The third round of trials for the AstraZeneca anti-COVID-19 drug is now on pause over “potentially unexplained illness” in a participant in the UK. On 11 August, Russia registered its own Sputnik V anti-coronavirus vaccine, which is said to have been developed in a different way.
The Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) the investor which has funded the development of Russia’s Sputnik V anti-coronavirus vaccine, could not comment on the halt of AstraZeneca trials, it said in a statement.
However, RDIF pointed out that the fund’s CEO Kirill Dmitriev had previously discussed the differences between the human adenoviral vector-based platform used in Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine and those used by some of their international colleagues, that rely on “novel unproven technologies such as monkey adenoviral vectors or mRNA”.
“The safety of the human adenoviral vector used in Sputnik V has been proven over decades in over 250 clinical studies, as human adenovirus has been shown to be the safest vaccine delivery mechanism and the most ‘organic for humans’, as human adenovirus has coexisted with humans for over 100,000 years,” RFID said.
Meanwhile, “mRNA and monkey adenoviral vector-based platforms have not been studied over a long period of time,” RDIF CEO Dmitriev pointed out this Tuesday.
Commenting on the so-called “pledge of safety” earlier voiced by the CEOs of AstraZeneca, BioNTech, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Moderna, Novavax, Pfizer and Sanofi in relation to the development of the first COVID-19 vaccines, Dmitriev stressed that this plea was “insufficient” as it did not “discuss the lack of long-term studies on the carcinogenic effects and impact on fertility of newly-developed vaccine technologies”.
“Since some of the companies developing these vaccines have taken the ‘pledge of safety’, we would like to stress that public health and safety requires not only short-term evidence of a lack of serious adverse effects, but also the safety and efficacy proved by the results of long-term studies,” Dmitriev added.
AstraZeneca COVID-19 Vaccine Trials on Pause
It was revealed this week that the third round of trials for the AstraZeneca anti-COVID-19 vaccine has been halted due to a “potentially unexplained illness” which had developed in a participant in the United Kingdom, without further specifications about the nature of possible side effects. The vaccine in question was developed in partnership with Oxford University and has reportedly involved around 30,000 participants in the UK, US, Brazil and South Africa. AstraZeneca described the pause as “routine” so as to allow for a “standard review process” of “safety data”.
Russia’s First Anti-Coronavirus Vaccine
On 11 August, Russia registered the world’s first vaccine against COVID-19, called Sputnik V, which was developed by the Gamaleya National Research Centre of Epidemiology and Microbiology and the RDIF after several rounds of clinical trials. On Monday, the vaccine was made available to the public.
According to RDIF, Russia has now received requests for 1 billion doses of the vaccine; at least 20 countries, including the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Philippines, Mexico, Brazil and India, have expressed an interest in obtaining Sputnik V.
September 9, 2020
Posted by aletho |
Aletho News | AstraZeneca, BioNTech, Fertility, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Moderna, Novavax, Pfizer, Sputnik V |
Leave a comment
By Lucas Leiroz | September 7, 2020
In Venezuela, Juan Guaidó no longer appears to be the leader of the opposition. The forgiveness of 110 opponents by President Nicolás Maduro completely fragmented the political wing opposing the regime, which, in practice, removes from Guaidó the “monopoly” of militancy against the government. Maduro’s decision to forgive as many opponents as possible seems particularly strategic in an election year. For the December 2020 parliamentary elections, Maduro’s allies represent the only unified and solidly based political wing in the country, while currently his opponents are fragmented into several factions.
Another oppositionist leader, Henrique Capriles has already announced that he will dispute the elections. In recent times, after a long period of silence and inactivity, Capriles has occupied an increasingly prominent place in Venezuelan politics, diminishing Guaidó’s influence on the opposition. Capriles seems to have a more interesting political alternative for some opposition groups than the proposal by Guaidó, who is a politician absolutely aligned with external interests and who openly defends Venezuela’s total subordination to Washington.
Perhaps this was the reason for the fall of Guaidó’s political strength. 2020 was for the opposition leader the year of his abrupt fall. On February 5, Guaidó attended a conference at the Capitol in Washington DC and was applauded by Donald Trump, Nancy Pelosi and everyone in attendance. At that time, the illusion that Guaidó was in fact the president of Venezuela was fully consolidated. Guaidó himself believed to be the country’s president, which was the starting point of his downfall.
It seemed inevitable that the invention of the “Guaidó’s presidency” would result in the opposition being closed to the Venezuelan political reality. The history of the opposition leader, since his recognition in January 2019 by Trump, is a succession of errors and deficiencies that denounce his total inability to lead the country. The most notable mistakes so far have been his explicit participation in the landing of Colombian mercenaries on the Venezuelan coast and the leakage of his connections with drug trafficking in South America, which has greatly weakened his public image inside and outside Venezuela.
Guaidó’s decline, at first, had little impact on the Venezuelan opposition, as there was his “recognition” as the country’s president. But this illusion could not last long. The proximity of the parliamentary elections in December aroused in the Venezuelan opposition a strong wave of political realism and led different factions to assume the obvious truth: Guaidó is not the president of the country. This fact becomes even more evident when Maduro pardons and legalizes more than one hundred opponents, creating ties of cordiality in internal disputes – something that Guaidó still refuses to accept. Then a scenario was created in which the opposition is divided between those who recognize the legitimacy of the government and oppose it politically in the elections and, on the other hand, Guaidó, who recognizes himself as president with American support. This new scenario will completely change the way in which political disputes in Venezuela will take place and may even destabilize the opposition’s international alliances.
How long will Washington invest in Guaidó as its ally in opposing Maduro? What makes Guaidó more interesting than, for example, the political figure of Capriles or any other politician who will announce his candidacy for the December elections? Guaidó will not run in the parliamentary elections because he believes he is the president of the country, while other politicians will run and will be able to make real and effective opposition against Maduro. Will international actors interested in the fall of the government really continue to fuel the illusion that Guaidó is the president rather than supporting opponents within Parliament? It is a question that remains unanswered, but we can predict the outcome.
Indeed, there is no future for the Venezuelan opposition as it is today. The entire political wing that opposes Maduro is absolutely fragmented, with no unity of thought among its representatives, much less a solid national project. The only thing in common that opponents want is to overthrow Maduro, but that will not happen so easily. The Venezuelan government remains strong and well-structured, with an effective political apparatus at its disposal, which cannot be seen in the opposition. Opponents’ political forgiveness was a checkmate for the next elections. The weakness of the opposition became clear and all of its representatives were disadvantaged: Guaidó lost political strength and will possibly be without international alliances; the other opponents have broken ties with Guaidó and are not strong enough to face the government, even though they may run for election.
Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.
September 7, 2020
Posted by aletho |
Aletho News | Latin America, United States, Venezuela |
Leave a comment
Mérida – The Venezuelan government has invited the United Nations (UN) and the European Union (EU) to monitor the December 6 National Assembly (AN) elections.
Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza wrote on Twitter that letters had been sent to UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres and EU Foreign Policy Chief Josep Borrell explaining electoral guarantees and inviting the bodies to send observers.
“Your participation in this process will have a positive contribution to an atmosphere of democratic understanding between Venezuelans and support political, peaceful and negotiated solutions to existing issues,” the letter read.
At the time of writing there have been no reactions from either the UN or the EU. While both have previously voiced support for dialogue processes, the European bloc recently vowed not to recognize the parliamentary election, which will elect 277 deputies for the 2021-2026 term.
The appeal to the international instances comes on the heels of President Maduro granting pardons to 110 opposition figures. This includes a number of AN deputies and other leaders charged or convicted for taking part in activities such as the violent “guarimba” street protests, the 2018 assassination attempt against Maduro, or the April 30, 2019 failed putsch.
On Thursday, the ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) and its allies submitted their electoral candidates, with eight current cabinet members heading the list and subsequently replaced. Current state television VTV president Freddy Nanez replaced Jorge Rodriguez as communications minister, Noris Herrera replaced Blanca Eekhout as communes minister, Carolys Perez took over from Asia Villegas as minister for women, while there were also changes at the prisons, mining, youth, urban agriculture and indigenous peoples ministries.
The electoral scenario has also led to bitter infighting amongst the opposition ranks. On Wednesday, two-time former presidential candidate Henrique Capriles called on opposition leader Juan Guaido to stop “playing at government on the internet.”
“Either you’re the government, or you’re the opposition. You can’t be both,” he said during an online broadcast.
The comments came in response to criticism from Guaido after Capriles and fellow opposition member Stalin Gonzalez held a meeting with Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu concerning electoral participation and guarantees.
“These negotiations were held without the knowledge and permission of the ‘Interim Government’ and our international allies,” read a statement published by Guaido’s office.
The opposition lawmaker proclaimed himself “interim president” in January 2019 and was immediately backed by Washington and its allies. He went on to lead several unsuccessful efforts to overthrow the government by force, but a host of scandals saw his position increasingly questioned by other high-ranking opposition figures.
Guaido has lobbied for a boycott of the December AN elections and called on opposition figures to join a “unitary path” to oust the Maduro government which would extend his “interim presidency” into 2021.
However, other anti-government politicians have refused to rally behind him, with some urging voters to take to the polls, and hardline figures such as Maria Corina Machado calling for a foreign intervention.
For its part, Washington downplayed talk of a possible military intervention, with the Trump administration’s Special Representative for Venezuela Elliott Abrams criticizing opposition leaders “who only think that the magic moment of a military intervention will arrive” in a recent interview.
However, the veteran official, who is known for his role in the Iraq war and the Reagan administration’s Central America policy, has reiterated that the US will continue supporting Guaido while tightening sanctions against the Venezuelan economy.
September 4, 2020
Posted by aletho |
Aletho News | European Union, Latin America, United States, Venezuela |
Leave a comment
Afghanistan’s President Ashraf Ghani says the government has fulfilled all its commitments for peace negotiations with the Taliban.
“The government has fulfilled all its commitments in the peace process that the international community had hoped for,” the president said at a meeting with a team of government-backed negotiators at the presidential palace on Wednesday, his office reported.
On Monday, Kabul resumed the release of Taliban prisoners, a pre-condition to negotiations.
“The release of Taliban prisoners is a clear demonstration of the government’s commitment to peace.”
Afghanistan’s Loya Jirga, or grand assembly of elders, has already approved the release of 400 imprisoned Taliban militants, who had been involved in serious crimes in Afghanistan, for the sake of peace talks.
A senior government official, who asked not to be named, told AFP on Wednesday that at least 200 inmates have been freed since Monday and the process “will continue today too.”
In return, the Taliban have freed four Afghan commandos and are expected to release two more on Wednesday, according to a Taliban official.
Meanwhile, Ghani’s spokesman Sediq Sediqqi said in a posting on Twitter, “We expect the Taliban to live up to their commitments on the release of the remaining captives.”
The prisoner swap was agreed to in a deal between the Taliban and the United States. The agreement was signed in the Qatari capital, Doha, on February 29.
Under the deal, the Taliban agreed to halt their attacks on international forces in return for the US military’s phased withdrawal from Afghanistan and the prisoner exchange with the government in Kabul.
The Afghan government, which was not a signatory to the accord, was required to release up to 5,000 Taliban prisoners. The militants, for their part, were obliged to free 1,000 government captives.
Ghani said a “critical stage of peace” had been reached, noting that the talks would help reduce violence and finalize a permanent ceasefire.
Meanwhile, Kabul has dispatched a “small technical team” to Qatar to prepare for negotiations.
Najia Anwari, spokeswoman for the State Ministry for Peace Affairs, told AFP that the government’s negotiators will also leave for Doha “very soon.”
September 2, 2020
Posted by aletho |
Aletho News | Afghanistan |
Leave a comment
Paris will slap Lebanese elites with sanctions and could even withhold crucial financial aid if Beirut fails to implement reforms, the French president has warned.
The upcoming months would be “fundamental” for what he described as “real change,” Macron told Politico as he was heading to Beirut for a second visit in a month. Should he be not satisfied with the reforms made within the set period of time, punitive measures will follow, he added.
The list of such measures ranges from personal sanctions against members of the Lebanese political elite, to blocking an international financial bailout – vital for a country gripped by a prolonged economic and political crisis, and struggling with the aftermath of the recent major explosion in the capital.
During Macron’s previous visit in early August in the wake of the devastating blast which killed almost 200 people, the French president called for a new, interim government, as well as for an audit of the nation’s central bank and parliamentary elections within a year. Now, he says he wants “credible commitments” from the Lebanese political parties that they will stick to the plan – including a timetable for holding the legislative vote within “six to 12 months.”
The horrific blast aggravated existing problems and provoked violent anti-government demonstrations, forcing Prime Minister Hassan Diab to dissolve the cabinet in early August. A new government has however been slow to emerge, prompting President Macron to intrude on the affairs of the former French protectorate.
Macron stated he is not known for being soft and is not going to back down in Lebanon but is still wary of using what he calls France’s full force and locking horns with Hezbollah. The French president meanwhile blamed Lebanese protesters for the failure to produce a leader powerful enough to bring the country’s political elites under control.
“A name works if the street knows how to produce a leader who leads the revolution, and breaks the system. It didn’t work, at least not today, maybe tomorrow or after tomorrow it will,” he said, commenting on public discontent over the choice of a new prime minister.
Diplomat Mustapha Adib was agreed as the new head of the government just hours before Macron’s arrival in Beirut. However, his candidacy apparently did not sit well with at least some members of the public and Macron was at some point met by a crowd chanting “Adib won’t do!” and “We want Nawaf Salam!”
Salam – a judge with the International Court of Justice – lacks support among the political elites of Lebanon and would hardly be able to fulfil his role as a head of government, Macron said while also explaining that it was not him, who chose Adib and it was not his job “to interfere or approve.”
September 1, 2020
Posted by aletho |
Aletho News | France, Lebanon |
Leave a comment
Lebanese President Michel Aoun has named the country’s ambassador to Germany Mustapha Adib as the new prime minister after he secured the support of major political parties.
A majority of lawmakers had to decide on whom to name as premier before Aoun tasked the candidate with forming a government.
According to a Reuters tally of votes cast by lawmakers in official consultations, Adib secured the support of a majority of lawmakers to be designated as the new prime minister.
Adib secured at least 66 votes, or more than half of the 120 MPs currently serving in the Lebanese parliament, after the Christian Free Patriotic Movement announced it had nominated him.
Lebanon’s parliament usually has 128 MPs but eight resigned following the Aug. 4 port explosion.
A relatively unknown 48-year-old diplomat, Adib, a close aide to former premier Najib Mikati, is about to form a government after he secured backing from the country’s politicians.
On Sunday, the Sunni Muslim political figures in Lebanon, including the Future Movement party headed by former premier Sa’ad Hariri, picked Adib to succeed Hassan Diab, who resigned as prime minister following Beirut’s blast.
Under a power-sharing agreement that ended the 1975-1990 civil war in Lebanon, the prime minister must be a Sunni Muslim, the president a Maronite Christian and the parliament speaker a Shia Muslim.
Hariri announced on Monday that he had nominated Adib to the position in formal consultations with Aoun.
Speaking after a meeting with the president, Hariri said the new government should be formed quickly and made up of specialist ministers.
Hezbollah members of Lebanon’s parliament also nominated Adib as the next premier.
Hezbollah’s parliamentary bloc “informed President Aoun of its agreement to the nomination of Mustapha Adib and we expressed our readiness for positive cooperation,” the head of its parliamentary bloc, Mohamed Ra’ad, said after a meeting with the president on Monday.
Diab’s government resigned after the devastating explosion at a port in Beirut that killed at least 188 people and wounded thousands.
The blast came amid public anger over the ruling elite’s mismanagement of an economic crisis. The Lebanese pound has continued to plummet against the US dollar, losing more than 60 percent of its value over the last weeks while sources of foreign currency have dried up.
Observers say American sanctions on Lebanon have deteriorated its already struggling economy.
The consultations come as French President Emmanuel Macron is due to return to Lebanon, after his previous visit to the country that followed the blast and sparked outrage among the Lebanese.
Macron, whose country witnessed months-long and nationwide anti-government protests by Yellow Vests over economic injustice in 2018 and 2019, used a provocative colonial tone in his visit, calling for political and economic reforms in Lebanon.
August 31, 2020
Posted by aletho |
Aletho News | Lebanon |
Leave a comment
In the face of the obvious failure of US policy in Afghanistan, Pakistan has stepped up its efforts to peacefully resolve the Afghani conflict.
On August 24, at the invitation of Pakistani Foreign Ministry, a delegation of the Taliban (movement banned in the Russian Federation – ed.), headed by Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar arrived from Doha, capital of Qatar, to meet both civilian and military representatives of Pakistan. Its purpose was to discuss the latest developments in the peace process in Afghanistan and further steps in this direction, improving the security situation for civilians in Afghanistan as well as trade between the two neighboring countries, as confirmed by Taliban spokesman Suhail Shaheen on his Twitter.
This meeting was already the third of its kind: previously the parties met in October 2019 at the Pakistani Foreign Ministry and in February this year in Doha. This third visit of the Taliban delegation, as intended by those behind it, should contribute to resolving the contradictions that have arisen in recent days on the eve of the intra-Afghan peace talks that did not start on August 20 and were postponed to a later date, and were part of the agreement signed in Doha in February between the Taliban and the United States. Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi emphasized in his statement that Islamabad invited the Taliban to emphasize the importance of negotiations, adding that negotiations are “the only way forward” in Afghanistan. “It is the Afghanis who need reconciliation, and our task is mediating,” he said. “The main goal is to ensure peace, and the next stage should be the beginning of an intra-Afghan dialogue.”
In a statement in connection with this meeting, the Pakistani Foreign Ministry highlighted Islamabad’s positive contribution to the peace and reconciliation process in Afghanistan, which culminated in the signing of a peace agreement between the US and the Taliban in Doha on February 29, 2020. Therefore, Pakistani officials are confident that Afghani stakeholders must seize this historic opportunity to secure a comprehensive political negotiated solution to the Afghani conflict. Islamabad called on the international community to step up its participation in the reconstruction and economic development of Afghanistan, by creating the necessary economic opportunities and conditions conducive to the return of Afghani refugees to their homeland.
Islamabad leaping to action in the peaceful resolution of the Afghani crisis is in part due to Washington’s unrelenting criticism of Pakistan for “insufficient efforts to counter Afghani anti-government forces,” which the US State Department has repeatedly noted in its reports. In particular, the United States emphasizes how Pakistan failed to prevent a number of attacks by militants from its territory against Afghanistan, and makes minimal efforts to suppress the activities of terrorist organizations. At the same time, it is especially clear Islamabad only conducted anti-terrorist operations against those militants who carried out attacks specifically on Pakistani territory. This critical position has been repeatedly voiced by the current Afghani authorities close to the United States, accusing Islamabad of supporting the Taliban and other militants operating in the weakly defended border, indicating, in particular, that Taliban leaders are based in cities along the Pakistani-Afghani border, including Quetta and Peshawar.
Washington’s latest accusations against Islamabad were voiced in the annual report on terrorism published by the US State Department on June 24. In it, in particular, it was noted that Pakistan is a haven for terrorists and terrorist groups operating in South Asia, such as the Haqqani Network, Lashkar-e-Tayyiba and aysh-e-Mohammad (all banned in the Russian Federation), and the government of Prime Minister Imran Khan and the Pakistani army have been accused of inaction. In addition, the State Department’s Trafficking in Persons Report indicated that religious minorities and children are frequent victims of the slave trade in Pakistan.
For these reasons and for alleged “insufficient support by the Pakistani authorities for the American strategy on South Asia” in 2018, the United States refused to provide financial assistance to Islamabad in the amount of $300 million. This has already caused Islamabad’s harsh discontent with such assessments of Washington’s actions by Pakistan, since the indicated amount was supposed to be not help, but compensation for funds already spent by this country on countering terrorism.
However, today everyone is already well aware that Washington’s criticism of Pakistan in recent years is primarily due to the desire of the current American authorities to shift the blame for the apparent failure of their policy in Afghanistan to a third party, including the deaths here of more than two thousand American soldiers as well as over 20 thousand injuries, hundreds of billions of dollars worthlessly spent on goals incomprehensible to the public, which was more than enough to have long ago made Afghanistan a flourishing state in many ways. An important factor in such attacks by the Donald Trump administration on the Pakistani authorities is also the establishment of closer bilateral relations between Pakistan and China, as a result of which the traditional ties between America and Pakistan have all but disintegrated.
Although it is still early to speak into the results of the third meeting of Pakistani representatives and the Taliban, it is nevertheless obvious that the negotiations that took place in the current situation were very necessary in hopes to settle the Afghani conflict. And once again it was Islamabad who extended the olive branch in an effort to achieve peace in Afghanistan.
August 30, 2020
Posted by aletho |
Aletho News | Afghanistan, Pakistan, United States |
Leave a comment
Russian President Vladimir Putin disclosed in a TV interview on August 27 that the Americans, among others, had fuelled the unrest in Belarus. He explained that the controversial presence of 33 Russian nationals (with military background) in Minsk in the run-up to the presidential election in Belarus on August 8, which briefly created misunderstanding between Minsk and with Moscow, itself was a joint operation by Ukrainian and US intelligence agencies.
The Russian nationals were apparently given job offers and were “simply lured there (Minsk), dragged across the border … de facto they were brought in on fake documents.” Evidently, Russia is in possession of hard intelligence.
Putin spoke up even as US Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun wrapped up talks with top Russian officials in Moscow Wednesday. According to a VOA report, Biegun’s consultations “marked an intensifying U.S. effort to find a peaceful solution in Belarus.” The report took note that en route to Moscow, Biegun had “signalled that Washington was not eager to accept efforts by [Belarus President Alexander] Lukashenko to cast the election standoff as an East versus West showdown that might trigger direct Russian involvement.”
Simply put, Biegun was on a “damage control” mission. This can be taken as admission of defeat in the US-backed regime change project in Belarus. Conceivably, Russian officials shared with Biegun their intelligence regarding the CIA involvement. Later, crisply anodyne identical readouts were released by the Russian and American sides without divulging any details.
The CIA would roll back its Belarus operation — for the time being, at least. A commentary titled What’s Next for the Peaceful Uprising in Belarus? by the United States Institute of Peace sees “potential to bring change” in Belarus, but concludes saying, “While there are no guarantees of success, there is cause for hope. At a minimum, Belarusians have gained a new-found sense of dignity and belief in the power of nonviolent collective action.”
This appears to have been a well-planned operation. Under the garb of journalists, western intelligence deployed dozens of special agents in Belarus. Lukashenko has ordered their expulsion. Associated Press, Radio Liberty and BBC “reporters” have had their accreditation cancelled. A Swedish “photo journalist”, presumably an intelligence operative, was detained and was released at the personal intervention of the Swedish ambassador to Belarus and flown out of Minsk.
From the pro forma reaction by the European Union so far, Brussels has a fair idea of what really happened — that there has been a US operation with active participation of Poland and Lithuania (both EU countries) and Ukraine. Unsurprisingly, NATO statements have been rather combative. The NATO also began air exercises in Poland and Lithuania coinciding with the unrest in Belarus.
However, major European powers — Germany, France, Italy — didn’t want to get entangled. Their top leaders telephoned Putin to ease the tensions. The EU initially proposed OSCE as mediator, but Moscow sensed that it might lead to backdoor entry by the US intelligence. The OSCE is manned by NATO powers and is under American thumb.
The clincher has been the stern warning by the Kremlin that if the western operation continued, Russia will be left with no option but to intervene. The warning came at Putin’s level, making it very clear that Russia will not countenance a regime change in Minsk to hijack Belarus into the American camp. Moscow has asserted its special interests in Belarus under international law. In his TV interview on Thursday, Putin emphatically stated:
“Indeed, the Union Treaty… and the Collective Security Treaty (CSTO) include articles saying that all member states of these organisations, including the Union State, which consists of two states only – Russia and Belarus, are obliged to help each other protect their sovereignty, external borders and stability… In this connection, we have certain obligations towards Belarus, and this is how Mr Lukashenko has formulated his question. He said that he would like us to provide assistance to him if this should become necessary. I replied that Russia would honour all its obligations.
“Mr Lukashenko has asked me to create a reserve group of law enforcement personnel, and I have done this. But we have also agreed that this group would not be used unless the situation becomes uncontrollable… we came to the conclusion that now it is not necessary, and I hope that it will never be necessary to use this reserve, which is why we are not using it.” Putin made it abundantly clear that Moscow stands by Lukashenko.”
The events in Belarus constitute a watershed moment. Russia will not allow another Ukraine-type colour revolution in the “near abroad”, aimed at encircling it with hostile governments. But Moscow’s intervention, if at all, will conform to international law and stem out of invitation by the country concerned.
That is to say, Russia regards it to be the prerogative of the CSTO countries to handle their internal affairs without outside unlawful interference. Having said that, Moscow has invoked the CSTO’s collective security doctrine. This sets a precedent. The CSTO comprises Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan. A CIA-sponsored regime change project in any of these countries can run into the CSTO’s crosshairs. Considering that the CSTO is de facto led from Moscow, any more regime change project in Central Asia or Caucasus will trigger Russian countermeasures.
Most important, Moscow will not be prescriptive. Putin has supported Lukashenka’s proposal to draft a new constitution and hold fresh presidential and parliamentary elections, but transition should be lawful and orderly. This Russian approach has been already evident in Kyrgyzstan (2005) Turkmenistan (2006), and Uzbekistan (2016). Even in the case of Georgia (2003) and Ukraine (2004 and 2014), Russia didn’t oppose transitions but the West turned them into geopolitical contestations to install anti-Russian regimes.
However, a caveat must be added. Putin also underscored that Belarus is a very special case. He said, in a clear reference to the US, “some forces would like to see something different happening there (Belarus). They would like to influence these processes and to bring about the solutions that would suit their political interests.” Russia cannot afford to see such nefarious designs succeed in Belarus.
In Putin’s words, “This nation is very close to us (Russian Federation) and perhaps is the closest, both in terms of ethnic proximity, the language, the culture, the spiritual as well as other aspects. We have dozens or probably hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of direct family ties with Belarus.” Not only that, Russia sources from Belarus almost 90 percent of its imports of agricultural products.
August 30, 2020
Posted by aletho |
Aletho News | Belarus, CIA, Russia, United States |
Leave a comment
By Uriel Araujo | August 27, 2020
In 1378, it was not clear who the true Pope was. Depending on whom one asked, it was either Clement VII, nowadays listed as an Antipope in the Catholic Encyclopedia, or Urban VI. This was a time of crisis in Western Europe, often referred to as the “Western Schism”.
Likewise today, in the realm of secular politics, we currently have or recently had disputed or contested presidencies – in varying degrees – in many countries. In fact, Venezuela – where Guaidó and the country’s president Maduro are each recognized by a number of countries – is far from the being the only such case in Latin America.
For instance, in Peru, on October 2019, both Vizcarra and Araós claimed to be the legitimate president. In Honduras, Hernández election was contested, amid allegations of narco connections. Even in Colombia, Petro (2018 election runner up) and his party no longer recognize Duque’s presidency, who has also been accused of narco links and of tampering with ballots. In Brazil, Ms. Roussef’s 2016 deposition was perceived by many as an “institutional coup”. The current Brazilian president Bolsonaro, in his turn, also faces accusations of vote fraud through the use of Whatsapp “fake news”.
There are disputed presidencies or leaderships right now in Belarus, Guinea-Bissau, Malawi, Mali (which is under a military coup) and other countries. In the US, Trump’s 2016 election was also hotly contested (there were even wild accusations of “Russian interference”) and many journalists and experts are now writing that the new US election – amid the coronavirus outbreak and other crisis – may not be “swiftly accepted”. Antifa demonstrations are spreading across the country and are becoming increasingly violent.
All such legitimacy disputes are not just narrative wars amongst political rivals – it rather seems that in many parts of the world, the election process itself and democracy are losing credibility. It could turn into a war of models. If the contemporary and rather globalized democratic model is in crisis – and it would appear so – then, what are the alternatives?
The very specific notion of “Democracy” as necessarily including free speech, a multi-party system, alternance in power, a secular state and a Montesquieu’s trias politica separation of powers – with an often bicameral legislature – is of course quite Western in terms of its history and the values underlying it. In Western discourse today, the notion of democracy sometimes gets even more exclusive, sometimes including only societies which recognize gay marriage and do not criminalize abortion.
The United States is often taken as an (unexamined) “standard-bearer” for the entire world. The truth is that political forms and models are not so clearly differentiable but actually are rather intermingled. Thus, the current British monarch, for example, is officially the Defender of the Church of England and, as such, appoints Bishops and Archbishops – and no one dares to call it a “theocracy”. The US president, in his turn, in his authority to conduct war, has the power to maintain anyone under indefinite detention (without due process of law) according to attorney John Yoo (of so called Torture Memos) – and no one calls it a dictatorship. Clearly, labeling one as “non-democratic” is also a weapon of political discourse.
As for alternative models, a few years ago, notions of “Bolivarian” direct democracy were on the rise in South America. Furthermore, Bolivia’s 2010 law acknowledged the rights of Pachamama (Mother Earth) as a collective subject of public interest. The current Bolivian de facto president, Ms. Jeanine Áñez (President Morales was deposed in what many described as a coup), is currently working to undermine such notions as well as the notion of Bolivia as a Plurinational State – as defined by its 2009 Constitution.
So, right now, the left too (and its Bolivarian and indigenist alternatives) has been largely discredited amongst a large part of the population in South America. This has opened the door for the rise of a new kind of right-wing “populism” – which has little regard for current institutions. For instance, according to recent polls, 34% of the Brazilian population would support closing down (abolishing) the Parliament and 32% support doing the same to the Supreme Court. The COVID-19 pandemic could also be paving the way for “authoritarianism” in Europe and the US, according to several political scientists. The new populism is on the rise in Europe too.
In many parts of the world, a large part of society seems to care more about employment and security than abstract notions of the rule of law. If current political regimes fail to provide safety and to economically include the people they rule, dissatisfaction is sure to follow. And in the economically fragile post-COVID-19 world, this could get ugly.
Is it about time to reinvent democracy? Some new forms of it could arise, better suited for their cultural and regional contexts. In the meantime, a lot of instability may ensue (with economic and security consequences), especially in Latin America but in other parts of the world too – perhaps in Europe and the US as well.
Uriel Araujo is a researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts.
August 27, 2020
Posted by aletho |
Aletho News | Latin America, United States |
Leave a comment
Turkey has made its first move on the regional chessboard after the recent deal between the UAE and Israel, when on August 22, President Recep Erdogan received in Istanbul a high-level delegation of the Palestinian resistance group Hamas, including its leader Ismail Haniyeh and deputy leader Saleh al-Arouri.
Also present at the meeting held behind closed doors at Istanbul’s Vahdettin Palace were the head of Turkey’s intelligence service, Hakan Fidan and two key aides of Erdogan — the communications director Fahrettin Altun and the presidential spokesman, Ibrahim Kalin.
The symbolism of the event is profound. The US state department has designated Ismail Haniyeh and Saleh al-Arouri as terrorists and has placed a $5 million bounty on their heads. And, of course, Turkey’s links with Hamas has been a sore point with Israel and it strained the traditionally close relations between the two countries to near breaking point in the recent decade.
Meanwhile, Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood with which Turkey’s ruling Islamist party has ideological affinity but which the Emirati regime regards as existential enemy.
To be sure, Erdogan has made a calculated move after reading the tea leaves that one of the objectives behind the US-sponsored deal between the UAE and Israel is the creation of a new regional order even as American retrenchment from the region may have already begun in the Middle East.
Erdogan estimates that the main target of the UAE-Israel deal is Turkey. He had spotted the UAE as an active participant in the US-led failed coup attempt in 2016 aimed at overthrowing his government. He is also acutely conscious that the US, Israel and the UAE are aligned with the separatist Kurdish groups.
Turkey and the UAE are promoting opposite sides in the Libyan conflict and recently, the UAE has begun cozying up to Greece against the backdrop of rising tensions between Greece and Turkey in the Eastern Mediterranean. (UAE fighter jets are currently participating in a training exercise in Greece.)
The US State Department has lashed out at Erdogan for his meeting with Hamas leaders. But within hours, Ankara hit back. In a furious rejoinder, the Turkish Foreign Ministry rebuked Washington for questioning the legitimacy of Hamas, “which has come to power in Gaza through democratic elections and which constitutes an important reality of the region.”
Alluding to the US policies, the Turkish statement went on to say, “Moreover, a country which openly supports the PKK, that features on their list of terrorist organisations and hosts the ringleader of the FETO (group led by Islamist preacher Fetullah Gulen) has no right whatsoever to say anything to third countries on this subject.”
Lamenting that the US “has isolated itself from the realities of our region,” the Turkish statement urged the US to change course and “sincerely work towards the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the basis of international law, justice and equity by pursuing balanced policies, instead of using its power and influence in the region to serve the interests of Israel rather exclusively.”
To be sure, Erdogan has a game plan in defiantly flaunting his relationship with Hamas at this juncture. In the Turkish reckoning, the UAE-Israel agreement, with US backing, aims to create new facts on the ground in the Middle East, which takes the form of unimpeded telecoms, travel and recognition between Israel and its richest Gulf neighbours, but completely bypassing the Palestinian problem and blithely assuming that it is a matter of time before the Palestinian leadership would wave the white flag of surrender.
On the contrary, Turkey shares the assessment of most independent regional observers (and perceptive western analysts) that the Palestinians who have held out for seven decades are in no mood to surrender abandoning their political rights. Indeed, the Palestinian popular resistance is showing no signs of fatigue. The Palestinian leaders have used very strong language to condemn the UAE regime. The wave of anger is fuelled by a deep sense of betrayal by prince Mohammed bin Zayed.
This anger is prompting Fatah and Hamas, who have been bitter rivals since the 2007 civil war in Gaza, to close ranks and discuss the need for joint political action. Mahmud Abbas who was unwilling to accept any partners in the governance of Palestine is today open to working with Hamas. Last week, Jibril Rajoub, general secretary of Fatah, shared a platform with Saleh Arouri, deputy head of Hamas, signalling that the rapprochement is gaining momentum.
If the Emirati calculation was to promote exiled Palestinian leader Mohammed Dahlan (who lives in Abu Dhabi) as the next Palestinian President in a near future with the backing of Arab states and Israel, that project has crash-landed. Dahlan can no longer exploit the rivalry between Fatah and Hamas. The effigies of Dahlan and Emirati crown prince bin Zayed were burned side by side in Ramallah last week.
Turkey senses a potential breakthrough in regional politics insofar as the Arab population at large shares the anger and resentment of the Palestinian people at the betrayal by bin Zayed. According to the Arab Opinion Index conducted by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies in Doha, if 84 percent of Arab opinion had opposed any diplomatic recognition of Israel in 2011, that has since increased to 87 percent by 2018.
In this turbulent regional milieu, Erdogan hopes to bring about a fusion between the Arab world’s sympathy and support for the demands of the Palestinians for sovereignty and their own search for democracy and liberation from their autocratic rulers. This has been his dream project all along — creation of a New Middle East that gets rid of the medieval oligarchies and replaces them with representative rule based on democratic principles and empowerment of the people.
In the downstream of the Emirati ruler’s deal with Israel, Erdogan strides like a Colossus on the Arab street and his meeting with the leadership of Hamas in Istanbul proclaims a common struggle against the despots and oligarchs who suppress democracy and have exercised cruel tyranny over their people across the region. In Erdogan’s calculus, bin Zayed’s contempt for Arab democracy and Netanyahu’s trampling of Palestinian rights are two sides of the same coin.
Erdogan visualises that the UAE-Israel agreement is built on sand and it is bound to crumble under the weight of the latent contradictions that are bound to surge in the wake of the expected decline in the US’ regional influence and prestige and amidst the birth pangs of the new-post-oil economy in the regional states.
Has Israel bitten off more than it could chew? David Hearst, editor-in-chief of the Middle East Eye wrote last week, “Whereas before, Israeli leaders could pretend to be bystanders to the turmoil of dictatorship in the Arab world, this (accord with UAE) now ties the Jewish state to maintaining the autocracy and repression around it. They cannot pretend to be the victims of a “tough neighbourhood”. They are its main pillar. This accord is virtual reality. It will be blown away by a new popular revolt not just in Palestine but across the Arab world. This revolt may already have started.”
August 26, 2020
Posted by aletho |
Aletho News | Hamas, Turkiye, UAE, United States, Zionism |
Leave a comment
A spokesman for the German government said on Monday that Berlin believes there’s a ‘certain probability’ that Russian anti-corruption campaigner Alexey Navalny was poisoned and that he requires personal protection.
“We are dealing with a patient where there is a certain probability that he was poisoned,” Steffan Seibert told a press conference on Monday morning. On this basis, Berlin is convinced that Navalny needs to be protected, he explained.
However, Foreign Minister Heiko Maas sounded a note of caution, warning that it’s necessary to wait for a statement by the doctors treating him before making judgements. Maas added that many facts relevant to the case are still missing.
“I am one of those people who bases my views on facts,” Mass said during a news conference. “Many facts are missing in the case of Navalny: medical and also likely criminological. We must wait for those (facts).”
Navalny became ill during a flight from Tomsk to Moscow last Thursday. His plane made an emergency landing, and the protest leader was taken to a hospital in Omsk in a serious condition. He was placed in an induced coma and connected to a ventilator.
His associates believe that he was poisoned, but Russian doctors claim that two different laboratories found no poisons in his system. German doctors are expected to talk about his condition later on Monday. He was airlifted to Berlin on Saturday.
Russian Doctors Deny Navalny Had Traces, Symptoms of Cholinesterase Inhibitors Poisoning
Russian Doctors Deny Navalny Had Traces, Symptoms of Cholinesterase Inhibitors Poisoning
Earlier, the doctors treating Navalny in the Berlin-based Charite clinic said they had found in his body traces of intoxication with a substance from the group of cholinesterase inhibitors. However, the exact substance is still unknown, the press service of the clinic added.
Tests of Alexey Navalny’s samples at the Omsk hospital in Russia showed no traces of poisoning with cholinesterase inhibitors substances, as German doctors treating him have claimed, neither has he had symptoms typical of such poisoning, Omsk Chief Toxicologist Alexander Sabayev said on Monday.
“Upon his admission to the [Omsk] hospital, Alexey Navalny was tested on a wide range of narcotics, synthetic substances, psychedelics and medicinal substances, including cholinesterase inhibitors — all tests came back negative,” Sabayev said in a press statement, as quoted by the Omsk Ministry of Health.
“Additionally, Navalny lacked symptoms specific of the poisoning with cholinesterase inhibitors substances. As we said earlier, we are ready to share Alexey Navalny’s samples with our German colleagues for examination,” the health official added.
Earlier in the day, the doctors treating Navalny in the Berlin-based Charite hospital claimed they found traces of intoxication with a substance from the group of cholinesterase inhibitors in his body.
The version of German doctors on the diagnosis of Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny was worked out by Russian specialists on the very first day, but it did not find confirmation, the head of anesthesiology and reanimation department at Russia’s Pirogov Center, Boris Teplykh, said.
“For me, nothing new has yet been announced in the statement of colleagues from Charite. They talk about clinical data showing intoxication with cholinesterase inhibitors,” the doctor said.
“Well, firstly, they speak about clinical data, and not about the substance itself, which neither we nor, apparently, they have discovered at the moment. The same version was worked out by us on the first day of the patient’s admission, but no confirmation was found,” Teplykh said.
He added that Navalny was injected with Atropine, which was prescribed by German colleagues for treatment, from the first minute after admission. And subsequently, the need for its repeated injection was discussed, Teplykh said.
“In addition, the presence of such a chemical reaction in the body is possible both as a result of the use of other medications and in the natural course of the disease,” he said.
At the same time, the expert stressed that the main thing is that “the patient did not get any worse as a result of transportation.”
“Let’s hope that the improvement of the patient’s condition, which was observed back in Omsk, will continue. We are ready to interact with German colleagues,” he said.
August 24, 2020
Posted by aletho |
Aletho News |
Leave a comment
The Lebanese resistance group Hezbollah says it has shot down an Israeli drone that had violated the country’s airspace.
The drone was downed near the border town of Aita al-Shaab, Hezbollah said in a statement.
It also said that the drone is currently in the possession of the resistance group.
The Israeli military later confirmed that the drone fell in the Lebanese territory, but added that there was no concern of information being leaked.
The shoot-down of the Israeli drone came one day after Hezbollah Deputy Secretary General Sheikh Naim Qassem said the Lebanese resistance movement will neither allow Israel nor its sponsors the chance to launch an aggression against Lebanon, warning the Tel Aviv regime and its allies of a heavy price.
“We will neither give Israel nor anyone who recognizes it the opportunity to launch an attack without paying the price. We will not capitulate to those who wish to rob us of our honor and victory… We want to protect Lebanon, its sovereignty and independence, whereas they [those who recognize Israel] do not care if Israel is still occupying our lands,” Sheikh Qassem said during a ceremony in the Lebanese capital Beirut late on Friday.
Lebanon’s government, Hezbollah and the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) have repeatedly condemned Israel’s overflights, saying they are in clear violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 and the country’s sovereignty.
UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which brokered a ceasefire in the war of aggression Israel launched against Lebanon in 2006, calls on Tel Aviv to respect Beirut’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
In 2009, Lebanon filed a complaint with the UN, presenting over 7,000 documents pertaining to Israeli violations of Lebanese territory.
August 23, 2020
Posted by aletho |
Aletho News | Hezbollah, Israel, Lebanon |
Leave a comment
