerence, telling reporters, “Israel has the right to defend itself against such attacks.” He indirectly acknowledged Washington’s prior knowledge if not approval of the attack, saying the US would remain engaged with its “Israeli and Lebanese counterparts, as well as with the Lebanese Armed Forces.” He called on the Lebanese government “urgently to prevent such attacks and bring the area under its control,” a clear instruction to the army to rein in Hezbollah.

On Saturday, Hezbollah’s Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah said that his group was not seeking to escalate the conflict. “What happened over the past few days was a dangerous development, something that has not happened for 15 years,” he said, warning that Hezbollah would expand its range to “the Galilee or parts of the Lebanese Golan that Israel has occupied,” if Israel continued its airstrikes.

Israel’s aggressive action against the Palestinian militant groups and Hezbollah is bound up with its broader hostility to Iran, which indicated its collaboration with its allies by giving the secretary-general of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Ziad al-Nakhalah, the head of Hamas’ Political Bureau Ismail Haniyeh, and the deputy secretary-general of Hezbollah Naim Qassem front-row seats, in front of the European Union’s delegate, at President Ebrahim Raisi’s inauguration in Tehran on Thursday.

The following day, Raisi met with Qassem, Haniyeh and other leading officials from Iran’s regional allies, while on Saturday Hossein Salami, who heads the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, met with Qassem.

Israel’s airstrikes seek to undermine the position of Tehran’s allies in Lebanon, which is reeling under an economic and social firestorm exacerbated by the pandemic and the devastation caused by last year’s blast at Beirut port. The Sunni and Christian political elite backed by Washington and Paris have tried and failed for the past year to form a government that meets the approval of President Aoun, his Christian Patriotic Free movement and Hezbollah, which with its allies has the largest bloc in Lebanon’s parliament. The successful formation of such a government under their latest candidate Najib Mikati would serve to ramp up the pressure on Iran, forcing further concessions from Tehran if not the outright ending of the Vienna talks aimed at reinstating some version of the 2015 nuclear accords.

At the very least, Israel sought to estimate the extent of the Palestinian militants’ independence from Hezbollah, which had rejected any responsibility for the attacks, and of Hezbollah’s support within southern Lebanon, its long-time stronghold. Druze villagers in Chouaya located Hezbollah’s rocket launcher and vented their anger.

Aoun said that Israel’s overnight air strikes showed an escalation in its “aggressive intent” towards his country. They not only constituted a direct threat to the security and stability of southern Lebanon but violated UN Security Council resolutions. The Lebanese army said it had detained the “four people who launched the rockets and seized the launcher used in the operation,” but Druze leaders supported Hezbollah, saying it had the right to act against Israel.

On Saturday, Israeli aircraft bombed Hamas sites in Gaza in response to incendiary balloons launched from the besieged Palestinian enclave.

UK: Johnson government wages dirty war on migrants and asylum seekers

Robert Stevens


Britain’s Conservative government is stepping up its onslaught against migrants, refugees and asylum seekers.

The Tory government is advancing an anti-immigration agenda as its flagship policy. This is centred on Home Secretary Priti Patel’s Nationality and Border Bill, moving through parliament after passing its second reading last month. With the Tory’s 80-strong majority, the legislation will pass later this year.

The most-right-wing sections of the pro-Brexit media are spewing out invective demanding that the clampdown on “illegal” immigration is stepped up as the only way to stop an “army” of migrant “invaders” reaching Britain’s shores.

A Border Force vessel brings a group of people thought to be migrants into the port city of Dover, England, from small boats, Saturday Aug. 8, 2020. The British government says it will strengthen border measures as calm summer weather has prompted a record number of people to attempt the risky sea crossing in small vessels, from northern France to England. (AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth)

Last month’s Cabinet Office Outcome Delivery Plan: 2021 to 2022 report outlined the importance of tackling migration to the government’s agenda. The report states that the UK must “seize the opportunities of EU Exit,” which requires “creating the world’s most effective border to increase UK prosperity and enhance security.”

The government and media have focused their propaganda on securing the border against dinghies and small boats containing migrants who arrive in the UK via the Channel between England and France. With no exception, from the supposedly “impartial” BBC to the Murdoch-owned Sun, the media pointed out that last Wednesday saw a “record” 482 migrants arrive in the UK via this route. For good measure the BBC pointed out, “A further 475 migrants crossed the English Channel in 15 small boats on Thursday.”

Every newspaper declared in banner headlines that the numbers who crossed on Wednesday took the total arriving via the Channel this year to more than 10,000, with the Daily Mail complaining that it “smashed the previous daily record set on July 19 when 430 arrived.” The “Channel migrant crisis” it intoned, would lead to 22,000 entering Britain that way by the end of this year.

The government, backed by its media echo chamber, has escalated tensions with France and the European Union (EU), complaining that too few migrants are being stopped in northern France before they attempt the crossing. Last month, London agreed to pay Paris £54 million to double its anti-migrant police force stationed in northern France to monitor beaches and ports, to 200 officers.

The agreement came under attack, with Tory MPs and the Daily Telegraph denouncing France last week for not doing enough to stop journeys taking place and complaining that the £54 million was money down the drain. Saturday’s Telegraph article opened with the words, “France is under pressure to set up a joint maritime brigade to turn back migrants, as 1,500 more mass on the coast ready to cross to the UK.”

The Telegraph cited Tony Smith, the former director general of Border Force, which is responsible for the UK’s air, sea and rail ports, who said, “We need a joint agreement with the French that migrants will be instantly taken back to the point from where they came and their asylum application would be considered there.”

Conservative MP Tim Loughton, a member of the home affairs committee, said, “If they are talking about intercepting the boats and returning migrants to France, that is the key to all of this. If their actions can match their words when they are in a position to do it—and if a joint force is deemed necessary to execute it—then that’s fine. We need to do something that effectively deters them.”

Last week, the Johnson government dispatched immigration minister Chris Philp to meet French police officials with a remit of ensuring they “continued to get results for the British public”.

Home Secretary Priti Patel and her French counterpart Gérard Darmanin have formally agreed to “support the idea of a UK-EU readmission agreement to mutual advantage in terms of deterring illegal migration, protecting the vulnerable, and tackling the criminal gangs”.

Paris nevertheless insists that maritime law prevents it from bringing back to France those boats which manage to leave French shores.

Britain is cynically using the tragic fate of scores of migrants who died attempting the treacherous crossing to ensure that everyone possible is prevented from making the journey.

The Telegraph cited UK sources claiming the European Commission is “turning a blind eye to people dying” by refusing to enter talks to allow Britain to send migrants back to France, blaming “post-Brexit shenanigans… EU officials are understood to have insisted that the right to negotiate asylum and readmission agreement rests entirely with the bloc, and not individual member states.”

Interviewed on LBC Radio, Rear Admiral Dr Chris Parry, the first Chair of the UK Government’s Marine Management Organisation until 2011, attacked France for being reticent when “a crime is being committed in their territorial seas.” France is “supposed to stop the migrants coming off the French coast but part of the problem is that the French aren’t doing their job very well.”

He advocated “various solutions which are available at the moment, on the real hard-edge you have the Australian method which is you tow people back like they did in the Pacific. Make it an offence to try and get into Australia and if you committed that offence then you’re never allowed to settle there and everyone is processed offshore.”

Last week, Home Secretary Patel visited Greece on a two-day fact-finding trip to discuss Fortress Europe’s southern border. The EU, Greece and Turkey have set up an anti-immigration system manned by hundreds of boats in which Greece blocks entry to thousands of desperate asylum seekers.

Greece has one of the most brutal anti-migrant policies in Europe. Patel and Greek migration minister Notis Mitarachi discussed the country’s latest measures and visited a newly constructed asylum “reception centre” on Samos Island, which will operate on a “closed and controlled” basis from September. Patel plans to introduce a similar operation in Britain.

Last November, the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment issued a report on the islands. On visiting two Greek police holding cells on Samos, its delegation “found 93 migrants (58 men, 15 women—three of whom were pregnant—and 20 children, 10 of whom were under five years old), crammed into the two cells.” The detained men, women, and children “slept on blankets or on cardboard placed on the cell floor.”

Last week, Labour MP Diane Abbott authored a piece in the Guardian on the conditions facing migrants at a “holding facility” in Dover that were nearly identical. “The facility was terrible. There were 56 people crammed into a small room, including women, young children and babies. They were sitting or lying on thin mattresses which covered the entire floor, including the aisles between a small number of seats. At night they would sleep on these same mattresses.”

Every filthy device available is being utilised to demonise migrants and asylum seekers and to curb immigration. The Guardian reported that the Home Office has financed a website and front organisation, On the Move, supposedly offering independent advice to migrants, as part of a £23,000 social media campaign. It declares, “The UK asylum process does not offer any advantages. It is safer and easier to apply for asylum in the country you’re in now.”

The filth pumped out by the government and media serves to legitimise anti-migrant attacks by far-right thugs. The Guardian reported on a freedom of information request it submitted which revealed that “70 racist incidents by far-right supporters against asylum seekers in barracks and hotel accommodation” had taken place between January 2020 and July 13, 2021. This year, the number of far-right attacks on those accommodated in hotels has more than tripled, rising to 40 from 13 in the whole of 2020.