Major fossil fuel producers cause rift among G20
RT | July 23, 2023
Saudi Arabia and Russia have prevented a consensus from emerging among the Group of 20 major economies on a road map to phase down the share of fossil fuels in the global energy mix, Reuters has reported.
The G20 energy transition ministers held a four-day summit that ended on Saturday in the Indian state of Goa where they discussed ways to achieve global net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.
The summit ended without a consensus because major fossil fuel producers, including Saudi Arabia and Russia, opposed a proposal to triple G20 countries’ renewable energy capacity by 2030, Reuters reported, citing its sources.
China, the world’s largest consumer of energy, as well as coal exporters South Africa and Indonesia, also opposed the plan, the agency added. India, the world’s most populous country and which currently generates 75% of its total power from coal, reportedly took a neutral stance on the issue.
As a result of the disagreements, the ministers issued an outcome statement and a chair summary instead of a joint communique. A joint communique is issued when complete agreement among members on all issues is achieved.
According to the statement, “different national circumstances” drove “some members” to support a phase-down of unabated fossil fuels, while “others had different views” and suggested that “abatement and removal technologies” would address environmental concerns associated with the use of fossil fuels.
“Fossil fuels currently continue to play a significant role in the global energy mix, eradication of energy poverty, and in meeting the growing energy demand,” reads the statement.
The document mentioned a number of technologies for countries to use “as per national priorities,” such as carbon capture, usage and storage (CCUS), a technology that can capture and make effective use of the high concentrations of CO₂ emitted by industrial activities.
The G20 comprises 19 nations and the European Union. The group’s aim is to address major issues related to the global economy, such as international financial stability and climate change. Together, the G20 member countries account for over three-quarters of both gross domestic product and global emissions.
Washington sanctions 14 Iraqi banks in new anti-Iran ‘crackdown’
The Cradle | July 20, 2023
The US Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York have barred 14 Iraqi banks from conducting transactions in US dollars as part of a “sweeping crackdown” to stop Iran and other sanctioned nations from acquiring the greenback, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported on 19 July.
US officials say the new sanctions were issued after discovering “information” showing the banks “engaged in money laundering and fraudulent transactions, some of which may have involved sanctioned individuals and raised concerns that Iran could benefit.”
“We have strong reason to suspect that at least some of these laundered funds could end up going to benefit either designated individuals or individuals who could be designated,” a senior US official told the WSJ.
The banks targeted by the punitive measures are small institutions reportedly “heavily involved” in US dollar transactions.
According to Iraq’s Shafaq News, the targeted banks include the Islamic Advisor for Investment and Finance, the Islamic Qartas for Investment and Finance, Al Mustashar Islamic Bank, Elaf Bank, Erbil Bank, the International Islamic Bank, Trans-Iraq Bank, Mosul Bank, Al-Rajeh Bank, Sumer Commercial Bank, Trust International Islamic Bank, the World Islamic Bank, and Zain Iraq Islamic Bank.
The sanctions came only one day after the US State Department issued a new 120-day sanctions waiver to allow Baghdad to deposit payments for Iranian natural gas into non-Iraqi banks in response to criticism that the White House is responsible for recent power cuts at the height of Iraq’s blistering hot summer.
Since 2003, all Iraqi oil revenues have been paid into an account with the US Federal Reserve. Although Iraqis formed a sovereign government after the US invasion and occupation of their state, Iraq is still restricted from opening accounts for its oil earnings outside the US.
Given its dominance of the global financial system, Washington can control all funds of Iraq’s Central Bank through threats or sanctions, even though these funds are not deposited exclusively in US banks. Furthermore, Iraq’s oil funds, which in 2022 amounted to more than $90 billion, remain in one single account in New York Fed – the institution that two years ago unilaterally blocked Afghanistan from accessing its foreign reserves, plunging the nation into an unparalleled crisis.
Last November, the US Treasury cut off four Iraqi banks from access to dollars and imposed tight controls on wire transfers, sending the economy reeling.
To negate the effect of these unilateral measures, Baghdad has been looking to move trade away from the greenback and, in May, banned the use of the US dollar for both personal and business transactions.
Earlier this month, the commercial advisor to the Iranian embassy in Iraq, Abd al-Amir Rabihawi, revealed that Baghdad proposed that the two nations switch trade payments to the Iraqi dinar to combat US economic coercion.
Washington unable to sell stolen Iranian oil: Report
The Cradle | July 19, 2023
Oil firms in the US are “reluctant” to unload a shipment of stolen Iranian oil sitting in a Greek tanker off the coast of Texas, saying they are “too worried about Iranian reprisal” to touch the cargo, sources familiar with the matter told the Wall Street Journal (WSJ).
“Companies with any exposure whatsoever in the Persian Gulf are literally afraid to do it,” a Houston-based energy executive told the US outlet, adding that companies fear “the Iranians would take retribution against them.”
“I don’t know if anybody’s going to touch it,” another executive at a shipping company told the WSJ.
Washington illegally seized the Marshall Islands-flagged Suez Rajan supertanker in April of this year in what was described by the Pentagon as “a sanctions-enforcement operation.” Washington also charged the ship’s owner with “sanctions evasion” and directed the stolen cargo to the waters 65 miles off Galveston’s coast in the US.
According to the WSJ, the Suez Rajan came under Washington’s radar after an anti-Iran organization – the New York-based United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) – provided information about the ship’s cargo to government officials. Furthermore, lawyers representing the families of victims of the 11 September attacks, “whom US courts have given the right to claim compensation from [Tehran],” filed a lawsuit against one of the ship’s former owners.
But while the US coast guard has given the all-clear to unload the shipment, companies that manage those transfers do not want any involvement in what Tehran has described as “maritime piracy.”
“That vessel’s emblematic of a much bigger drama that’s playing out about how we deal with Iranian threats,” a former US official told the WSJ.
The “drama” playing out between Washington and Tehran has seen the former eagerly try to restart talks with the Islamic Republic to “deescalate tensions” and possibly reach a new nuclear deal. But despite these diplomatic overtures from the White House, in recent weeks, the Pentagon has significantly bolstered its military presence in the Persian Gulf to confront “Iranian threats.”
Washington accuses Tehran of attempting to “hijack” foreign-flagged vessels traveling through the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf of Oman. At the same time, Iran says the US navy protects “fuel smugglers” and ships involved in hit-and-run incidents.
“We categorically reject [Washington’s] baseless allegations of hijacking foreign oil tankers by Iran,” a representative for Iran’s mission to the UN told the WSJ. “Iran insists on the security and stability of the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz. However, if oil tankers violate harmless passage, pollute the environment, or smuggle Iranian fuel, Iran does not hesitate to address those irregularities and infringements based on its laws as well as relevant international obligations.”
No more security guarantees for Black Sea navigation – Russian FM
RT | July 17, 2023
Russia will no longer provide security guarantees for civilian vessels traversing the formerly exempted corridor in the Black Sea, the country’s foreign ministry has announced. Earlier on Monday, the Kremlin stated that it would not extend the Black Sea grain agreement since its own food and fertilizer exports are still being blocked.
In a statement released on Monday, the Foreign Ministry said that this latest decision “means the recall of maritime navigation security guarantees, the discontinuation of the maritime humanitarian corridor [and] the reinstatement of the ‘temporarily dangerous area’ regime in the north-western Black Sea.” Russian diplomats went on to accuse Ukraine of using the humanitarian corridor to carry out attacks on Russian targets.
As for the Ukrainian grain shipments that were facilitated by the deal, the ministry claimed that the vast majority of those ended up in Europe, with several countries there allegedly lining their pockets.
The statement pointed out that the whole mechanism, which was launched last summer, had ostensibly been designed to help avert famine in poorer nations.
According to Moscow, key points in the Russia-UN memorandum, which was signed in lockstep with the Black Sea Initiative, have remained unfulfilled to date.
As a result, the ministry explained, Russian bank transactions, insurance and logistics were effectively paralyzed, meaning that Moscow could not sell its own produce and fertilizers on the international market. In one case cited in the statement, a shipment of Russian fertilizers donated free of charge to several African countries was blocked in the EU.
The foreign ministry concluded that in light of all these issues, the agreement no longer makes sense.
Moscow has suggested European nations should allow Ukraine to transfer its grain via their territory and potentially face the wrath of local farmers, or take action and address Russia’s grievances.
Should this happen, Moscow would be ready to return to the implementation of the agreement, the statement noted.
Earlier on Monday, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov announced the termination of the deal. He also reiterated Russia’s readiness to return to the mechanism; however, he added that this would only happen if its interests were respected.
Last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that Moscow would “suspend participation in this deal,” describing the arrangement as a “one-sided game all along.”
Saudi imports of Russian fuel soared tenfold in June
The Cradle | July 13, 2023
Saudi Arabia imported record levels of Russian fuel oil in June, bringing in 910,000 metric tons, a nearly tenfold increase from the same period last year, to meet summer power generation needs.
Since the start of 2023, Saudi imports of Russian fuel have nearly doubled from last year. As of June, the kingdom imported 2.86 million metric tons of fuel oil, exceeding the 1.63 million metric tons imported for all of 2022.
Alongside many countries in the Global South, the kingdom has been ramping up its purchases of discounted Russian fuel over the past several months, allowing Moscow to negate much of the effects of western sanctions and a G7 price cap imposed on their energy sector.
The news comes just over a month after Saudi officials announced plans to cut oil production levels by an extra one million barrels per day (bpd) in July – a cut that came on top of a massive reduction in oil output implemented since last October by OPEC+ member states, including Russia.
In May, Bloomberg reported, “Saudi Arabia is snapping up millions of barrels of Russian diesel that Europe no longer allows, while simultaneously sending its own supplies back to buyers in the EU.”
Traders and analysts believe the kingdom has been conducting this scheme to generate higher profits by taking advantage of western sanctions.
India and China are two other nations taking advantage of the situation, buying as much as 80 percent of the oil that Moscow exported in May.
“In May 2023, India and China accounted for almost 80 percent of Russian crude oil exports,” the Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA) said in a report.
Russian fuel exports to Africa have also skyrocketed over the past year, increasing nearly 14-fold since the start of the war in Ukraine. Before March 2022, Moscow exported 33,000 bpd of refined products to African nations; by March 2023, exports soared to 420,000 bpd.
Putin comments on the future of the grain deal
RT | July 13, 2023
Russia is considering putting its participation in the UN-facilitated grain deal on hold until its food and fertilizer exports are unblocked, President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday. None of the promises made to Moscow under the agreement have been fulfilled as of yet, he said, adding that the deal has been a “one-way street case.”
Moscow may no longer be willing to extend the agreement just out of hope that the Western nations and the UN fulfill their end of the bargain, the president said. “We can suspend our participation in this deal,” he said, adding that “everyone is once again telling [us] that all the promises made will be kept.” “Let them deliver on this promise first; then we’ll immediately return to the deal again,” Putin maintained.
Formally known as the Black Sea Initiative, the agreement between Moscow and Kiev was mediated by the UN and Türkiye back in summer 2022. The deal was accompanied by a Russia-UN memorandum aimed at facilitating unimpeded Russian agricultural exports.
The goals of the memorandum included allowing Russia’s major agricultural lender, Rosslekhozbank, back onto the SWIFT payments system, enabling deliveries of spare parts for agriculture machinery, reanimating the Tolyatti-Odessa ammonia pipeline, sorting out insurance and logistics, as well as “unfreezing” Russian assets.
According to Putin, none of those aims have been achieved as of now. “Nothing – and I want to underscore it – nothing has been done. That was a one-sided game all along. Not a single goal linked to the interests of the Russian Federation was met,” he said, adding that Moscow had repeatedly extended the deal in good faith despite those facts.
The president also said he had not seen a letter UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres sent him earlier this week. The UN said earlier that the letter contained suggestions aimed at fulfilling the Russia-UN memorandum and preserving the deal. The international body also said that Moscow had allegedly received the letter and was reviewing it.
The deal was originally touted as a way to avoid a food crisis by steering grain toward poor nations. Yet, according to Moscow, only a tiny percentage of the grain exported from Ukraine as part of the agreement was shipped to such nations, while the bulk of it ended up in Europe.
“Out of all the foodstuffs and grain in particular shipped away from the Ukrainian territory, only slightly more than three percent were delivered to the world’s poorest nations,” the Russian president said on Thursday. Now, many European nations have started forgoing Ukrainian grain, he told the Russian media, adding that it is the West and not Russia that “started discriminating against Ukrainian grain.”
Originally intended to last three months, the deal was prolonged numerous times over the past year, despite growing concerns repeatedly voiced by Moscow over its failure to provide any benefits for Russia. The Kremlin has repeatedly warned over the past month that it sees no reason to extend the deal, which is set to expire on July 17.
Vaccines galore
But is more better?
By Dr Ros Jones | Health Advisory & Recovery Team | July 9, 2023
The picture above may shortly be out of date when the latest monoclonal antibody against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is added to the CDC list. The US approach stands in stark contrast to Europe’s.
So another dilemma for parents of young children who have already laboured long and hard over whether to give their children a covid-19 vaccine – will their children need this latest new immunisation?
An RSV vaccine developed in the 1960s got as far as human trials, but had to be hastily withdrawn when it became apparent that subsequent disease was far worse in the vaccinated than the controls. As expected, the babies made a good antibody response and there were no obvious serious side effects. Fast forward a few months to the next autumn’s RSV season and sadly for the drug company and even more sadly for the babies and their families, the vaccinated group developed much more severe disease than the controls (18/20 vaccinated infants hospitalised with 2 deaths versus 0 deaths and 1 hospitalisation in the 21 controls gives placebo efficacy of 100% against death and 95% against hospitalisation – wonderful stuff that normal saline!) Animal studies with the RSV vaccine had already highlighted such problems.
Similar difficulties were seen in candidate vaccines for SARS (SARS-CoV-1). No less than four new coronarvirus vaccines produced after the SARS outbreak in 2003 looked hopeful initially, until the animals were exposed to the SARS virus. Although the vaccinated animals cleared the virus more rapidly, they developed severe eosinophil infiltrates in their lungs, in contrast to the control animals, highly suggestive of an immune overreaction in the presence of the virus (a Th2 helper cell hypersensitisation).
Dengue vaccines have had similar problems, with Dengvaxia withdrawn after the vaccinated group experienced much more severe disease the following season. In that case, the vaccine had been rolled out widely in the Philippines without awaiting the one-year trial follow-up, in a moment of political hubris which resulted in their Minister of Health facing criminal charges, but far more seriously it also resulted in the deaths of at least 10 healthy children.
What all these disasters had in common was a condition called ADE (Antibody Dependent Enhancement). In the presence of a large immune response, inflammatory markers are activated; this led to acquired respiratory distress in the case of the SARS vaccine, severe wheezing and airway inflammation in the case of the RSV vaccine, and a severe systemic reaction with the Dengue vaccine.
So what of this latest RSV prophylactic? There are two types, firstly monoclonal antibodies which give so-called passive immunisation i.e. the infant is given injections of antibodies to protect them against RSV in the early months of life but these just disappear naturally. There is an existing drug called palivizumab which has been around since 1998, so it is not clear why they need the new one, nirsevimab. The main advantage of the new product is that it is given as a single dose, rather than the monthly injections recommended for palivizumab, which makes it more practical, hence the new version has been authorised for all infants, rather than the high risk groups only for whom the monthly palivizumab injections were recommended. Nirsevimab was approved for use in the EU and the UK last November, following trials involving 3580 treated infants. The report combines various studies – one involving only infants at high risk from RSV such as preterm babies or those with heart or lung disease, for whom there was a reduction in hospitalisation from 4.1% in the placebo group to 0.8% in the nirsevimab group. A second study then recruited healthy low risk babies and for them the reduction in hospitalisations was only from 1.6% to 0.6%. There was a reduction in overall infections, but it is not clear whether that means these infants will simply get RSV infection the following winter. Having said that, most hospitalisations for this condition are in infancy. But as so often, it seems that no longer-term outcomes are required for approval to be given.
Interestingly, the FDA have yet to approve it, although their advisory committee last month voted 21:0 to recommend it for all infants. A worrying observation in the FDA approval paperwork was an increase in all cause deaths in the nirsevimab arm of the various trials (12/3710 (0.32%) nirsevimab versus 4/1797 (0.22%) controls). I could find no mention of this on the European Medicines Agency or MHRA websites, although the same drug company results were submitted.
Meanwhile in April, the FDA approved a new RSV vaccine from GlaxoSmith Klein(GSK), Arexvy for use in over 60s, followed in May by approval of a similar Pfizer vaccine, Abrysvo. As with Covid-19 vaccines, Pfizer gave results as relative risk reductions, so an encouraging 66.7% efficacy, but much less impressive when looking at the absolute risk reduction of 0.24% (from 0.36% to 0.12%) for symptomatic lower respiratory tract infections. The number of hospitalisations was too small to look at efficacy. More worrying is that looking at the supporting information on the FDA website reveals both vaccines showing an increase in atrial fibrillation compared to the placebo and also neurological adverse events, namely Guillain-Barré syndrome and Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis (ADEM) in the vaccinated group, with one fatality and one woman requiring 6-months hospitalisation. In two of the studies, flu vaccine and the new RSV vaccine were given simultaneously making it impossible to know which of the vaccines to blame.
The Pfizer Abrysvo RSV vaccine is expected to be approved by the FDA in August for pregnant women, for whose infants there was a 0.8% reduction in hospital admissions for RSV infection over the following 6 months (from 1.3% to 0.5%). But the independent panel vote was not unanimous, and concerns were raised about an increase in preterm births. Indeed, the GSK RSV vaccine trial for use in pregnancy was already stopped for this reason. Because this is proposed for use in the mothers, it will need a large number to vaccinate to prevent one infant hospitalisation, given most babies don’t go anywhere near hospital for this condition. It is not at all clear whether those infants whose mothers have already been vaccinated, will also be offered the monoclonal antibody in a ‘belt-and-brace’ approach or whether the two different types of preventative are simply to provide a choice. GSK have specifically said that they do not anticipate their vaccine being used in infants: ‘evidence from an animal model strongly suggests that AREXVY would be unsafe in individuals younger than 2 years of age because of an increased risk of enhanced respiratory disease’ (remember the 1967 vaccine, whereas the Pfizer document only says of Abrysvo, ‘Pediatric studies should be delayed until additional safety or effectiveness data have been collected’.
It is noteworthy that approval for the vaccines has progressed via the FDA’s Priority Review mechanism – the excuse for Covid-19 vaccines was of course that there was an emergency due to a novel and deadly virus sweeping across the world, with a saviour vaccine the only way out of endless lockdowns. But what is the possible excuse for a priority vaccine for RSV? This virus was first isolated in 1956 and was presumably around long before that. But of course, if we’d been listening, we would have heard Sir Patrick Vallance in 2014 saying “In the future, medicines will come to market quicker with less data, with more research being conducted in the post-license phase”. It seems that the future has arrived.
The plethora of new vaccines in the pipeline, in particular mRNA vaccines which will be developed at the new UK government-funded Moderna facility in Oxford, must be subject to the proper scrutiny which has sadly been totally lacking in recent years.
This begs the question: what of the multitude of existing vaccines shown so graphically in the picture at the top of this article? It struck me that as a retired paediatrician in my seventies, now being labelled by the government as a conspiratorial ‘antivaxxer’, I had of course only had 2 vaccines in my infancy, smallpox and diphtheria. At age 7, I received the new polio vaccine and as a 13-year-old BCG against tuberculosis (and that only after a negative skin test showed I wasn’t already naturally immune). And that was it, until I reached medical school where I got the new tetanus vaccine. Yellow fever and Typhoid vaccines followed for a student elective in South Africa and then nothing until Hepatitis B vaccine 20 years later.
The generation below mine had only diphtheria, tetanus and polio in infancy with measles at 13 months. This UK timeline makes interesting reading. But my grandchildren’s generation are apparently offered 15 in their preschool years (many of course are combinations so an 8-week infant is now vaccinated against 8 different diseases simultaneously). But this is still well below the number offered (and indeed mandated for many schools) to American children. Perhaps the JCVI are full of ‘anti vaxxers’, let alone the Danish authorities where infants are only vaccinated against 6 diseases and with a much more spaced out programme at 3, 5 and 12 months.
Can anyone point me to the randomised trials showing that this huge sum total of vaccines is beneficial in terms of overall outcomes? Because I have failed to find it. Instead I have found interesting articles such as that from the Bandim project in Guinea Bissau, where the delayed introduction of childhood vaccinations in the 1970s gave a natural control group. In collaboration with the Statens Institute in Denmark, they found that killed vaccines were associated with an increase in childhood mortality. Or this one comparing the infant mortality of the healthiest 30 countries by number of vaccines given, which certainly showed no support for the idea that more is better.
Figure 1: Mean infant mortality rates and mean number of vaccine doses 2009
Statements from WHO, Gates Foundation etc that vaccination has been the biggest life-saving breakthrough does beg the question: if the same amount of money and effort had been put into ensuring every child had access to clean drinking water and adequate food (the most basic physiological need in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs), then how many more lives would have been saved?
Would ‘Big Plumbers’ now be dominating public health policy?
Dr Ros Jones is a HART member and retired Consultant Paediatrician.
Poland’s right-wing Confederation soars in polls due to party’s skepticism on Ukraine, says senior academic
BY GRZEGORZ ADAMCZYK | WPOLITYCE.PL | JULY 10, 2023
The latest favorable polling for the right-wing Confederation party, which could see them become kingmakers in the Polish parliament after the next election, is mainly due to the party’s waning attitude towards Ukraine, says Prof. Henryk Dománski, a sociologist from the Polish Academy of Sciences (PAN).
Speaking with the wPolityce.pl news portal, Domański said the growing popularity for the nationalist group and economic libertarians was evidence that a rising number of Poles believe their government is doing too much for Ukraine.
The last poll placed the Confederation at 14 percent, giving a very real possibility the party could hold the balance of power after autumn’s parliamentary elections.
Domański said that many in Poland feel that the Ukrainians are privileged and getting too much from the Polish state at the expense of Poles. They also feel that Poland has over-engaged in the conflict.
“Confederation is the only party which is responding to these feelings and is not ashamed to be open about it,” said the academic, adding that the party is gaining votes at the expense of the ruling conservative Law and Justice (PiS) party.
Domański explained that it is not in the interests of Confederation to form a coalition with either the conservatives or the liberals after the election. He feels that any coalition with PiS would result in the Confederation having to compromise its stance on Ukraine and that would lead it to lose support.
“As an anti-establishment party, any coalition with parties perceived to be part of the establishment would be ruinous for Confederation,” he said.
According to polling research, the party has been polling most strongly among young men. However, as it rises in the polls, it is beginning to gain ground among women and older age groups.
Wind Industry Blackmails U.K. Demanding Huge Ramp-Up of Subsidies
BY WILL JONES | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | JULY 5, 2023
In a move that gives the lie to years of propaganda claiming falling costs, the wind industry’s leading lobbyists have written to the Government threatening to abandon the U.K. unless subsidies for their companies are hugely increased.
The industry lobbyists claim that unforeseen rising costs now require three actions:
- A revision to the auction rules so that the winners are not determined by lowest bids but by an administrative decision that weights bids according to their ‘value’ in contributing towards the Net Zero targets.
- Special new targets and thus market shares for floating offshore wind, one of the most expensive of all forms of generation;
- A vast increase in the budget for the fifth auction (AR5) of Contracts for Difference subsidies, with an increase of two and half times the current levels for non-floating offshore wind alone;
Such changes, were the Government to agree to them, would not only increase the total amount of subsidy to an industry that was until recently claiming no longer to need public support, but also provide the industry with protected shares of the energy market, eliminating risks for investors at the expense of the paying public. It would also clearly be an open invitation to corruption.
Climate lobby group Net Zero Watch has urged the Government to stand up for consumers by rejecting the wind industry’s latest demands.
Dr. John Constable, Net Zero Watch’s Energy Director, said: “It would be both absurd and counterproductive for Government to bail out the wind industry in spite of the evident failure to reduce costs. A refusal to learn from mistakes will be disastrous.”
In a press release, the organisation argued the Government should “reject the self-serving demands” because the U.K. economy should not be expected to continue to subsidise a sector “that is still uneconomic after nearly 20 years of above-market prices and guaranteed market share”.
“The wind experiment has failed and must be wound down,” it adds.
The Government should also be mindful that U.K. households and businesses are already experiencing extreme pressures on budgets, and a further burden on the energy bill should not be tolerated, it says.
This is particularly the case as the wind industry’s current cost difficulties are “neither unforeseen nor unpredicted but have been obvious to careful observers for over a decade”.
Europe Says No to China Decoupling
By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – 06.07.2023
Following active US diplomacy over the past few years, Europe seems to have now decided to say no to the US geopolitics of “decoupling” from China. This is nothing short of a major diplomatic blow for the US, although this blow has not received as much attention in the mainstream Western media due to its overt focus on events related to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The recent visit of Chinese Premier Li Qiang to Europe, where Li not only met the German Chancellor but also addressed a conference on development financing organised by French President Macron. More than that, the fact that two of the European Union’s most powerful states received and interacted with China’s number two became possible, first and foremost, because of the available space for continuing trade partnership with China. That is one key reason why the EU now favours the politics of “de-risking” rather than “de-coupling”.
While the idea of “de-risking” would literally mean reducing dependence on China – which some might see as a good sign – “de-risking” mainly means better management of trade and economic ties with China. After all, the EU sees China as an economic competitor. Therefore, devising new strategies to manage this competition makes perfect sense not only for the EU but also for China. As a leading US media outlet said in one of its reports, the EU has basically decided not to “piss China off.”
The real question is: Why is the EU, despite China’s overall pro-Russia position on Ukraine, devising a strategy that does not involve the kind of “decoupling” that the EU has effected vis-à-vis Russia in terms of energy supplies? There are several crucial reasons for the ongoing strategic rethinking in the EU vis-à-vis China.
First of all, the EU leaders tend to believe that China itself is eager to maintain stable economic ties with the EU. As opposed to Beijing’s estranged ties with the US, China intends to maintain a healthy, although competitive, environment with the EU. Doing this is very much possible since the EU is not as deeply entangled with China in geopolitical flashpoints, such as Taiwan and the South China Sea, as the US is. For the EU, therefore, continuing trade ties with China present an opportunity that should be exploited to the best possible extent, even if this continuation does not fit very well with the nature of the US-China ties.
Secondly, the EU is a 27-member bloc, which can be – in fact, it is – internally very diverse, with many EU countries following or favouring alternative policy positions. This internal divergence makes it extremely difficult for any given actor within the EU to impose its position on the bloc. This internal divergence also means that finding consensus on minimum common ground is equally difficult.
We have seen that German and French leaders have visited China in the recent past, but we have also repeatedly seen President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen taking a tougher position on China, showing how the three key EU leaders are not necessarily unanimous, making it extremely difficult for a) the US to make the bloc follow a single set of policies of “decoupling”, and b) the EU to devise its best China policy that stresses “de-coupling” over “de-risking”.
Even though some countries advocate a tougher position, the declaration of the latest EU summit in Brussels said that “Despite their different political and economic systems, the European Union and China have a shared interest in pursuing constructive and stable relations, anchored in respect for the rules-based international order, balanced engagement and reciprocity,” adding that Europe “does not intend to decouple or to turn inwards” or adopt policies “to harm China, nor to thwart China’s economic progress and development.”
Thirdly, the EU does not see the kind of interest that “decoupling” would yield for the bloc, as a potential “decoupling” would supposedly serve the US and harm the EU. Unlike the US, the EU, as it stands, is not trying to preserve its own hegemony by engaging China in a conflict.
Therefore, the EU’s stance – and the language it has been expressed in – is markedly different from the language the US officials normally used to report on their interaction with China. For instance, after Blinken met Chinese officials in June, he said he “warned” China about its foreign policies. Earlier in February, Blinken had sent yet another warning to China about its support for Russia.
But the EU, as is evident from the latest declaration, has a position that stresses cooperation over warnings and conflict. Although the EU disagrees with various policies of China, including its Ukraine stance, there is no desire within the bloc, on the whole, to pick a conflict with Beijing and deliver yet another economic blow to the continent, which is still not fully recovered from the effects of “decoupling” from Russia. “Decoupling” from China, therefore, will “kill”, to quote Hungary’s foreign minister, “Europe’s economy.” Various assessments prove this scenario.
For instance, the Seeheimer Circle, an official think tank inside the party of the German Chancellor, released a paper last April on Germany’s relationship with China calling for a “multi-dimensional” – that is, open – policy towards the Asian giant. An “abrupt end to trade relations with China” would be “an economic disaster,” the paper argued, rejecting an “anti-China strategy.”
Therefore, while a potential “decoupling” from China might help the US regain its position of economic and financial dominance at the global level, the EU sees no glory. The EU leadership is cognizant of this fact, which is why key EU leaders are not in line with the US. Instead, various EU pronouncements show an ongoing struggle within the bloc with regard to developing a strictly European strategic vision vis-à-vis China.
Is China’s export control a precise counterattack against US, Japan and the Netherlands?
Global Times | July 6, 2023
The measures taken by China in recent years to safeguard national security and interests have often been subjected to excessive interpretation and reaction from the US and Western countries. The recent decision by China to implement export controls on gallium and germanium-related items is no exception. Although Chinese authorities have said this is a common international practice and not targeted at any specific country, certain countries have felt “targeted,” leading to a series of doubts, questions, and even accusations.
There are mainly two points that these people are criticizing about. First, they believe that China is indeed targeting specific countries by precisely counterattacking the semiconductor equipment export controls imposed by the US, Japan and the Netherlands. Does this contradict China’s consistent opposition to the abuse of export controls? Second, they claim China’s actions may violate regulations of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and are detrimental to the stability of the semiconductor supply chain. Both of these points are baseless.
Whether it is a precise counterattack against the discriminatory policies of the US, Japan, and the Netherlands toward China can be left for them to ponder. It is nothing wrong to make those who have done bad things to China feel uneasy and unsettled. Gallium and germanium are key raw materials used in the production of semiconductors, missile systems, solar cells, and other high-tech products. If China exports them to these countries, but they prohibit the export of high-tech products made from these materials to China, this is clearly unfair in terms of trade. If the US uses them to produce high-end military equipment, it may even pose a threat to China’s national security. China’s export control is justifiable in terms of reason and law. It needs to be emphasized that this is entirely different from the US’ abuse of export controls.
China’s export control measures have always adhered to the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and non-discrimination, and are committed to maintaining the security and stability of the global production and supply chains. As for whether these measures violate WTO regulations this time, it is more of a technical issue. China is recognized as an exemplary member of the WTO, in sharp contrast with the US, who has trampled on WTO rules and principles. Despite having larger reserves of germanium than China, the US has protected germanium as a defense reserve resource since 1984 and has hardly conducted any mining activities. In a sense, China’s implementation of export controls on gallium and germanium may have come a bit late. China has no reason to excessively deplete its strategic resources to meet the demands of unfriendly countries.
Currently, there is an abnormal phenomenon in the international community. The US has engaged in too many acts of undermining international rules and seems to be unconcerned about the accumulating “debts.” It is a bit taken for granted. On the other hand, China’s legitimate actions are often magnified and exaggerated by external forces. What’s even more despicable is that the US often takes the lead in pointing fingers at China, without any sense of guilt or shame. The US, which seriously lacks a moral bottom line in the international arena, enjoys morally blackmailing China, which is truly absurd. Dealing with such a US, China also needs to adapt.
To contain and suppress China, the US has imposed various export restrictions on China to an unprecedented extent, and these restrictions are escalating and expanding. There are currently no signs of any easing or cessation. It is reported that the Biden administration is considering a new round of high-tech investment bans on China. When the US treats China in this way, it should not expect China to remain silent and not fight back; that is impossible. However, China will not be as unscrupulous and rule-breaking as the US. Nevertheless, we do have a considerable toolbox to retaliate and make countries that harm China’s interests pay a price.
The US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen is about to visit China. Is China announcing the export control measures at this time to give Yellen a warning? This is overthinking. China doesn’t need to do this, but it will not postpone or cancel planned measures just because a senior US official is coming to create a favorable atmosphere. That’s how things stand. The people who are most dramatic about China’s every move are often the ones with the strongest malicious intent toward China. Their interpretations are bound to be distorted, so it is necessary to make them feel uncomfortable.
Featured Video
Douglas Macgregor: No Peace – U.S. Prepares for ‘Total War’ Against Iran
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Review
Palantir CEO Calls for Draft to Fight the Empire’s Wars
Involuntary servitude is good for business
By Kurt Nimmo | Another Day in the Empire | April 20, 2026
In 2025, Alex Karp, the CEO of government and military tech contractor Palantir, published The New York Times best-seller, The Technological Republic: Hard Power, Soft Belief, and the Future of the West. The Wall Street Journal praised the book as a cri de coeur, a passionate appeal “that takes aim at the tech industry for abandoning its history of helping America and its allies,” while Wired praised the book as a “readable polemic that skewers Silicon Valley for insufficient patriotism.”
On April 18, 2026, Palantir posted twenty-two points to social media summarizing the book. In addition to taking Silicon Valley to task for insufficient patriotism, advocating a role for AI in forever war, and denouncing the “psychologization of modern politics,” the Palantir post on X declares: “National service should be a universal duty. We should, as a society, seriously consider moving away from an all-volunteer force and only fight the next war if everyone shares in the risk and the cost.”
National conscription, a form of involuntary servitude, and the wars it portends, is good for business, especially for corporations within the orbit of the Pentagon, the CIA, and the national security state. Palantir fits comfortably within this amalgamation. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- The Voters’ Self-Induced Matrix
- Douglas Macgregor: No Peace – U.S. Prepares for ‘Total War’ Against Iran
- How A Fake Iranian Terror Group Was Invented To Proscribe IRGC in Europe
- Iran’s judiciary rejects Trump’s claim on ‘planned execution’ of 8 women
- Israeli army blows up school in southern Lebanon in violation of ceasefire
- The desalination front: Water as Israel’s Achilles heel
- Washington cuts flow of US dollars to Iraqi central bank until ‘acceptable’ government formed
- China blames US for diplomatic impasse with Iran, urges it to show ‘sincerity’ in talks
- Iran announces new Hormuz restrictions after US ceasefire violations
- After Islamabad: How the Global South Is Reshaping Eurasian Geopolitics
- If Americans Knew
- Israeli soldiers using sexual assault to force Palestinians out of West Bank, report says
- Top Biden Official Supports Trump Iran Attack, Says Biden May Have Done The Same
- A history of Israel’s invasions of Lebanon
- How the powerful pro-Israel lobby keeps controlling Democrats in the US
- Replay: Israel’s slow ethnic cleansing of Christians from the Holy Land
- 5 times Israelis desecrated Christian sites in the past two years
- US running out of weaponry for Israel’s war; Iran has plenty – Daily Update
- Israel is (still) killing aid workers in Gaza
- Catholics finally splitting with Trump over Iran war and Israel
- Israel’s “Black Wednesday” Massacre Leaves Lebanese Families Giving DNA To ID Loved One’s Remains
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
- Reality Check: Maldives Have Actually Grown In Size Or Remained Stable Over Recent Decades
- Abrupt Climate Change Also Occurred NATURALLY In The Past …25 Times During Last Ice Age
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
- German Expert: Heat Dome Led To Record Temps In Western USA…Warmer In 1934, 1936
- New Study: No Linear Warming Or Glacier Retreat Along Northern Antarctic Peninsula Since 1980s
- An Inconvenient Tree: Uncovered In Alps… Europe Much Warmer Than Today 6000 Years Ago
- New Study Reports A 60% Slowdown In Greenland’s Ice Loss Rate In The Last Decade
- Low Intensity Tornado Wrecks Major Solar Farm, Creating A Potential Toxic Dump
Aletho News 