Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The WHO and Pandemic Response – Should Evidence Matter?

REPPARE | BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE | APRIL 22, 2024

The Basics of Policy Development

All public health interventions have costs and benefits, and normally these are carefully weighed based on evidence from previous interventions, supplemented by expert opinion where such evidence is limited. Such careful appraisal is particularly important where the negative effects of interventions include human rights restrictions and long-term consequences through impoverishment.

Responses to pandemics are an obvious example. The world has just emerged from the Covid-19 event, which should have provided an excellent example, as broad new restrictive interventions were widely imposed on populations, while some countries offer good comparators by avoiding most of these restrictions.

The WHO calls such measures Public Health and Social Measures (PHSM), also using the largely synonymous term non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI). Even if we assume that countries will continue to enjoy full sovereignty over their national policies, WHO recommendations matter, if only because of epistemic authority or shaping of expectations. In 2021, the WHO established a PHSM Working Group which is currently developing a research agenda on the effects of PHSM. As part of this remit, it is expected that the WHO will re-examine their recommendations on PHSM rigorously to reflect the lessons from Covid-19. This process is envisaged to be completed by 2030.

It is therefore curious that the WHO, without providing any comparison of cost and benefit from Covid-19, concluded a 2023 meeting with public health stakeholders from 21 countries with a call to action on all countries “to position PHSM as an essential countermeasure alongside vaccines and therapeutics for epidemic and pandemic preparedness and response.” With Member States due to vote in late May to make WHO recommendations within the International Health Regulations (IHR) effectively binding, “undertaking to follow the Director General’s recommendations before they are given, one would expect these recommendations would be based on a thorough and transparent review that justifies their imposition.”

IHR Benchmarks

In 2019, the WHO defined ‘benchmarks for International Health Regulations (‎IHR)‎ capacities,’ which did not include PHSM. Although the IHR are still being revised, the benchmarks have been updated in 2024 as ‘benchmarks for strengthening health emergency capacities.’ The update includes new benchmarks on PHSM, which are stated by the WHO to “play an immediate and critical role throughout the different stages of health emergencies and contribute to decreasing the burden on health systems so that essential health services can continue and effective vaccines and therapeutics can be developed and deployed with their effects maximized to protect the health of communities.”

In the new document, PHSM are said to “range from surveillance, contact tracing, mask wearing and physical distancing to social measures, such as restricting mass gatherings and modifying school and business openings and closures.” A new benchmark on PHSM has been included. For example, to meet the level of “demonstrated capacity,” States are now expected to “review and adjust PHSM policies and implementation based on timely and regular assessment of data” and to “establish whole-of-government mechanisms with well-defined governance and mandates to implement relevant PHSM.”

However, the document also acknowledges that PHSM can have “unintended negative consequences on the health and well-being of individuals, societies and economies, such as by increasing loneliness, food insecurity, the risk of domestic violence and reducing household income and productivity” [i.e. increase poverty]. Accordingly, another new benchmark has been introduced: “The protection of livelihoods, business continuity and continuity of education and learning systems is in place and functional during health emergencies.” Disruptions particularly to schooling now seem to be expected during health emergencies as reflected in benchmarks involving “policies for alternative modalities to deliver school meals and other school-linked and school-based social protection when schools are closed due to emergencies.” While potentially being rooted in an acknowledgement of the harms of the Covid-19 response, this benchmark also illustrates the extent to which the Covid-19 event now shapes the idea of what a pandemic response looks like. No other pandemic or health emergency was ever addressed through similarly prolonged disruptions to the economy or to education.

Furthermore, benchmarks on border control measures now expect States to “develop or update legislation (relevant to screening, quarantine, testing, contact tracing, etc.) to enable the implementation of international travel related measures.” To meet the “demonstrated capacity” benchmark, States must “establish isolation units to isolate and quarantine suspected human or animal cases of communicable diseases.”

Due Research

These new benchmarks illustrate a remarkable departure from WHO’s pre-Covid guidelines. The most detailed such recommendations were laid out in a 2019 document based on a systematic review of non-pharmaceutical interventions for pandemic influenza. Despite SARS-CoV-2 spreading similarly to influenza, these guidelines have been widely ignored since 2020. For example, the 2019 document stated that border closures, or quarantining healthy contact persons or travellers were “not recommended in any circumstances.” The isolation of patients was recommended to be voluntary noting that workplace closures of even 7-10 days may disproportionately harm low-income people.

Prior to 2020, most discussed PHSM now proposed by the WHO had never been implemented at large scale and data on their effects was accordingly scarce. For example, the 2019 review recommended wearing masks when symptomatic and in contact to others, and even “conditionally recommended” wearing masks when asymptomatic during severe pandemics purely based on “mechanistic plausibility.” Indeed, two meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of face masks published in 2020 found no significant reduction in influenza transmission or influenza-like illness.

Today, we have an abundance of evidence on the effects of PHSM during the Covid era. Yet, there could hardly be more disagreement regarding efficacy. A Royal Society report concluded that lockdowns and mask mandates decreased transmission and their stringency was correlated with their effectiveness. Meanwhile, a meta-analysis estimated the average lockdown in Europe and North America to have reduced Covid mortality by merely three percent in the short term (at high cost) and an updated Cochrane Review still found no evidence for the effectiveness of masks in community settings (let alone mask mandates) in RCTs. The lower level of restrictions in Nordic countries was associated with some of the lowest excess all-cause mortality in the world between 2020 and 2022, including Sweden which never resorted to general lockdowns or mask mandates.

New Recommendations

Notwithstanding the variable evidence of effectiveness and harm, and the ongoing 7-year WHO review process, the WHO has begun to revise recommendations on PHSM. The first publication of the WHO’s newly launched initiative Preparedness and Resilience for Emerging Threats (PRET), titled ‘Planning for respiratory pathogen pandemics,’ advocates for a “precautionary approach to infection prevention early in the event” that “will save lives” and tells policy makers to “be ready to apply stringent PHSM, but for a limited time period in order to minimize associated unintended health, livelihood and other socio-economic consequences.” These recommendations are not founded on any systematic review of new evidence, as was attempted in the 2019 influenza guidance, but largely on unstructured, opinion-based “lessons learned” compilations of committees convened by the WHO.

The 2023 version of the WHO’s ‘Managing Epidemics’ handbook, first published in 2018 and intended to inform WHO country staff and health ministries, illustrates this lack of evidence-base. Comparing both editions of the same document shows a marked normalization of Covid-19-era PHSM. For instance, the earlier version recommended sick people wear masks during severe pandemics as an “extreme measure.” The revised handbook now recommends masking everyone, sick or healthy, not merely during severe pandemics but even for seasonal influenza. Covering of faces is clearly no longer considered an “extreme measure” but normalized and portrayed as similar to hand washing.

Elsewhere, the 2018 version of ‘Managing Epidemics’ stated:

We have also seen that many traditional containment measures are no longer efficient. They should therefore be re-examined in the light of people’s expectations of more freedom, including freedom of movement. Measures such as quarantine, for example, once regarded as a matter of fact, would be unacceptable to many populations today.

The 2023 edition revises this to:

We have also seen that many traditional containment measures are challenging to put in place and sustain. Measures such as quarantine can be at odds with people’s expectations of more freedom, including freedom of movement. Digital technologies for contact tracing became common in response to Covid-19. These, however, come with privacy, security and ethical concerns. Containment measures should be re-examined in partnership with the communities they impact.

The WHO no longer considers quarantine inefficient and unacceptable, but merely “challenging to put in place and sustain” because it can be at odds with people’s expectations.

A new section on “infodemics” gives advice on how to manage people’s expectations. States are now encouraged to set up an “infodemic management team” that shall “debunk misinformation and disinformation that could have a negative health impact on people and communities, while respecting their freedom of expression.” Again, evidence is not provided as to why this new area of recommendations are needed, how ‘truth’ is arbitrated in such complex and heterogeneous situations, or how potential negative effects of stifling exchange of information and discussion of complex issues will be addressed.

Infodemic Management in Practice

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the WHO’s Director-General recently reassured the world in a speech:

Let me be clear: WHO did not impose anything on anyone during the Covid-19 pandemic. Not lockdowns, not mask mandates, not vaccine mandates. We don’t have the power to do that, we don’t want it, and we’re not trying to get it. Our job is to support governments with evidence-based guidance, advice and, when needed, supplies, to help them protect their people.

This is not the only example of the WHO adopting a proactive strategy of “infodemic management” as it recommends States to do. The latest draft of the Pandemic Agreement includes a new paragraph:

Nothing in the WHO Pandemic Agreement shall be interpreted as providing the Secretariat of the World Health Organization, including the WHO Director-General, any authority to direct, order, alter or otherwise prescribe the domestic laws or policies of any Party, or to mandate or otherwise impose any requirements that Parties take specific actions, such as ban or accept travellers, impose vaccination mandates or therapeutic or diagnostic measures, or implement lockdowns.

The latter claim is particularly noteworthy because it ignores the proposed IHR amendments accompanying the pandemic agreement, through which countries will undertake to follow future recommendations on PHSM within a legally binding agreement, while the Pandemic Agreement does not include any such propositions.

The WHO promises to ‘support governments with evidence-based guidance’ but appears to be promoting PHSM recommendations that conflict with their own guidance without any apparent new evidence base. Given that countries did well without following highly restrictive measures, and the long-term impacts of reduced education and economic health on human health, the principle of “do no harm” would seem to demand more caution in applying such consequential policies. Policies need an evidence base to justify their adoption. Given the trajectory of natural outbreaks, contrary to WHO claims, is not increasing, it seems pertinent to expect one from the WHO before they push Member States to risk the health and economic well-being of their populations next time a pandemic or health emergency is declared.

Full PDF of report

REPPARE (REevaluating the Pandemic Preparedness And REsponse agenda) involves a multidisciplinary team convened by the University of Leeds.

April 22, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

‘Misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’ in the pandemic treaty

European Parliament – 9.4.2024

Priority question for written answer  P-001044/2024
to the Commission
Rule 138
Robert Roos (ECR), Angel Dzhambazki (ECR), Tom Vandendriessche (ID), Mislav Kolakušić (NI), Ivan Vilibor Sinčić (NI), Jorge Buxadé Villalba (ECR), Francesca Donato (NI), Margarita de la Pisa Carrión (ECR), Hermann Tertsch (ECR)

The Commission is negotiating an international agreement on ‘pandemic preparedness and response’ with WHO countries.

In the draft text as amended by the EU drafting suggestions[1] dated 27 February 2024, Article 18 on communication and public awareness relies on the concepts of ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’.

Signatory countries should act ‘with the aim of countering’ (Article 18(1)) and ‘cooperate in preventing’ (Article 18(4)) misinformation or disinformation, with the Commission suggesting an amendment to oblige countries ‘to develop effective tools to identify and counteract misinformation and disinformation’ (Article 18(4)).

However, neither the draft agreement nor international law provide a definition of ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation’.

  • 1. Can the Commission define these concepts and explain how they should be understood, in the Commission’s view, taking into account the requirement to comply with the principle of legal certainty, which is an essential component of the rule of law principle and according to which the law must be certain, foreseeable and easy to understand?
  • 2. In the Commission’s view, do the proposed obligations under Articles 18(1) and 18(4) entail restricting citizens’ fundamental right to freedom of expression, and if so, are these restrictions compatible with the applicable law, including the case law of the European Court of Human Rights?

Supporter[2]

Submitted:9.4.2024

  • [1] https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/2024/EU%20drafting%20suggestions%20Refined%20text%20proposals.pdf
  • [2] This question is supported by a Member other than the authors:Emmanouil Fragkos(ECR)

April 22, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

WHO: Intel Agency for Gates Foundation?

Examining the Foundation’s prescient August 2019 purchase of BioNTech stock

By John Leake | Courageous Discourse™ | April 22, 2024

Reviewing BioNTech’s Disclosure of Classes of Share Capital for the year ended December 31, 2019, I noticed the following:

On August 30, 2019, BioNTech entered into agreements with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). BMGF agreed to purchase 3,038,674 ordinary shares with nominal amount of k€ 3,039 of BioNTech for a total of k€49,864 (k$55,000). These agreements require BioNTech to perform certain research and development activities to advance the development of products for the prevention and treatment of HIV and tuberculosis. In the event of a breach of the underlying conditions, including such research and development activities, BMGF has the right to sell its shares back to BioNTech at the initial share price or fair market value, whichever is higher, subject to certain conditions. BioNTech’s ability to pay dividends is also limited under the terms of these agreements.

Less than two years after the Gates Foundation purchased the stock (pre-IPO) at $18 per share, it peaked on Aug. 6, 2021 at $389. At that price, the Foundation’s $55 million investment was worth $1,182,044,186.00 ($1.182 billion).

On September 18, 2019—just nineteen days after the Gates Foundation took its huge position in BioNTech stock— a report titled A World At Risk was published by the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board, which was founded in 2018 by the World Bank Group and the World Health Organization.

The report’s title page is illustrated with an image of a coronavirus, and its text is an urgent call to action for the world to invest far more in preparedness for a respiratory viral pandemic. As the report states on page 8:

The report mentions nothing about the need to invest in bolstering bio-laboratory safety. It expressly warns about the threat of a lethal respiratory pathogen “accidentally or deliberately released,” but its entire call to action is to invest a fortune to responding to such a pathogen instead of preventing it from being released in the first place.

This was in spite of numerous urgent warnings from Rutgers University biology professor Richard Ebright and others that many of the world’s bio-labs had a history of grave security lapses that were NOT being adequately addressed. In 2017, Professor Ebright expressed particular concern about the new BSL-4 lab that was about to open in Wuhan, China.

We now know that SARS-CoV-2 was officially detected in December of 2019 but probably emerged and started spreading in August or September of 2019—that is, around the same time A World At Risk was published.

The September 18, 2019 date of the report strongly suggests that someone doing bio-surveillance for the WHO in China obtained intelligence that a SARS coronavirus was already circulating.

Given that the Gates Foundation is the WHO’s second largest donor (after Germany, where BioNTech is headquartered) I wonder if this intelligence was passed to someone in the Gates Foundation months before December 31, 2019—the date the WHO claimed it received its first report of cases of pneumonia of unknown etiology in Wuhan.

Does the WHO—with its Country Offices obtaining bio-surveillance reports from the field—serve an an unofficial intelligence agency for the Gates Foundation?

If so, it would enable the Foundation to obtain extremely valuable information about emerging infectious disease pathogens—naturally emergent or accidentally or deliberately released—long before other market players obtain this information.

April 22, 2024 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Sponsor of TikTok Ban & Iran-Palestine Sanctions Gets 1,400% Bump in AIPAC Donations

By Ian DeMartino – Sputnik – 22.04.2024

The 21st Century Peace through Strength Act passed the US House of Representatives on Saturday, as part of a package of bills that also included military aid to Ukraine, Israel and the Indo-Pacific.

US Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX), who sponsored the 21st Century Peace through Strength Act that passed the US House of Representatives, saw contributions to his campaign from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) increase an incredible 1,413% during the 2024 election cycle when compared to the 2022 cycle.

The 21st Century Peace through Strength Act includes the REPO Act, which enables Biden to seize Russian assets frozen in US banks and send them to Ukraine, a provision that will essentially ban TikTok from the US, and also contains sanctions against Palestinian resistance groups.

According to a statement released by McCaul when the bill was introduced, it will be “the most comprehensive sanctions against Iran [that] Congress has passed in years.” The legislation is expected to clear the Senate and be signed into law by US President Joe Biden this week.

While it is unclear if, how, or why AIPAC would push for the theft of Russian assets, the other major provisions of the bill are directly related to issues AIPAC and other pro-Israeli lobbying groups advocate for.

The sanction provisions of the bill are self-evidently pro-Israel actions, designed explicitly to harm Israel’s adversaries in the region. The TikTok ban is slightly obscured, but the app has been blamed by politicians and Jewish groups alike for the rise in support among young people for the Palestinian cause.

In late October, US Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) called the app a “purveyor of virulent antisemitic lies,” on Twitter.

Billionaire Bill Ackman, one of Israel’s most virulent supporters who gained infamy last year after publicly doxing Ivy League students who made pro-Palestinian statements, blamed the app directly for the support of Palestine among America’s youth. “TikTok is massively manipulating public opinion,” he wrote.

“Compare the generational differences on support for Hamas. 51% of the TikTok generation say that Hamas’ barbaric acts are justified,” Ackman wrote on Twitter/X while saying TikTok should “probably” be banned.

Ackman’s sentiments were reflected by McCaul himself in November, when he, too, blamed TikTok and China specifically for young people turning against Israel’s actions in Gaza.

“China controls the algorithms on TikTok, so if you type in Israel or Palestine you are going to get a lot of pro-Palestinian, Hamas material and videos pop up and that’s primarily the source of education for our young people,” claimed McCaul.

It is not just politicians blaming TikTok for the rise in support for Palestinians, Jewish groups have as well.

In December, Anti-Defamation League (ADL) CEO Jonathan Greenblatt blamed TikTok for “intensifying antisemitism” and anti-Zionism.

“TikTok, if you will, is the 24/7 news channel of so many of our young people and it’s like Al Jazeera on steroids, amplifying and intensifying the antisemitism and the anti-Zion[ism] with no repercussions,” Greenblatt claimed on American television.

For years, McCaul was a non-entity for pro-Israel lobbying groups like AIPAC. Elected in 2004, McCaul received no contributions from pro-Israel groups until the 2020 cycle when another group, Pro-Israel America PAC contributed $32,600 to his campaign, his largest donor that year, according to Open Secrets.

The next cycle, McCaul received $7,900 from AIPAC itself in addition to another $6,000 from other pro-Israel groups. But, it was not until this year that McCaul became the Republican darling for AIPAC in the House of Representatives.

To date, McCaul has received $119,550 from AIPAC in 2024 alone, a 1,413% increase and by far his largest contributor, dwarfing the second place Axxess Technology Solutions which donated $16,600.

Open Secrets lists the “pro-Israel industry,” including AIPAC, as having contributed $372,468 to McCaul’s campaign overall in 2024, a 681% increase from the $47,673 in contributions he received from the “pro-Israel industry” in 2022.

This cycle, McCaul is AIPAC’s top Republican recipient in the House and is the sixth overall House recipient of AIPAC funds. Only Democratic Reps. Ritchie Torres (NY), Hakeem Jeffries (NY), Kathy Manning (NC), Josh Gottheimer (NJ) and Pete Aguilar (CA) sit above McCaul on the list. All of them voted for the bill.

Of the bill’s 10 co-sponsors, all Republicans, four of them list AIPAC as their top contributor for this year: Reps. Joe Wilson (SC), Mark Green (TN), Doug Lamborn (CO), and Dan Crenshaw (TX). Another co-sponsor, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (PA) lists AIPAC as his second-largest contributor. Only Delegate Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen from American Samoa, who does not have voting rights in the House, and US Rep. Maria Salazar (FL) co-sponsored the bill without taking campaign contributions from AIPAC or any other pro-Israel group.

Sputnik emailed McCaul’s campaign for comment on the increase in AIPAC contributions, but did not receive a response by press time.

April 22, 2024 Posted by | Corruption, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

US lawmaker demands ‘proof’ on CIA’s Russia scare

RT | April 22, 2024

After stoking fears of Russian expansionism to win congressional approval for more Ukraine aid, US intelligence agencies should provide proof of their justification for continuing to fund a “proxy war” that will inevitably end in defeat for Kiev, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) has argued.

Speaking on Monday in an interview with former White House aide Steve Bannon, Greene pushed back against claims that Russian forces will take Poland and continue “marching across Europe” if they’re allowed to defeat Ukraine. She noted that US House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) only agreed to push through the $61 billion Ukraine aid bill, which was approved on Saturday, after hearing intelligence briefings hyping the Russian threat.

“If the American people are going to have to pay for it, then show us this proof that was shown to Mike Johnson in the SCIF [sensitive compartment information facility],” Greene said. “Why is this classified information? If this is a real threat to all of Europe, if this is a threat to America and our national security, then roll out the presentation.”

The second-term lawmaker said Johnson received no such classified briefings on the US border crisis, which poses a real threat to the American people. “They don’t care about that,” she said. “They care about continuing the business model built on blood and murder and war in foreign countries, the business model that continues funding the military-industrial complex in order, supposedly, to create American jobs and build up the American economy.”

“This is the most disgusting business model that anyone has ever seen, probably in the history of mankind.”

Greene reiterated her call to oust Johnson as speaker, saying Republican voters are so disgusted about the Ukraine bill that the party will lose control of the House in this year’s election if the current leadership remains in place. The White House’s emergency funding request for Kiev had been stalled since last fall because a majority of Republicans opposed it. Republican lawmakers voted against the legislation by a 112-101 margin on Saturday, but Johnson overrode his own party by allowing a vote and winning passage with unanimous Democrat support.

Johnson won praise from the Washington media for his reversal on Ukraine aid – CNN even likened him to Winston Churchill – while Greene came under attack for criticizing him. The New York Post put a picture of Greene on its Sunday cover with a Soviet ushanka superimposed on her head and a caption saying, “Nyet, Moscow Marjorie.”

Greene insisted that congressional Republicans can’t win in the November election without the support of ‘America First’ voters. She added that sending more aid to Ukraine will only cause more bloodshed without changing the outcome of the conflict.

“This just continues the war maybe a few more months, maybe to the end of the summer,” Greene said. “It doesn’t guarantee a Ukrainian victory because everyone knows they’re going to lose eventually. It just is a matter of when. But it does guarantee that more Ukrainian men will be slaughtered on the battlefield.”

April 22, 2024 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Southeast Asia on Course to Ukraine-Style Crisis Amid US Militarization of Philippines

By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 22.04.2024

US and Philippine troops kicked off the largest iteration of their annual Balikatan exercises in decades this week, with this year’s drills involving some 11,000 US and 5,000 Filipino military personnel, plus forces from Australia and France. Geopolitical analyst and former US Marine Brian Berletic explains why the drills are so dangerous.

Chinese diplomatic and military officials slammed Washington and Manila over the Balikatan drills on Monday, accusing participants of attempting to “flex” their “gunboat muscles,” stoking confrontation in the South China Sea and undermining regional security.

“Reality has shown that those who make deliberate provocations, stoke tensions, or support one side against another for selfish gains will ultimately only hurt themselves,” Chinese Central Military Commission Zhang Youxia said, warning that US-led attempts at “maritime containment, encirclement and island blockades will only plunge the world into a vortex of division and turbulence.”

The Chinese military plans to increase its naval and air patrols in the South China Sea amid the US-Philippines exercises, which will run until May 10, and include everything from maritime security and air defense operations to cyber and information warfare, and simulate the seizure of islands in the vicinity of Taiwan and the South China Sea.

Crucially, drilling will include naval exercises outside the Philippines’ internationally recognized territorial waters near the disputed South China Sea – parts of which are claimed by both Manila and Beijing.

Former Philippines president Rodrigo Duterte warned current President Bongbong Marcos Jr last week about the risks of cozying up with the US at the expense of balanced relations with China, accusing Washington of trying to provoke a war between the Philippines and China, and emphasizing that he doesn’t believe “America will die for us” if tensions grow into direct clashes.

“I would remove the bases. And I would tell the Americans, you have so many ships, so you do not need my island as a launching pad or a launching deck for you,” Duterte said.

Assuming office in 2022, the Marcos Jr. government moved to expand the Philippines’ Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement with the United States, nearly doubling the number of military bases in the country that the US gets access to from five to nine in 2023. Two of the facilities, the Antonio Bautista Air Base and the Balabac Island Air Base in the Palawan archipelago, border directly on contested waters in the South China Sea.

Echoes of Ukrainian Escalation

Filipinos are right to be concerned about US attempts to militarize their country, says former US Marine-turned author, journalist and independent geopolitical analyst Brian Berletic.

“The Philippines were previously a US colony gaining independence only in 1945. Since then, the US has attempted to reassert political control over the country as well as maintain a large US military presence on its shores. The goal is to militarize the country and use it as part of a wider united front against China,” Berletic told Sputnik.

“Exercises like Balikatan give the US an opportunity to shape the Philippines’ armed forces into a suitable proxy for a potential conflict with China,” the observer warned.

The creeping militarization of the island nation is not unlike processes witnessed in the aftermath of the Euromaidan coup d’état in Ukraine in 2014, which were followed by joint military exercises involving US and Ukrainian troops, Berletic recalled.

These processes ultimately culminated in the 2022 escalation of the Donbass crisis into a full-blown NATO-Russia proxy war.

“Washington’s primary objective in the Asia-Pacific region is to encircle and contain China. To do this, the US is attempting to compromise the governments of nations along China’s periphery including the Philippines, establish a US military presence within their borders, and militarize these countries against China,” the observer explained.

In addition to allowing the US to move its military assets “dangerously close to Chinese territory,” including in the disputed waters of the South China Sea and off the shores of the breakaway Chinese island province of Taiwan, US activities in the Philippines are designed to take advantage of and artificially inflame outstanding regional maritime disputes.

This enables Washington to “both justify a larger US military presence in the region, and turn nations in the region against China,” Berletic said.

“This will result in a similar crisis as seen in Europe where the US not only used Ukraine in a highly destructive proxy war against Russia, but also decimated Europe’s economy, socio-political stability, and placed the entire region on the precipice of a US-driven war,” Berletic fears.

South China Sea Dispute

The dispute between China, the Philippines and other nations over the strategic, energy and fishing resource-rich waters of the South China Sea dates back to the immediate post-WWII period, with Beijing staking claims on the basis of imperial dynasties’ near total control over waters in the area prior to the arrival of the Europeans and Americans in the region.

China has been exploring a regional dispute mechanism with its South China Sea neighbors since 2002, and has called on Washington – which has no claims to the region, to butt out. The US has gradually ramped up its military presence in the region since the early 2010s, when Obama Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the South China Sea a matter of US “national interest.” In addition to shoring up a network of alliances and undermining Chinese negotiating efforts, the US has deployed Navy and Coast Guard ships into the South China Sea on so-called ‘freedom of navigation’ missions to challenge Chinese sovereignty claims. These missions have resulted in a series of close calls between Chinese, US and US-allied warships and military aircraft.

America’s “national interest” in the South China Sea is also inexorably tied in part to a strategy of containing China through the so-called ‘Island Chain Strategy’, which envisions a broad network of US bases and bilateral pacts with regional powers to prevent the Chinese Navy from being able to mount operations beyond its home waters.

April 22, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | 4 Comments

Ukraine: US doubles down, Russia is cool

BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | INDIAN PUNCHLINE | APRIL 22, 2024 

Russia’s free running in the Ukraine war in the most recent months is about to end this week as the Biden Administration has met with success in the US Congress on the long-stalled Ukraine aid bill. The aid approved by the House on Saturday would send $60.8 billion to Ukraine.

Senate approval is expected as soon a Tuesday this week. President Biden has promised, “I will immediately sign this law to send a signal to the whole world: we support our friends and will not allow Iran or Russia to succeed,” 

To be sure, the US is doubling down to forestall an outright Russian military victory in Ukraine through this year. Unsurprisingly, Washington’s transatlantic allies are also rallying, which is the message coming out of the virtual meeting of the NATO-Ukraine Council at the level of Allied Defence Ministers chaired by Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg at Brussels on Saturday. 

The sense of relief in Kiev is palpable with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy telling NBC, “I think this support will really strengthen the armed forces of Ukraine, and we will have a chance for victory.” He said the US lawmakers moved to keep “history on the right track.” 

On the other hand, the Russian reaction has been rather polemical — The foreign ministry spokesperson said in Moscow, “White House is no longer banking on an ephemeral victory by the Kiev regime under its control. All it wants is for the Ukrainian armed forces to hold out at least until the November voting without damaging Biden’s image… we confirm that Washington’s actions as an active party to the conflict will be rebuffed unconditionally and decisively, and its increasingly deeper plunge into the hybrid war against Russia will end up in a fiasco for the United States as scandalous and humiliating as in Vietnam and Afghanistan.” 

What seems to perturb Moscow most in the US aid bill is its provision for confiscating frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine, which, the Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov singled out “because this is essentially the destruction of all the foundations of the economic system. This is an encroachment on state property, on state assets and on private property. By no means should this be perceived as legal action — it is illegal. And accordingly, it will be subject to retaliatory actions and legal proceedings,”

Of course, the Russian military moves going forward will be keenly watched. In such fluid circumstances, actions speak better than words. At any rate, an inflection point has come since, evidently with an eye on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s forthcoming visit to Beijing, the Biden Administration is also shifting gear to explicitly threaten China for allegedly supporting the Russian defence industry. The US Secretary of State Antony Blinken is paying a 3-day visit to China on Wednesday.  

Taken together, what emerges is that the Biden Administration is doubling down on the Ukraine war, contrary to earlier prognosis that war fatigue is setting in. Meanwhile, Pentagon spokesperson Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder has disclosed to Politico in a statement that the Biden Administration is considering sending additional military advisers to Ukraine, since “security conditions have evolved.” 

The additional personnel “would not be in a combat role, but rather would advise and support the Ukrainian government and military.” The specific numbers of personnel remain confidential “for operational security and force protection reasons.” They will support logistics and oversight efforts for the weapons the US is sending Ukraine and “new contingent will also help the Ukrainian military with weapons maintenance.” 

Indeed, the fact remains that even in a non-combat role, what is in the cards is an expansion of the US military presence in Ukraine, notwithstanding Biden’s repeated assertions that US troops wouldn’t participate in the war on Ukraine’s behalf, as doing so would increase the risk of a direct Russian-American military confrontation. 

Citing sources, Politico further reported that “One of the tasks the advisers will tackle is helping the Ukrainians plan sustainment of complex equipment donated by the US as the summer fighting is expected to ramp up.” 

Interestingly, it has been reported on Saturday that French troops are already on the ground in Odessa numbering 1,000 and another contingent is expected shortly. This was  forecast a few weeks ago by the Russian foreign intelligence but Paris flatly denied it.

How does the new US $60.75 billion aid package add up? It includes $23.2 billion intended to replenish US weapons stocks; $13.8 billion for the purchase of advanced weapons systems for Ukraine; and another $11.3 billion for “ongoing US military operations in the region.” 

That is to say, in effect, the direct military assistance to Ukraine will actually amount to about $13.8 billion till end-2024. The Russian experts estimate that this allocation rules out another Ukrainian “counteroffensive.” Besides, while the increased flow of US weaponry will beef up the Ukrainian military capability to withstand the Russian offensive, it cannot fundamentally change the balance of forces at the front. 

From a military angle, the cutting edge of the bill lies in the fact that it opens the gateway for the transfer to Ukraine of tactical missile systems [ATACMS] capable of hitting targets at a distance of up to 300 km, which brings Crimea within its range. President Putin is on record that the ATACMS “are not at all able to change the situation on the line of contact… [but are] “certainly damaging and pose an additional threat.”  

Put differently, the aid package aims on the one hand to avoid a catastrophic military situation arising at the front in the coming months, which could be politically damaging for Biden’s re-election bid, while on the other hand, the bulk of funds actually goes to the US arms manufacturers in some key “swing states” and will surely gratify the influential military-industrial complex and the Deep State. 

Biden told Wall Street Journal, “We will send military equipment from our own stocks, and then use the money authorised by Congress to replenish these stocks by buying them from American suppliers. This includes Patriot missiles made in Arizona, Javelin missiles made in Alabama, and artillery shells made in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Texas.” 

To be sure, the triumphalist narrative of the Ukraine war by the US state department is on a comeback trail. Equally, it appears that Donald Trump has shed his ambivalence and decided to be supportive of the bill. The meeting between Trump and the Republican House speaker Mike Johnson in the run-up to the vote in the House on Saturday would suggest that the latter will not be ousted by his far-right House Republican colleagues.

April 22, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | 1 Comment

Final Nail in America’s Coffin?

By Ron Paul | April 22, 2024

When future historians go searching for the final nail in the US coffin, they may well settle on the date April 20, 2024.

On that day Congress passed legislation to fund two and a half wars, hand what’s left of our privacy over to the CIA and NSA, and give the US president the power to shut down whatever part of the Internet he disagrees with.

The nearly $100 billion grossly misnamed “National Security Supplemental” guarantees that Ukrainians will continue to die in that country’s unwinnable war with Russia, that Palestinian civilians will continue to be slaughtered in Gaza with US weapons, and that the neocons will continue to push us toward a war with China.

It was a total victory for the war party.

The huge spending bill is all about politics for Biden, yet so many Republicans simply went along with it. The last thing the people running Biden’s White House want to see as a close election approaches are ads blaming Biden for “losing Ukraine.”

The US and its allies have already sent over $300 billion to Ukraine and the country is still losing its war with Russia. Nobody believes another $60 billion will pull a victory from the jaws of defeat. But this additional money is meant to keep up appearances until November at the expense of Americans who are forced to pay for it and Ukrainians who are forced to die for it.

Speaker Johnson could not have passed these monstrosities without the full support of House Democrats, as the majority of Republicans voted against more money for Ukraine. So in the worst example of “bipartisanship,” Johnson reached across the aisle, stiffed the Republican majority that elected him Speaker, and pushed through a massive gift to the warfare/(corporate) welfare state.

After the House voted to send another $60 billion to notoriously corrupt Ukraine, Members waved Ukrainian flags on the House Floor and chanted “Ukraine, Ukraine.” While I find it distasteful and disgusting, in some way it seemed fitting. After all, they may as well chant the name of a foreign country because they certainly don’t care about this country!

Along with sending $100 billion that we don’t have to fund more overseas war, Speaker Johnson threw in another version of the Tik Tok ban, which gives Joe Biden and future presidents the power to shut down websites at will by simply declaring them to be “foreign adversary controlled.”

Not to be outdone, the US Senate on that same day passed the extension of Section 702 of the FISA Act, which not only allowed the government to continue spying on us without a warrant, but also contained new language massively expanding how they can spy on us.

Many conservative voters are asking what the point of Republican control of the House is if the agenda is determined by Democrats. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is even reported to have bragged to his colleagues about how easily Speaker Johnson gave Democrats everything they wanted and asked for nothing in return.

What is the silver lining in all this bad news? Most Republicans in the House voted against continuing the Ukraine war. That’s a good start. Our ideas are growing, not only across the country but even in the DC swamp. Take courage and don’t give up! Work for peace!

April 22, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | 2 Comments

Human Rights Experts and Activists: UNHRC Is Lending Support to US Regime Change Plans for Nicaragua

Nicaragua Solidarity Coalition | Alliance for Global Justice | April 18, 2024

Masaya, Nicaragua – Human rights experts and activists are expressing concern over a flawed and seriously unbalanced report of the Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua (GHREN), released by the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) on February 24, 2024.

The UNHRC, says the Nicaragua Solidarity Coalition, is lending itself to the U.S. regime-change strategy against Nicaragua by highlighting only evidence supplied by opponents of Nicaragua’s government, while omitting highly pertinent information submitted to the GHREN by a number of individuals and groups.

An open letter has been sent to the President of the UNHRC, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UN Secretary General, pointing this out. Former UN Independent Expert on International Order, Alfred de Zayas, described the GHREN as set up for the purpose of “naming and shaming” the Nicaraguan government, not for objective investigation. Signed by leading human rights experts, 49 organizations and more than 300 individuals, the letter says that the GHREN’s report should never have been published.

Coordinator of the Nicaragua Solidarity Coalition, Barbara Larcom, said:

“The work of the UN’s so-called group of experts is a disservice to the Nicaraguan people. It has deliberately ignored considerable evidence sent to it which contests its findings. This unprofessional report should immediately be withdrawn by the UN Human Rights Council and the group disbanded.”

The Coalition, which represents individuals and organizations across Nicaragua, other Latin American countries, the US and Europe, notes that April 18, 2024, marks the sixth anniversary of an attempted coup in Nicaragua. According to considerable evidence, this was financed by US agencies intent on regime change. Since the failed coup, the US has continued to apply pressure via other methods, including the GHREN report, using these to justify sanctions against Nicaragua’s economy and society.

Link to open letter, online version (Spanish): https://bit.ly/NicaCartaONU2024
Link to open letter, online version (English): https://bit.ly/NicaLetterUN2024
See full list of signatories: https://bit.ly/NicaUN2024Signers

The Nicaragua Solidarity Coalition is an international coalition of organizations and individuals in solidarity with Nicaragua, supporting its sovereignty and affirming its achievements. We are not affiliated with any governmental entity of any nation. We provide accurate, verifiable information and other resources about Nicaragua, and we work to counter misinformation about the country disseminated by the media, public events, and other sources.

Email: johnperry4321@gmail.com

NicaSolidarity.net

NicaraguaSolidarityCoalition@gmail.com

April 22, 2024 Posted by | Deception | , , , | Leave a comment

NATO Pressuring Greece and Spain to Give Remaining Air Defense Systems Away to Ukraine

By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 22.04.2024

Russia dramatically ramped up its air and missile strikes inside Ukraine in March in the wake of a coordinated campaign by Ukraine’s military targeting Russian infrastructure using drone warfare. The strikes created large holes in Ukraine’s air defenses which Kiev’s NATO patrons are now hoping to patch up.

Officials in the European Union and NATO have launched a pressure campaign targeting Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez to give their advanced air defense systems away to Ukraine.

“We all know who has them, we all know where they are, and we all know who really needs them,” a person briefed on the campaign told London-based business media in an article published Monday.

The campaign mirrors increasingly loud appeals by Ukrainian President Zelensky asking NATO allies to donate their air defenses to Kiev amid Russia’s strikes. “Patriots can only be called air defense systems if they work and save lives rather than standing immobile somewhere in storage bases,” Zelensky wrote in an X post Sunday.

Germany agreed to give one additional Patriot to Kiev, but other countries, among them Greece and Spain, have hesitated, reportedly sharing more than a dozen Patriots and a handful of S-300 launchers between them (the latter bought by Greece in the 1990s). Greece previously ruled out handing off its S-300s to Ukraine, citing the need to keep its forces balanced with the capabilities of Turkiye – which possesses Russian-made S-400s.

Mitsotakis and Sanchez were reportedly asked to give up their air defense systems to Ukraine at a summit in Brussels last week, and pressure was expected to “intensify” at a Monday meeting of EU foreign and defense ministers, according to officials.

“There are countries that are not in an immediate need of their air defense systems, to be very honest. Each country is being asked to decide what it can spare,” an EU diplomat involved in Monday’s negotiations said. “The most important discussion will be to identify what member states can do to support Ukraine’s air defense. That’s the most important thing,” a senior EU official said.

EU foreign affairs chief Josep Borrell confirmed to reporters on Monday that Brussels has been “asking all member states to do whatever they can in order to increase the air defense capacity of Ukraine.”

NATO has engaged in its own push lobbying members to surrender their air defense systems, with alliance chief Jens Stoltenberg announcing Friday at a defense ministers meeting attended by Zelensky that allies had agreed to provide additional air defense support.

“NATO has mapped out existing capabilities across the alliance and there are systems that could be made available to Ukraine,” Stoltenberg said, elaborating that “this mapping confirms that there are systems including Patriot systems available to be provided to Ukraine.”

Weeks of Russian strikes targeting Ukrainian military positions, defense factories, ammunition depots and electricity-generating infrastructure have left Ukraine’s air defense network in a shambles, with the national air defense system disintegrating and forces reduced to operating on a local level. “Their [unified] radar field has been completely lost, and the automated control system has been lost. Their air defenses act locally: what they see, they shoot down. That is, there is no centralized leadership there, like we have with a central command post,” former Commonwealth of Independent States’ Integrated Air Defense System deputy commander Aytech Bizhev told Sputnik last week.

Russia’s defense ministry says it has destroyed over 508 pieces of Ukrainian air defense equipment since February 2022, including 63 systems destroyed since the start of the current year. Along with Patriots and S-300s, Russia has targeted an array of other systems, from mobile tracked Flakpanzer Gepard anti-air artillery to SAMP-T extended range air defense systems, IRIS-T short-range SAMs, NASAMS short-to-medium-range air defense systems, AN/MPQ-64F1 Sentinel radars and other equipment.

The NATO and EU pressure campaign asking members to throw even more pricy air defense equipment into the Ukrainian crisis contrasts sharply with claims by bloc officials that Russia may be preparing to attack European countries, and warnings by military officials in Germany, Italy, Denmark, Belgium and other countries that the depletion of weapons and ammo stocks has left allies with enough supplies to last just days in case of a full-scale conflict.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov confirmed Monday that the risk of a direct clash between Russia and the West exists, but said this was the result of NATO’s continued sponsorship of the proxy war against Russia in Ukraine.

April 22, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Militarism | , , , | 2 Comments

PM Orbán’s warning to Europe: ‘World wars are never called world wars in the beginning’

“This vortex of war could drag Europe down”

BY DÉNES ALBERT | REMIX NEWS | APRIL 22, 2024

Hungarian leader Viktor Orbán has issued a new warning about rising tensions in Europe, saying that world wars are never called world wars in the beginning, noting that the First and Second World Wars were initiated by a series of smaller conflicts.

“Brussels is playing with fire. What it is doing is an act of temptation. World wars are never called world wars in the beginning. The Third Balkan War, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the partition of Poland, and the end was a world war twice over,” he warned.

Tensions are rising in Europe, Orbán said in a post on his Facebook page on Sunday, pointing out that the mood on the continent is one of war, and that politics is dominated by the logic of war.

“The NATO secretary-general wants to set up a NATO-Ukraine mission. European leaders have already fallen into war, they see this war as their own war and are fighting it as their own war,” he said.

“At first, it was only about sending helmets. Then sanctions, but not on energy producers! Then, yes, on those too. Then, came the arms shipments. First firearms, then tanks, then planes, and then financial aid. More and more, tens of billions. Now, we’re somewhere around a 100 billion — in euros. Money, supplies, weapons, but the situation is not getting better, it’s getting worse,” the prime minister said.

Orbán reiterated a warning he has now issued a number of times, saying that Europe is one step away from the West sending troops to Ukraine. He said that Brussels is promoting a “war vortex” that could drag Europe into the abyss.

At the end of his post, Orbán stressed that Hungarians know what war is like, referring to the devastating period of destruction Hungary faced during the Second World War and the subsequent decades-long occupation of Hungary by Soviet forces, including a crushed uprising against communist rule in 1956.

At the same time, Orbán stated Hungary’s position: “This is not our war. We do not want war, and we do not want Hungary to become the plaything of great powers again.”

“That is why we have to stand up for peace — at home, in Brussels, in Washington, in the UN and in NATO,” Orbán concluded his post.

April 22, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

World Military Expenditure Reaches All-Time High of $2,443Bln in 2023 – SIPRI

Sputnik – 22.04.2024

Global military expenditure increased by 6.8% in 2023 year-over-year and reached a new record high of $2,443 billion, with the three largest spenders being the US, China and Russia, according to new data published on Monday by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

“World military expenditure rose for the ninth consecutive year to an all-time high of $2,443 billion,” SIPRI said.

Moreover, military expenditure increased in all five of the geographical regions defined by SIPRI, the institute added.

The US remained the world’s biggest military spender with a 37% share of the world total and $916 billion spent in 2023. It is followed by China with a 12% share and an estimated $296 billion spent on the military and Russia with a 4.5% share and an estimated $109 billion spent on defense last year, which represents a 24% increase compared to 2022.

Ukraine, the eighth largest spender in 2023, increased its military spending by 51% year-over-year to $64.8 billion, which is 58% of the country’s total government spending.

The Middle East has seen a 9% surge in military spending, with Israel’s spending growing by 24% to $27.5 billion amid its operation in the Gaza Strip, the institute added.

April 22, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries