PCR Testing for Bird Flu ‘Will Only Serve to Raise False Case Count’ Critics Say
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | June 6, 2024
Dr. Deborah Birx, the Trump administration’s coronavirus response coordinator, told CNN’s Kasie Hunt the U.S. is making the “same mistakes” with bird flu that it made with COVID-19, which she said spread because there wasn’t enough testing for asymptomatic infection.
Birx is now calling for every cow to be tested for bird flu weekly and for regular pooled tests for dairy workers. She also said it’s likely that undetected cases are circulating in humans.
“We have the technology,” Birx said. “The great thing about America is we’re incredibly innovative and we have the ability to have these breakthroughs.”
The technology Birx referenced is polymerase chain reaction or PCR testing — the same diagnostic tool that came under fire during the COVID-19 pandemic for producing inaccurate results, including false positives.
Speaking out on X (formerly Twitter), critics like Simon Goddek, Ph.D., pushed back, accusing Birx of “deliberately using the same strategy to fabricate another fake health emergency.”
On Wednesday, the day after Birx’s interview, JAMA published its own article advocating for more widespread bird flu testing.
“No animal or public health expert thinks that we are doing enough surveillance,” Keith Poulsen, DVM, Ph.D., director of the Wisconsin Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, told JAMA.
Andrew Pekosz, Ph.D., from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told JAMA that more testing should be conducted to find asymptomatic and mild infections. Workers at infected farms should be tested twice weekly, he said, and cows should be tested once a week.
Inventor: PCR test never intended for use as diagnostic tool
PCR testing works by starting with tiny fragments of DNA or RNA called nucleotides and replicating them until they become large enough to identify. The nucleotides are replicated in cycles, and each cycle doubles the amount of genetic material in the sample. The number of cycles required to create an identifiable sample is the “cycle threshold” (Ct).
PCR tests became a household name during the COVID-19 pandemic because they were treated as the “gold standard” for identifying positive cases, especially among asymptomatic people.
However, as early as December 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) warned that using a high-cycle threshold would lead to false-positive results. The agency encouraged healthcare providers to consider the test in concert with other factors — namely the presence of symptoms — when diagnosing patients.
The WHO also cautioned those using the tests to read the instructions carefully to determine whether the cycle threshold ought to be changed to account for any background noise that could lead to a high-cycle threshold being mistaken for a false positive.
“When specimens return a high Ct value,” the press release said, “it means that many cycles were required to detect virus. In some circumstances, the distinction between background noise and actual presence of the target virus is difficult to ascertain.”
Kary Mullis, who won the Nobel Prize for inventing the PCR test, said it was inappropriate to use the test as a diagnostic tool to detect a viral infection.
Even Dr. Anthony Fauci admitted during the pandemic that a high cycle — which was used often — detected only “dead nucleotides,” not a viral infection.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) did not immediately respond to The Defender’s inquiry about which cycle thresholds are used to test animals for bird flu.
Mass testing ‘will only serve to raise a false case count’
As of Tuesday, the latest circulating bird flu virus has reportedly infected 81 herds of dairy cattle in nine states and poultry farms in 48 states. The virus can be fatal for poultry but does not generally cause serious illness in cattle.
Bird flu is rare among humans. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) maintains it poses only a low risk to public health.
In the latest wave of bird flu, only three people in the U.S. have tested positive for the virus after close exposure to an infected cow. All three experienced mild symptoms — two experienced eye irritation and one also had a cough and sore throat. All recovered without incident.
The WHO reported Wednesday that a resident of Mexico died from a bird flu infection, but WHO officials also maintain the virus’ threat to the general population is low.
Bird flu cannot be transmitted among humans, but that hasn’t stopped health officials such as the WHO’s Chief Scientist Jeremy Farrar and U.S. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Robert Califf from publicly stoking fears that the virus could suddenly mutate, become more infectious and transmissible among humans, and cause a pandemic.
Mainstream media outlets like Scientific American warned that the bird flu isn’t a pandemic “yet,” but it could evolve to become one if people do things like continue to drink raw milk. And The New York Times warned yesterday that the virus “may not be done” adapting.
The CDC reported on Tuesday that it monitors genetic changes in the virus and “few genetic changes of public health concern have been identified.”
Nevertheless, the U.S. government is building up its national stockpile of existing vaccines produced by CSL Seqirus and is nearing contracts with Moderna and possibly Pfizer to fund the development of an mRNA vaccine for the virus.
On Tuesday, Finland announced it will begin offering the vaccine to selected groups of people.
Other public health experts have dismissed the alarmism as “overblown,” with some suggesting the “fearmongering” is motivated by profit.
Dr. David Bell, a public health physician and biotech consultant, told The Defender last month the bird flu scare was “farcical.”
“We did not have a bad outbreak for over a century, and there is every likelihood that we won’t again,” Bell said. “We are using technology to pretend that new threats are occurring because we can now detect them.”
Cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough said last month that mass testing of healthy animals — as Birx is suggesting — will only serve to “raise a false case count.”
Feds using PCR testing on animals, wastewater, farmworkers, meat and milk
The federal government last month announced a new round of funding to reduce the impact of bird flu. The plan appropriated $93 million for the CDC to do virus genomic sequencing, increase monitoring of farmworkers, and improve and expand testing on a national scale for bird flu in animals, wastewater, farmworkers and meat.
The FDA also appropriated an additional $8 million to surveil and test the commercial milk supply.
Lactating dairy cows must be tested for bird flu before they can cross state lines, per an April 24 Federal Order issued by the USDA.
The USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) also encourages farmers to voluntarily test cattle and herds with suspected infection, showing symptoms like reduced milk production or respiratory issues. APHIS covers the cost of the tests if conducted at an approved laboratory and if the farmers agree to have the tested cattle and premises tracked.
The approved laboratories conduct PCR tests for several different flu strains that could be bird flu markers, including “FluA matrix, H5 and optionally H5N1 2.3.4.4b,” to determine whether the cattle are infected.
All laboratories, whether or not on the USDA’s approved list, must report all positive influenza A test results to the USDA weekly by 5 p.m. on Mondays. Farms with positive cases are quarantined.
KFF Health News reported that additional testing of farmworkers would make it possible for researchers to “track infections.” The problem is that “people generally get tested when they seek treatment for illnesses,” but farmworkers don’t tend to go to doctors unless they are very ill.
Farmworkers have been actively monitored for symptoms since the first case was detected but not PCR-tested. In response, federal authorities announced in May they would pay farmworkers to get tested for the virus as part of a program that also offers incentives to farmers to allow their dairy herds to get tested.
Workers are paid $75 for giving the CDC a blood sample and nasal swab.
The federal money also goes to support new wastewater surveillance using PCR tests. The CDC’s National Wastewater Surveillance System, launched in 2020, collects and makes public viruses identified in facilities across the country.
That wastewater testing is done by organizations including WastewaterSCAN, an infectious disease monitoring program based at Stanford University, in partnership with Emory University and funded through philanthropy, including the Sergey Brin Family Foundation created by the founder of Google.
The organization has most recently detected bird flu in San Francisco, although it is unclear whether it comes “from animal waste, milk, people or a combination of sources, according to the Los Angeles Times. WastewaterSCAN on June 3 began publicly reporting H5 data from its 190 sampling sites across the country in its online dashboard.
Other private companies that do PCR-based wastewater surveillance, like Biobot Analytics, are funded by venture capital firms in addition to the CDC.
The USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service is also testing meat from condemned cows. Late last month the agency announced that 95 of 96 culled cows tested negative for viral particles and that none of their meat entered the food supply.
It also reported that ground beef from retail facilities in states with cows that have tested positive for bird flu was all PCR-negative for the virus.
The agency also experimented with inoculating meat with high levels of the virus and then cooking it and testing for the virus. The virus was not detected in the meat patties cooked to medium or well-done, and it was “substantially inactivated” in the rare patties.
The FDA also tested retail dairy products in 17 states. The agency noted that PCR-positive results “do not necessarily represent live virus that may be a risk to consumers,” so when they found PCR-positive samples, they further tested them through a process called “egg inoculation.”
The agency found many samples with positive PCR tests, but none tested positive for the live virus.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Brenda Baletti, Ph.D., is a senior reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.
EU Plans Major Expansion of Mass Surveillance
Indiscriminate Data Collection, Device Monitoring, Encryption Backdoors, and Mandatory Data Sharing
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | June 7, 2024
The European Union (EU) is planning to implement a new set of draconian mass surveillance rules shortly after Sunday’s EU Parliament election, a member of the EP has warned after the plans surfaced on the internet.
The conclusion that radical surveillance measures are in the works proceeds from documents detailing the meetings of working groups, dubbed “high level group(s) on access to data for effective law enforcement.”
The documents originate from the EU Commission, and contain a number of recommendations, including reintroducing indiscriminate retention of communications data in the bloc, creation of encryption backdoors, as well as forcing hardware manufacturers to give access to anything from phones to cars to law enforcement through what is known as “access by design.”
MEP Patrick Breyer announced that the plan contains 42 points produced by the EU Commission and governments of member-countries. The purpose of being able to access phones, IoT (such as “smart home”) devices, and cars is to make sure they can be monitored around the clock.
Meanwhile, the return of controversial data retention is planned despite a previous ruling of the EU Court of Justice, and could even be extended to include over-the-top services such as messengers (this is defined as retaining IP information data “at the very least”). That, Breyer explains, means that all internet activities will become trackable.
A favorite target of authorities actively undermining their image as democracies has for a while been end-to-end encryption. Here, the EU intends to ban secure encryption of metadata and subscriber data, as well as force messaging services who implement encryption to allow interception.
The EU further plans to “tackle” the use of encryption devices that it declares are “proven to be used solely” by criminals. In reality, the right to install encryption backdoors in phones and computers can be abused to spy on anyone, dissidents and critics included.
Technology providers will, if so ordered by judicial authorities, have to break encryption in order to “facilitate access to data at rest in user’s devices.” And there will be “mechanisms for robust cooperation with communication and technology providers” – meaning they will have to share data with governments and law enforcement.
If these agencies demand, service providers must activate GPS location tracking, according to these recommended “solutions for effective law enforcement.” Representatives of providers who refuse could end up in jail.
“This extreme surveillance plan must not become a reality, if only because it has been cooked up by a completely one-sided secret group of surveillance fanatics working without any real transparency or democratic legitimacy,” Breyer stated.
Hezbollah air defenses force Israeli jets to turn tail
The Cradle | June 7, 2024
Hezbollah announced in a statement on 6 June that it targeted Israeli warplanes over the south of Lebanon, forcing them to withdraw to their airspace.
The statement marked the Lebanese resistance group’s first acknowledgment that it possesses the ability to confront Israeli fighter jets, something which observers have speculated about for years.
“In support of our steadfast Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip and in support of their brave and honorable resistance, the Mujahideen of the Islamic Resistance fired air defense missiles at enemy warplanes that were attacking our skies and broke the sound barrier [sonic boom] in an attempt to terrify children, forcing them to retreat to behind the borders,” Hezbollah’s statement read.
It did not elaborate further on the air defense weaponry.
The resistance group carried out several more attacks that day, including a Burkan missile attack on Israel’s Al-Baghdadi site.
Throughout the course of this war, Hezbollah has demonstrated its ability to down advanced Israeli drones flying over the south of Lebanon to carry out attacks. Several Hermes drones, made by Israeli weapons manufacturer Elbit Systems and worth several million a piece, have been shot down by Hezbollah in recent months.
“We still do not know much about the air defense missile itself, but it will restrain the ability of Israel to fly freely over Lebanon,” retired Lebanese General Amine Hoteit told The New Arab, referring to Thursday’s Hezbollah statement.
It is likely that Hezbollah has more advanced air defense weaponry than the missile launched towards Israeli warplanes on Thursday, Hoteit added.
US media reports from early November last year claimed that Washington has intelligence that Syria agreed to send Hezbollah a Russian-made missile defense system.
Hezbollah has turned up the heat on its operations against Israeli military sites in recent days, coinciding with the continued indiscriminate bombardment of south Lebanon and increasing Israeli threats of a wide-scale war against the country. A drone attack on Wednesday killed at least one soldier and injured around ten.
It has said that while it does not want a wider war, it is prepared to fight one if it is imposed on Lebanon.
Houthis to Try New Hypersonic Missile in Continued Targeting of US Carrier Group
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 07.06.2024
The Yemeni militia targeted the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower Nimitz-class supercarrier in the Red Sea last week amid the continued intensification of American and British air and missile strikes inside Yemen, which have killed scores of civilians.
The Houthis will hit the American aircraft carrier parked in Yemen’s backyard harder next time around, militia leader Abdul-Malik al-Houthi has vowed.
“The American aircraft carrier Eisenhower will remain a target for our Armed Forces whenever the opportunity arises,” al-Houthi said in his weekly address on Thursday.
“The facts will become clear no matter how much the Americans try to deny the targeting operations, and the upcoming strikes will be more effective,” al-Houthi added.
Offering new details on last week’s Houthi missile and drone barrage targeting the USS Eisenhower amid American denials that the operation did any damage to the supercarrier or its escorts, the Houthi leader emphasized that the attack was more successful than Washington is letting on.
“The operation targeting the aircraft carrier Eisenhower was successful, and overflights stopped for two days following the attack,” al-Houthi said, referring to American attacks over Yemeni airspace. The official added that while the US warship was situated about 400 km from Yemen before the Houthi attack, it was forced to sail 480 km northwest to safety in its aftermath. The operation was “one of the most notable and important operations to be carried out this week,” al-Houthi said.
“American warships flee and change their source when the operations are successful,” the militia leader said.
US Central Command on Friday vociferously denied Houthi claims that the USS Eisenhower was damaged in the Yemeni militia’s attacks.
“There is no truth to the Houthi claim of striking the USS Eisenhower or any US Navy vessel. This is an ongoing disinformation campaign that the Houthis have been conducting for months. While the Houthis intend to target our vessels, we can confirm that there has never been a successful attack on any US Navy vessel,” CENTCOM told Sputnik.
The Houthi attack on the carrier followed a spate of joint US-UK attacks targeting Yemen in an attempt to degrade the militia’s fighting capabilities, with the militia saying last week that the most recent strikes had killed at least 16 people and wounded 42 others.
The Houthis reported Friday that US and UK forces had carried out four new air strikes targeting the airport in Hodeidah, and launched a separate attack on northwestern Yemeni seaport of Salif.
Houthis Go Hypersonic?
Al-Houthi’s comments Thursday came a day after the Yemeni militia released footage of a new “locally made” hypersonic missile called the Palestine being launched toward the embattled Israeli Red Sea port city of Eilat this week.
Israeli officials confirmed Monday that Eilat had been targeted, but indicated that there was no damage or injuries to report.
In the footage, the new Yemeni solid-fuel missile’s warhead was painted in a checkered pattern reminiscent of a keffiyeh scarf. Western observers spotted outward similarities to the Fattah – an Iranian hypersonic missile unveiled in 2023 which can travel up to 1,400 km at speeds up to Mach 15. The range and speed characteristics of the Houthi missile remain unknown, but the distance between Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen and Eilat is closer to 1,700 km.
Iranian officials have repeatedly rejected claims by the US and its allies that it has provided arms to the Houthis. However, Iranian media recently confirmed that the country does give its anti-US and anti-Israeli Axis of Resistance allies “technical knowhow” enabling the homegrown production of sophisticated missiles. It remains unclear whether this applies to the new Palestine missile or not.
The Houthis have been teasing their fledgling hypersonic capabilities since the spring, with an informed source telling Sputnik in March that the new Houthi missile could accelerate to speeds of up to Mach 8 (nearly 10,000 km per hour) and had a solid fuel engine, which means reduced launch preparation time and improved ease of transport in Yemen’s difficult conditions.
“Yemen intends to begin manufacturing it for use during attacks in the Red and Arabian Seas and the Gulf of Aden, as well as against targets in Israel,” the source, who was not at liberty to speak publicly, said at the time.
Abdul-Malik Al-Houthi warned in March that the militia’s enemies, friends and Yemenis alike would soon “see a level of achievement of strategic importance which will place our country and its capabilities in the ranks of few countries in this world,” promising that Ansar Allah had “surprises” in store for the US and Israel which have yet to be revealed.
Russian military observer Alexei Leonkov told Sputnik in March that if the Yemeni militia really has managed to speed a missile up to Mach 8 or more, “that will mean that the ship-based air defense systems of the American naval group will be powerless.”
“The air defenses of the carrier strike group presently parked off the coast of the Arabian Peninsula and sporadically firing at the Houthis will not be able to intercept these missiles if they approach at Mach 8. And if the Houthis have managed to make them even a little maneuverable, that’s it, they won’t be possible to intercept. If the Houthis learn to accurately hit warships with these missiles, we will see America’s defeat,” Leonkov said.
US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin signed an order last week to extend the Eisenhower carrier group’s deployment in the Middle East for a second time, holding off the rotation of the supercarrier and its three missile destroyer and cruiser escorts out of the region, where they have been stationed since last October.
Biden claims Israel ‘has not invaded Rafah’ as jets, tanks raze city
The Cradle | June 7, 2024
US President Joe Biden told ABC News on 6 June that the Israeli government has listened to his “concerns” about a major military offensive in Gaza’s southernmost city of Rafah.
“They were going to go into Russia – into Rafah – full bore, invade all of Rafah, go into the city, take it out, move, move with full force. They haven’t done that. And what they’ve done is they’ve agreed to a significant agreement,” the US president said as Israeli warplanes continued their months-long blitz of residential areas and displacement camps in the city.
Residents of Rafah who spoke with Reuters on Friday morning described the latest raids as “one of the worst nights,” adding that “some people were wounded inside their homes before being evacuated this morning.”
Residents also said that Israeli tanks that have taken control along the border with Egypt made several raids towards the west and the center of the southern city.
“I think he’s listening to me,” Biden added when asked by ABC News if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu heeded his warnings.
Elsewhere in the interview, Biden claimed Netanyahu will stick by his own ceasefire proposal. “He’s publicly said he is. Our European friends are in on it. We have to get a ceasefire.”
“What [Israel has] done is they’ve agreed to a significant agreement that if in fact Hamas accepts it,” the US president said before adding that the offer is backed by much of the Arab world.
“We’ll see. This is a very difficult time,” Biden said.
On Thursday, senior Hamas officials revealed that the Israeli ceasefire proposal “does not mention stopping the aggression or the withdrawal [of troops from Gaza].”
“The Israeli documents speak of open-ended negotiation with no deadline, and it speaks of a stage during which the occupation regains its captives and resumes the war. We had told the mediators that this proposal is unacceptable,” Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri told Reuters on Thursday.
The Cradle columnist Khalil Harb earlier this week described the proposal presented by Biden as a “repackaging of last month’s Hamas-approved agreement, which he is now repositioning as an Israeli-sanctioned deal.
Pipeline v genocide: How Turkiye can legally block oil exports to Israel
By Suat Delgen | The Cradle | June 7, 2024
Israel receives 40 percent of its oil through the Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline, a critical energy route running from the Caspian Sea through Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkiye to the Turkish port of Ceyhan and onward, via tanker, to Israeli ports.
The pipeline primarily transports oil from Azerbaijan’s Azeri–Chirag–Deepwater Gunashli (ACG) field and condensate from the Shah Deniz field. British Petroleum (BP) operates the ACG field on behalf of the Azerbaijan International Operating Company (AIOC), a consortium of international oil companies.
Another consortium, including BP, SOCAR, MOL, Equinor, TPAO, Eni, TotalEnergies, ITOCHU, INPEX, ExxonMobil, and ONGC Videsh, operates the BTC pipeline and markets the oil globally. On 10 May, BP announced this consortium’s involvement in the pipeline’s management.
Way back in 1999, a Transit State Agreement and an Intergovernmental Agreement were signed between the consortium and Turkiye, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, ratified by the Turkish Grand National Assembly, and officially came into effect on 10 September 2000.
Pressure to halve the oil flow to Israel
On 2 May, in the face of growing domestic pressure to sever ties with Israel over its brutal war on Gaza, Turkiye announced a complete suspension of all import and export transactions to the occupation state until uninterrupted humanitarian aid was allowed into Gaza.
But what about the oil? With so many other states and global multinationals involved, can and has Turkiye stopped the oil being transported from Ceyhan to Israel?
Geopolitical importance of the BTC Pipeline
The BTC pipeline emerged from the geopolitical shifts that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. As newly independent states in the Caspian region, particularly Azerbaijan, sought to develop their vast oil and gas reserves, they sought to export these resources to western markets without relying on Russian transit routes. Washington explicitly backed the BTC pipeline to reduce Moscow’s influence and create an alternative export route for Caspian energy.
For its part, Turkiye viewed the BTC project as a strategic opportunity to boost its significance as a key energy corridor. Despite initial doubts about the pipeline’s feasibility, political commitment from the US, Turkiye, and regional states, along with investment from major international oil companies like BP, gradually propelled the project forward.
This collaboration led to the creation of the BTC pipeline, marking a major shift in the region’s energy dynamics and geopolitics.
Today, the pipeline is a crucial route connecting the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean and can shift 1.2 million barrels per day (bpd). According to recent data from the State Statistical Committee of Azerbaijan, the volume of oil transported through the BTC pipeline increased by 1.6 percent in 2023, reaching 30.2 million tons.
Operated by BP, the BTC pipeline is the primary conduit for oil exports from the Azeri, Chirag, and Gunashli oil fields. Last year, Azerbaijan’s total oil transportation amounted to 39.7 million tons, with the pipeline accounting for 76 percent of this volume.
The pipeline also serves as a transit route for oil from Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan, with transit oil volumes rising from 5.1 million tons in 2022 to 5.2 million tons in 2023. Given the significant share of Kazakh and Azerbaijani oil in Israel’s crude oil supply, the BTC pipeline is pivotal in facilitating this energy trade.
A Bloomberg report from October 2023 highlights Tel Aviv’s heavy reliance on this pipeline for its oil supply, from which it received approximately 220,000 bpd of oil since mid-May 2023. Kazakhstan was the largest source, providing 92,500 bpd, followed by Azerbaijan with 44,000 bpd.
Data from the State Customs Committee of Azerbaijan showed that Azerbaijan exported around 1,021,917 tons of crude oil and products to Israel in the first three months of 2024 – a value of $621 million. These figures underscore the critical role of the BTC pipeline in maintaining Israel’s energy security and the potential impact of any disruption to this supply route.
Legal constraints on halting oil flow
Despite Israel’s dependence on oil from the Port of Ceyhan, Turkiye lacks the authority to stop the oil flow except under force majeure conditions, according to the agreement signed with the BP-led consortium. The “Host Government Agreement” (HGA) and the “Intergovernmental Agreement” (IGA) that underpin the BTC Pipeline Project legally bind Ankara to ensure uninterrupted oil flow.
These agreements contain provisions that commit signatory states, including Turkiye, to obligations beyond typical international treaty law. Specifically, the agreements make signatory states unconditionally liable for any construction or oil transport delays, irrespective of the cause.
This gives the international consortium a privileged legal position over national states and requires states to relinquish some sovereign powers, such as legislation and adjudication rights. Thus, even if Turkiye wanted to suspend oil flow to Israel for political reasons, the strict liability clauses and other provisions in the BTC agreements would likely prevent it legally.
Thus, Turkiye is contractually obligated to ensure uninterrupted oil flow or face legal consequences, even for foreign policy reasons. While the BTC pipeline’s strategic importance justifies accepting restrictive terms, the agreements reflect an imbalance favoring corporate interests over state interests.
Potential legal justifications using ICJ measures
However, it is worth noting that South Africa’s proceedings against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) last December – alleging its actions in Gaza constitute genocide – may have an impact on multiple business and state legal arrangements everywhere.
Officially known as “Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v Israel),” the ICJ has already issued several provisional measures that Israel must undertake to prevent further harm to civilians while the case is being adjudicated.
The ICJ measures are legally binding, and Israel has thus far largely ignored the court’s demands.
It is, therefore, possible for Turkiye to use these ICJ provisional measures as a legal justification to prevent tankers from transporting oil to Israel until a ceasefire in Gaza is achieved.
Ankara could make the legal argument that, in line with the ICJ measures, the oil transported from Ceyhan is being used to continue military operations in Gaza and that, seeking to avoid complicity in a crime against humanity and assisting in implementing ICJ decisions, Turkiye cannot permit the use of its ports for this purpose.
Such a declaration by Turkiye could exert significant pressure on Israel and place the oil consortium on notice that genocide does trump business-as-usual.
While the complex and multifaceted nature of diplomatic and economic ties between Ankara and Tel Aviv make a complete severance of relations unlikely, Turkiye may now hold in its hand a unique legal opportunity to call the shots on oil supply to the occupation state.
American mainstream expert calls for global war in three continents
By Uriel Araujo | June 7, 2024
Is a “Three-Theater” war scenario both feasible and desirable for the US? Some think so. American analysts within the Establishment are in fact calling for war “in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East.” This is what Thomas G. Mahnken (both a Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies professor and the CEO of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments) is urging Washington to do, in his most recent Foreign Affairs piece.
For Mahnken, Washington is “currently involved in two wars—Ukraine’s in Europe and Israel’s in the Middle East”, while also “facing the prospect of a third over Taiwan or South Korea in East Asia.” Moreover, “all three theaters are vital to US interests, and they are all intertwined.” Deprioritizing Europe and disengaging from the Middle East can only weaken American security, he argues: “The U.S. military drawdown in the Middle East, for instance, has created a vacuum that Tehran has filled eagerly.” Of course, such reasoning can only make sense if American “security” is equated with Washington’s unipolarity.
US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, during his recent speech at Shangri-la Dialogue (in Singapore), made it a point to stress that “despite historic clashes in Europe and the Middle East… the Indo-Pacific has remained our priority theater of operations.” According to Austin, the US is a Pacific nation (with a capital P, and with no pun intended, presumably), and added that “the US can be secure only if Asia is secure. That’s why… [we have] long maintained our presence in this region. And that’s why we continue to make the investments necessary to meet our commitments to our allies and partners.” As for the relationship with China, the Secretary was more ambiguous, claiming that “a fight with China is neither imminent nor unavoidable.”
While Lloyd Austin seems to differ from Mahnken (on emphasis), there is not necessarily a dilemma there. I’ve often described Washington’s ambitions as being all about having the cake and eating it too. Jerry Hendrix (retired Navy captain, formerly an adviser to Pentagon senior officials, and currently a senior fellow with the Sagamore Institute) has written that, in Mackinder terms (classic Geopolitics), the US has embarked on a quest for the “Heartland”, and this contradicts its true “sea power” nature. This is so because Washington, in recent times, has been “burdened” by mostly “land-based actions in Iraq and Afghanistan fought primarily by a large standing army operating far from home”.
Rather than doing that, Hendrix urges the Atlantic superpower to, once again, “think and act like a seapower state”, that is, with a focus on deriving its might from “seaborne trade”, employing “instruments of sea power” to advance its interests. The expert describes the post-World War II period as an exceptional “free sea” period, marked by a “secure environment” which has supposedly allowed free trade to flourish in a globalized planet – this being the rather gleeful manner in which he describes the US-led world order, in spite of the fact that Washington has always weaponized protectionism.
In any case, as Hendrix notes, the American superpower acts both as a “continental power” and as a “sea power”. I’ve described its foreign policy as resembling the swing of a pendulum. Give or take, all Great Powers engage to some extent in proxy conflicts amid their geoeconomic and geopolitical disputes with other powers. In terms of regional disputes, whether one likes or not Moscow’s foreign policy today, one can at least concede that historically Russia and neighboring Ukraine have an intertwined and complicated shared history, and the same applies to China-Taiwan relations. But America is something quite different. To keep things in perspective, one should keep in mind, for example, that, amazingly, the only place in the entire world China has an overseas military base is Djibouti, in the Horn of Africa. In contrast, depending on how one counts it, Washington, in 2015, had about 800 military bases in over 70 countries.
Moreover, the US has in fact invaded 84 out of the 194 nation-states recognized by the United Nations, and has been militarily involved with no less than 191 of those, according to Christopher Kelly and Stuart Laycock, the authors of “America Invades: How We’ve Invaded or been Militarily Involved with almost Every Country on Earth”. The hard truth is that the United States of America is the only nation today (and arguably ever) to potentially engage in warfare across three continents – a scenario, keep in mind, that is cheered by prominent mainstream American commentators and scholars.
Other analysts, such as Andrea Rizzi, writing for El Pais, have described the possibility of war fronts in the Middle East, Europe and the Asia-Pacific becoming connected as a “nightmare” scenario – although not so convincingly, in Rizzi’s case, who seems to believe the political West has necessarily something to do with “democracy”, a historically controversial premise to say the least. Rizzi, however, makes the very valid point that “in geopolitics — and in life — high-stress situations lead to a greater margin for unforeseen events, errors in calculation and communication, uncontrolled actions by minority factions and escalations that are unintended, at least by the key players.” Even the main actors have an interest in keeping stability, at some point someone (or one’s proxies) may indeed make “a daring movie”, in Rizzi’s words, and thus bring about an escalation and unpredictable outcomes.
A series of Ukrainian and Western actions arguably represented precisely such a red-line crossing, in Moscow’s perspective. While some worry about the same thing happening in the Pacific, thus inadvertently igniting yet another war, others call for and crave for precisely such a war – not just in the Indo-Pacific region, but also in Europe and the Middle East, simultaneously. It is hard to describe such a call in any way other than as a will to set the world on fire – after all, one cannot literally desire war between Great Powers in three continents and not expect everything else that often comes with it (call it apocalypse in disguise, if you will).
Unbelievably, such bellicose calls, rather than being confined to the hate speech of extreme and fringe individuals and organizations, pass as reasonable and mainstream discourse, produced as it is, by respectable experts with impeccable credentials. And, mind you, Foreign Affairs will even publish it. It is no wonder: Washington foreign policy itself is, after all, largely built on the premise of American unipolarity and global war if need be.
Germany approves plan for war
RT | June 7, 2024
The German government has finalized new plans for a potential war, including reinstatement of compulsory military service and deployment of NATO troops on its eastern flank, citing rising concerns over perceived threats from Russia.
The country’s new defense framework was approved by Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s cabinet on Wednesday, replacing guidelines that dated back to 1989. “As a result of Russian aggression, we have a completely changed security situation in Europe,” Interior Minister Nancy Faeser said in a statement.
The new defense plan spells out such details as mandatory conscription and forcing manufacturers to produce only war goods. Parts of the country could be evacuated, and subway stations, underground parking lots and other subterranean facilities would be used as temporary shelters.
Revisions to the framework also reflect NATO’s eastward expansion, which could mean coming to the aid of allies in the Baltic States. “Germany is no longer a frontline state, but serves the allied armed forces as a hub for the alliance in the heart of Europe,” the cabinet said.
The government reportedly has plans to control food distribution to deal with possible shortages in the event of a war. Those contingencies include stockpiling wheat and other grains in secret locations and creating an emergency reserve of rice and beans. The reserves would provide the German population with one hot meal a day, German media outlet Bild reported.
Beyond the military draft, citizens could be forced to work in certain civilian jobs, such as nursing or baking bread. Hospitals would have to be prepared for large influxes of patients.
Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said the new plans reflect increased security threats. “The overall defense of Germany is a task to which we all have to make our contribution, state and civil institutions, as well as each and every one of us,” he insisted. “We need a resilient society that can deal with the challenges.”
Pistorius warned German lawmakers on Wednesday that the country must be “ready for war” by 2029. He suggested that the Bundeswehr needs to be expanded, ideally by requiring military service that “cannot be completely free of obligations.”
Berlin abolished its draft in 2011, and the country’s military has faced equipment shortfalls. A parliamentary report last year said that at the current pace of military revitalization, it could take half a century to shore up German forces.
Germany and other NATO members have claimed that the bloc faces the threat of a Russian invasion if Moscow prevails in its conflict with Ukraine. Speaking at a briefing with foreign media outlets on Wednesday in St. Petersburg, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Western governments are stoking absurd fears to help maintain their global hegemony. “Someone has imagined that Russia wants to attack NATO,” he added. “Have you gone completely insane? Are you as thick as a plank? Who came up with this nonsense, this bulls**t?”