AstraZeneca claims it is not obligated to pay medical expenses for a woman injured by its COVID-19 vaccine during a clinical trial because the company is immune from liability under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act).
The British-Swedish vaccine maker is asking the court to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Brianne Dressen, who alleges the company reneged on its contract which promised to compensate clinical trial participants for injuries they sustained.
According to the lawsuit, AstraZeneca’s consent form for trial participants stated, “If you become ill or are injured while you are in this research study, you must tell your study doctor straight away. The study doctor will provide medical treatment or refer you for treatment.”
Dressen alleged she suffered injuries and disability as a direct result of her November 2020 vaccination, resulting in prohibitive medical costs — with one medication alone costing $432,000 a year. AstraZeneca offered her only $1,243.30 in compensation, prompting her to file the breach of contract claim.
In its motion to dismiss, AstraZeneca claimed it is fully immune from Dressen’s breach of contract claim under the PREP Act of 2005, which provides a liability shield to COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers.
“This action is barred by the PREP Act, which renders AstraZeneca ‘immune from suit and liability under Federal and State law with respect to all claims for loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the administration to or the use by an individual of a covered countermeasure,” the motion states.
According to AstraZeneca’s motion, the company did not waive its PREP Act immunity, but if it did, “any waiver would be strictly confined to ‘the costs of medical treatment for research injuries, provided that the costs are reasonable, and you did not cause the injury yourself.’”
AstraZeneca said Dressen’s claim that the company’s COVID-19 vaccine caused her neurological injuries falls outside the scope of such “research injuries.”
“This is a product liability case alleging personal injuries from the administration of AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine,” AstraZeneca said, seemingly distinguishing between “research injuries” and “personal injuries.”
AstraZeneca also said Dressen’s lawsuit should not be considered a breach-of-contract claim, but a product liability claim — which would preclude Dressen’s claim “under the Utah Product Liability Act’s two-year statute of limitations.”
Dressen’s opposition to AstraZeneca’s motion to dismiss disputed the product liability claim, stating, “AstraZeneca asks this Court to do what no court has ever done: grant ‘complete immunity’ for contractual violations so long as the violations relate to the administration of covered countermeasures under the PREP Act.”
The document cites precedent exempting breach-of-contract claims from the PREP Act’s immunity provisions. “Each court that has addressed claims of immunity for state contract claims has rightfully held that the PREP Act does not apply.”
Dressen also argued that AstraZeneca waived its immunity “by clearly and unmistakably promising to pay the cost of research injuries.”
In a reply brief filed last week, AstraZeneca repeated its original claims. “Plaintiff’s claims fall squarely within the scope of AstraZeneca’s PREP Act immunity and should be dismissed.”
A hearing on AstraZeneca’s motion to dismiss is scheduled for Oct. 29.
‘PREP Act wasn’t intended to excuse such fraudulent and illicit behavior’
The U.S. never granted emergency use authorization for the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, citing safety concerns.
In its motion to dismiss though, AstraZeneca claimed, “With the protections of the PREP Act in place, AstraZeneca and its partners successfully developed a lifesaving vaccine in a matter of months, an unprecedented scientific achievement.”
Ray Flores, a health freedom rights attorney unconnected to the lawsuit, told The Defender that the PREP Act’s liability shield for “covered countermeasures” extends to products being tested during clinical trials — but not in cases where there has been a breach of contract.
“A breach of contract such as this should obviously be excluded since the PREP Act is essentially a product liability protection statute,” Flores said.
He added:
“I’d like to think the PREP Act wasn’t intended to excuse such fraudulent and illicit behavior. But so far, under the guise of a pandemic emergency, the courts have determined that anything goes.
“This is the first PREP challenge that alleges a viable breach of contract. Since AstraZeneca’s guarantee was in writing, it has an excellent chance of winning.”
According to Dressen, two days after Dressen signed the consent form, AstraZeneca amended the form to state that its vaccine may cause “neurological disorders” such as “demyelinating disease,” which could “cause substantial disability” or death “if not treated promptly.”
Within hours of getting her first dose, Dressen experienced tingling in her right arm — a neurological condition known as paresthesia — and blurred vision and vomiting.
In the ensuing weeks, her condition worsened, with the paresthesia spreading to her legs, resulting in disability and multiple diagnoses indicating her symptoms were related to her vaccination.
Dressen, who was 39 when she was vaccinated, was previously a preschool teacher but is now unable to work.
In May, AstraZeneca announced the withdrawal of its COVID-19 vaccine globally — though the company said it based its decision on the “surplus of available updated vaccines,” resulting in reduced demand for its vaccine.
In an ongoing class-action lawsuit in the United Kingdom (U.K.) against AstraZeneca, plaintiffs allege that they were injured — or their family members died — after getting the shot.
According to The Telegraph, the U.K.’s Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme has approved 175 applications claiming harm caused by the COVID-19 vaccines, at a set amount of 120,000 pounds (approximately $156,000) per claim, adding that “Around 97 per cent of claims awarded relate to the AstraZeneca jab.”
Nations which maintain economic ties with Russia risk secondary sanctions if they allow Russian banks to open local branches to facilitate bilateral trade, the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) stated on Friday.
The measures are aimed at closing workarounds that Moscow is said to be using to circumvent the existing sanctions. The Treasury Department has claimed that the Russian authorities are utilizing vague schemes to pay for dual-use goods that are allegedly imported from the third states.
“Treasury is aware of Russian efforts to facilitate sanctions evasion by opening new overseas branches and subsidiaries of Russian financial institutions,” the statement reads.
The department urged foreign regulators and financial institutions to be “cautious about any dealings with overseas branches or subsidiaries” of Russian banks, including efforts to set up new branches or subsidiaries, having warned that it has a range of tools to target “the establishment of new evasion channels.” The measure is aimed at Russian banks that are not sanctioned yet.
Washington has introduced several rounds of sanctions which target the interaction of foreign banks with Russian companies and financial organizations since the escalation of the Ukrainian conflict in February 2022.
Last December, US President Joe Biden ordered the introduction of so-called secondary sanctions against financial institutions that allegedly support Russia’s defense sector.
At the time, the US administration blacklisted over 4,500 Russian entities in an effort to force foreign lenders not to work with them.
In June, the White House expanded the scope of the crackdown on foreign banks that do business in Russia, targeting any such institution that works with any sanctioned entity in the country with the updated policy. At the same time, the US imposed sanctions on the subsidiaries of VTB, Sberbank, Promsvyazbank and Vnesheconombank in China, Kyrgyzstan and India.
The US and its allies have introduced a record number of restrictions against Moscow since 2014, when Crimea rejoined Russia and a conflict between Ukraine and the Donbass republics broke out as the result of a Western-backed coup in Kiev. Last week, Washington announced additional restrictions against 400 individuals and companies in Russia, Asia, Europe and the Middle East, accusing them of supporting Moscow’s military-industrial supply chains.
Commenting on the move, Russia’s Ambassador to the US Anatoly Antonov said that the sanctions are fruitless and continue to harm US domestic consumers, as well as America’s partners in third countries. Moscow has repeatedly called the curbs illegitimate, and responded with travel bans on Western officials and other moves.
The Power of Siberia pipelines transporting natural gas from Russia to China were back in the news this week, as was the ill-fated Nord Stream pipeline, the Russian-European counterpart.
First, it was announced the Power of Siberia 2 was on track for completion this year. When operational, the new pipeline will augment existing trans-Siberian delivery to China, bringing the total gas supply from Russia to 100 billion cubic meters per year.
That awesome gas supply figure is significant. For not too long ago it was projected that the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines would have a combined capacity to deliver 100 bcm to Europe. Alas, that energy project was sabotaged in September 2022 when the gas pipes were blown up on the Baltic seabed. Veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh and other writers have provided the most compelling account of the sabotage. It was carried out by American military and CIA operatives with the approval of President Joe Biden. See our weekly editorial published on September 30, 2022, days after the incident in which we outlined strong evidence inculpating Washington.
It was an audacious act of international state terrorism carried out by the Americans to destroy the decades-old energy trade between Russia and Europe. In particular, Germany’s postwar economic prowess was powered by relatively cheap and abundant Russian hydrocarbons. Now, the United States has stepped in as a supplier of much more expensive Liquefied Natural Gas to Europe.
Incredibly, no serious investigation has been carried out by European states to find the culprit. Russia, which was the main owner of the multi-billion euro project, has offered to cooperate with European states to investigate the blast, but all of Moscow’s offers have been rebuffed.
You could hardly make this criminal farce up. For years, the Americans enviously griped about Russia being the strategic energy supplier to Europe. With the escalation of the proxy war against Russia in Ukraine in February 2022, the Americans and their European NATO lackeys had a convenient pretext for blowing up the Nord Stream pipes.
The net result is that Germany’s economy – once the powerhouse of the European Union – has been dragged to its knees from the loss of its vital energy input from Russia. Germany is teetering on recession and its famed export-led industries are no longer competitive.
Yet despite this blatant crime, the political establishments in Germany and other countries directly affected by the Nord Stream vandalism – Sweden and Denmark – remain pathetically beholden to Washington. Two years after a huge transgression against Europe and Russia by the obvious culprit, the European authorities have dissembled and procrastinated.
Last week, Germany issued an arrest warrant for a Ukrainian diver whom it claims was involved in the undersea attack. This is a variant of previous claims in the American media that the Nord Stream sabotage was carried out by Ukrainian operatives. This narrative is absurd and an obvious distraction from the real story. There is no way that such a difficult operation could have been achieved by a bunch of amateurs. The Nord Stream sabotage required state-level expertise. The Americans also had an imperative motive – to force their way into the lucrative European energy market.
All of this is a tragicomedy. Russia’s fair and advantageous services have been perversely spurned by Europeans under the malign spell of American overseers. The European governments and media can’t even muster the courage or independence to conduct a proper investigation into the wanton destruction of their economies.
However, Russia has not been deterred or undermined. Far from it, unlike Germany and other recession-hit European states, Russia is growing at a robust rate. A large part of the benefit stems from the Russian energy trade now being directed to Asia.
China is gaining where Europe lost. The expanding Power of Siberia projects represent the loss of Nord Stream.
The foolishness of the European political class is stunning. By slavishly following the self-serving American hegemonic policy, the Europeans have fueled a war in Ukraine, the biggest war on the continent since World War Two. This conflict threatens to devastate the European Union.
The stupid European leaders have shot their countries in the foot. Instead of embracing a mutual partnership with Russia, they have opted for the American agenda of confrontation for which they are paying dearly with economic and political ruination.
European citizens know that their interests have been betrayed by elitist leaders who are in hock to American overlords.
There is a tangible sense of poetic justice. Russia’s strategic energy resources – the most prodigious on Earth – are fueling the expansion of an Eurasian economic juggernaut and the multipolar paradigm. This is leading to the accelerated demise of Western unipolar dominance.
The Americans and Europeans fret about the rise of China and Eurasia and how they will not be able to compete economically. A large part of the Western demise is caused by its own foul play and duplicity.
The tale of two pipelines, the Power of Siberia and Nord Stream, speaks volumes.
Western sanctions against Russia have yielded results that are the opposite of their stated goal, metals tycoon Alisher Usmanov has said.
In an interview with the Italian newspaper Corriere Della Sera on Thursday, the Russian billionaire argued that the sanctions regime has so far done more harm to the European Union countries than to Russia.
“They wanted to harm the Russian economy, and here it is growing. They wanted to punish the business elite, and the Russians brought the money back home. The Russian economy is adapting to the sanctions, while neighboring markets are suffering. Europe rejects Russian energy resources and is forced to buy them at a much higher price,” Usmanov told the publication.
Russia’s economy expanded 3.6% in 2023 despite the economic sanctions imposed by the EU, the US and their allies since the start of the special operation in Ukraine in 2022. The EU’s economic powerhouse Germany went through a recession last year, while the bloc’s other large economies, France and Italy, posted growth of under 1%.
Following the sanctions and the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline in September 2022 that led to a dramatic drop in Russia’s gas supplies to the EU, the bloc started buying liquified natural gas (LNG) from the US. According to estimates published by Russia’s Energy Ministry, American LNG is 30-40% more expensive than Russian pipeline gas.
Usmanov also condemned the EU sanctions policy that targets individuals deemed close to the Russian leadership.
The West has made “a colossal mistake” by persecuting Russian businessmen for political reasons, because “they do not influence decision-making,” argued the tycoon.
The Uzbekistan-born businessman was added to the UK, EU, and US sanction lists shortly after the launch of Moscow’s military operation in Ukraine, along with several other prominent business figures.
The restrictions have made Russian investments abroad impossible, the billionaire lamented, adding that the businessmen from the sanctions-hit country now invest mainly at home.
Usmanov was awarded the title of Commander of the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic in 2017 for financing the restoration of a massive architectural complex – the Trajan’s Forum in Rome, which dates to the early 2nd century AD.
“Sanctions are a sign of impotence,” stated the businessman, adding that the peace in Ukraine can only be achieved through compromise and negotiations.
Usmanov holds a stake in the iron ore and steel giant Metalloinvest, as well as in the telecommunications company MegaFon. Usmanov’s net worth totals $13.8 billion, making him among the world’s 100 wealthiest people, according to Forbes.
Taiwan’s local authorities proposed increasing the island’s defense spending to a record NT$647 billion ($20.2 billion) next year, an increase of 7.7% from 2023 that accounts for 2.45% of estimated GDP in 2025.
The defense spending hike, proposed by the island’s local leader, Lai Ching Te, is the continuation of a trend set by his predecessor, Tsai Ing-wen. During her tenure between 2016 and 2024, Tsai pushed through seven consecutive increases, almost doubling the island’s defense budget.
The US is forcing the island to step up its military spending, citing an alleged “threat” of China’s “invasion.” China considers the island as its inalienable territory.
While the US had stayed deliberately ambiguous in its vows to defend the island since 1979, the Trump and Biden administrations appeared to voice nothing short of clear deterrence commitments.
The Taiwan Enhancement Resilience Act (TERA), signed by President Biden on 23 December 2022, authorized $2 billion of annual military grant assistance to the island from 2023 to 2027. The US even attempted to designate the island a “major non-NATO ally.”
In April 2024, the US authorized another $8 billion in military aid for Taiwan and other allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific. US weapons are now directly transferred from the Pentagon stockpiles to the island under the Presidential Drawdown Authority.
Over the past several years, Taiwan has, in particular, acquired 108 General Dynamics’ M1A2T Abrams tanks ($2.2 billion), 66 Lockheed Martin’s F-16V fighter jets ($8 billion) and 29 M142 HIMARS systems ($1.06 billion) from the US. US Big Five arm-makers have boasted of increased profits stemming from the US-driven tensions in Europe, Middle East and Asia-Pacific.
China strongly opposes Washington’s push for Taiwan’s militarization, saying this “sends a wrong signal to the Taiwan separatist forces.”
The CDC is using new, questionable techniques to declare a ‘COVID surge’ and stoke fears. Coincidentally, a new booster hits the market as students head back to school. Jefferey Jaxen reports.
The demand by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party for extradition of the deposed Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina from India comes as no surprise. The party is apprehensive that the current antipathy toward Hasina in the country may dissipate sooner than later once the joyous ‘second revolution’ in the country collides with the sobering reality that the complex problems of development in Bangladesh are intractable and the expectations are pitched sky-high.
An analogous situation would be what’s happening in Georgia. The fizz went out of the 2003 US-backed ‘Rose revolution’ a long time ago. During its first decade, Georgia went through several political crises. Waves of protest erupted as the economy tanked, corruption and venality deepened, rule of law tumbled, and the misrule and anarchic conditions brought the country down on its knees. The icon of the colour revolution, Mikhail Saakashvili, was literally driven out of power into exile. The party that emerged out of the wreckage of the colour revolution in a free and fair election, Georgia Dream, sought rapprochement with Russia, as realisation dawned that Georgia’s future was in good relations with its giant neighbour.
Washington recently tried to repeat the colour revolution, but Tbilisi countered it ingeniously by enacting a law that all foreign contributions to NGOs must be audited—exposing in one stroke the fifth column and sleeper cells. Georgians made the point that they have had enough of colour revolutions.
These are early post-revolution days in Bangladesh. The twenty-something starry-eyed students are now aspiring to form a new political party to rule the country of 170 million. Meanwhile, criminal cases are being filed against Hasina. The powers that be seem to fear that, some day, Hasina may stage a comeback. In reality though, what they have to guard against is something entirely different.
For, the chronicle of colour revolutions tells a sordid tale of failed states. Next door, Myanmar is in the US’s crosshairs, where they are financing and arming an insurgency with Western mercenaries providing expertise. Last Friday, two senior US officials met in Washington virtually with the shadow of Myanmar’s National Unity government consisting of an opposition that is willing to act as proxies, politicians and a clutch of ethnic rebel groups.
According to the US state department, the two officials “reiterated that the United States will continue to expand direct support and assistance to pro-democracy actors” including to “develop concrete steps towards a full transition to civilian governance that respects the will of the people of Burma”.
One of the two officials was Tom Sullivan—White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan’s little brother—who is a senior advisor to Secretary of State Antony Blinken and holds the position of deputy chief of staff for policy at the state department. The second official was Michael Schiffer, assistant administrator of the USAID bureau for Asia, a former Pentagon official who handles Indo-Pacific strategy, crafting new plans for engagement in central and southeast Asia. The consultations on Friday messaged unambiguously that the Myanmar file is a priority in the Indo-Pacific strategy and the US is robustly pushing the regime change agenda.
Colour revolutions take myriad forms. If in Georgia—and more recently in Hong Kong and Thailand — it appeared in the classic mould of non-violent street protests, in Ukraine in 2014 it took a hybrid form where agents provocateurs secretly positioned in the Kiev city square opened fire in the night of February 20 and killed 108 civilian protesters and 13 police officers. That gruesome incident in mysterious circumstances became the tipping point as democratically-elected President Viktor Yanukovych lost nerve and fled in panic.
When it comes to Myanmar, the US is instigating regime change through a guerrilla war. After Afghanistan and Syria, this is the first time Washington is using the technique of insurgency. But sanctuaries are needed next door for staging insurgencies—like Pakistan and Turkey in the earlier cases.
Hence the importance of the northern borderlands of Thailand, which is part of the Golden Triangle, a large mountainous region that gives cover to the drug mafia and human traffickers, and has a sizeable refugee population from Myanmar. But the attempted colour revolution in Bangkok got squashed through constitutional methods by the entrenched ruling elite. Therefore, the regime change in Bangladesh has come as a windfall for Western intelligence.
The encirclement of China with unfriendly states is the unspoken agenda of the US. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s visit to Myanmar and Thailand last week highlighted the criticality of the situation. Wang Yi called the situation “worrying”, and suggested that neighbouring countries should promote cooperation with Myanmar to create economic and social conditions that prevent conflict. He said neighbouring countries “sitting in the same boat and drinking water from the same river” have a better understanding of Myanmar’s situation than others.
If Bangladesh gets sucked into the conflict in Myanmar, the security implications for India can be very daunting, especially due to the religious dimension, what with the Rohingya refugee problem and the activities of Christian evangelicals in the remote tribal tracts in the region. There is a high probability that the collapse of the state structure may result in the eventual fragmentation of Myanmar. It is extremely short-sighted to imagine that Myanmar is China’s problem, not India’s.
Suffice to say, the regime change in Bangladesh will destabilise India’s eastern periphery. It is a moot point whether the US agenda in Bangladesh is ‘India-centric’. American geo-strategies invariably serve American interests, and are impervious to the collateral damage they inflict on others.
The Biden administration wasn’t punishing Germany, America’s closest NATO ally, by destroying the Nord Stream gas pipelines; rather, it was burying in the seabed a potential Russian-German alliance in the heart of Europe. Similarly, Washington should have no conceivable reason to punish rising India; rather, American officials keep saying that the partnership is among the “most consequential in the world”. With the US’s towering presence in the Bay of Bengal, India must constantly guard against the fate of Icarus in Greek mythology.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has announced he would back Republican candidate Donald Trump and end his independent run for president, but only in swing US states.
The son of Senator Robert Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy first tried to challenge President Joe Biden for the Democratic nomination last April. Faced with obstruction within the party, he announced a third-party bid last October.
“Many months ago I promised the American people I would withdraw from the race if I became a spoiler,” Kennedy said on Friday afternoon. “In my heart, I no longer believe I have a realistic path to electoral victory.”
Kennedy said that three major issues led him to leave the Democrats: “free speech, the war in Ukraine, and the war on our children.” Trump, he explained, has “adopted these issues as his own to the point where he has asked to enlist me in his administration.”
The party two of his grandfathers helped build has become “the party of war, censorship, corruption, big pharma, big tech, big money,” Kennedy said.
He also accused the US government – led by Democrats on both occasions – of staging a coup in Ukraine in 2014 and rejecting a peace plan in 2019, pushing Kiev into a conflict with Moscow that, according to Kennedy, has cost over 600,000 Ukrainian lives so far.
“Ukraine is a victim of this war, and it’s a victim of the West,” he said.
Kennedy also criticized Vice President Kamala Harris for not having won “a single delegate” during the 2020 race, avoiding interviews, and not having a policy platform but a campaign focused entirely on opposing Trump.
Democrats have filed lawsuits to keep Kennedy off the ballot in many states, forcing his campaign to spend millions on ballot access challenges, according to NBC News.
In practical terms, Kennedy explained, he would be removing his name from the ballot in swing states while continuing to run in solidly “red” or “blue” states so his supporters can still cast a ballot without “harming or helping” anyone. His campaign has reportedly already filed petitions to that effect in Arizona and Pennsylvania.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. today suspended his campaign for president of the United States as an independent, telling the media he no longer saw a path forward to victory “in the face of relentless censorship.”
Kennedy said that following discussions with former President Donald Trump, he has agreed to join forces with Trump in a unity party, which will allow the two to work together on “existential issues,” including ending the war on Ukraine, censorship and the childhood chronic disease epidemic.
“I believe I have a moral obligation to use this opportunity to save millions of children,” Kennedy said.
Kennedy, founder and chairman on leave from Children’s Health Defense — whose campaign defied the odds by gathering more than 1 million signatures in a drive to get on the ballot in all 50 states — said he will remain on the ballot except in a handful of battleground states.
Kennedy delivered a scathing rebuke to the Democratic Party and the DNC, which he said “dragged us into court, state after state after state” in a campaign of “legal warfare” to keep him off the ballot.
He promised that if Trump is elected, in addition to ending chronic disease in children, he will work with Trump to clean up corrupt agencies and the “corrupt food system.”
Kennedy said he reached out to the Harris campaign in an attempt to engage them on issues he believes are critical to the country’s future, but the campaign didn’t respond.
Calling it a difficult choice to join the Trump campaign Kennedy said, “I have the certainty that this is what I’m meant to do. … Ultimately the only thing that will save our country and our children is if we choose to love our kids more than we hate each other.”
Kennedy launched his campaign on April 20, 2023, with a nearly two-hour speech in Boston, during which he vowed to reduce chronic disease in children.
He reminded the audience of the obligation America’s leaders have to protect children — from toxic pesticides, from dangerous pharmaceuticals and from the “corrupt merger of state and corporate power” that robs future generations of their health and of their ability to achieve financial security.
On Oct. 9, 2023, Kennedy said he would no longer challenge President Joe Biden for the Democratic nomination for U.S. president, announcing that he instead would run for president as an independent.
He told a crowd in Philadelphia that most Americans are tired of divisive politics and that they agree more than they disagree when it comes to issues like the environment, education and the economy.
“We agree that we want a clean environment and wholesome communities for our kids,” Kennedy said.
He accused both parties of being beholden to corporate donors.
NEW YORK – Russia has called on the UN Security Council to adopt a new decision on ceasefire in Gaza, after failure to implement the decision proposed by the United States and approved by the Council last June.
Dmitry Polyanskiy, the deputy permanent representative of Russia at the United Nations, criticized the US efforts to impose a different agreement from Resolution No. 2735 that was approved by the Security Council on June 10.
“Israel is now insisting on keeping the idea of a military presence in Gaza, including its control of the crossing with Egypt and the Philadelphia axis, and as we note that such a change in the features of the agreement is something that is opposed by countries in the region,” he said.
Polyanskiy also accused Israel of obstructing the entry of humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip, stressing that the current military operations of the Israeli army have caused an unprecedented level of killing and destruction among Palestinian civilians in a complete violation of the law.
“The US Secretary of State’s statements aim to market illusions, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu deliberately obstructs efforts to reach an agreement to end the war, by setting conditions that contradict what was previously agreed upon,” Hamas Political Bureau member Hossam Badran said in press statements on Thursday.
Badran considered the US Secretary of State’s statements about the Israeli approval of the amended proposal as “a kind of deception and marketing of illusions.”
The member of the Hamas Political Bureau confirmed during a TV interview that these statements clearly reflect the stubborn Israeli positions, as the proposals put forward by the US Secretary of State were not accepted by the Israeli authorities. On the contrary, Netanyahu has repeatedly announced his conditions and requirements that are in stark contrast to everything that was previously agreed upon, especially with regard to the July 2, 2024 paper.
Badran explained that the US Secretary of State appears to be speaking on behalf of Netanyahu, while all indications say that Netanyahu is the main obstacle to reaching any agreement, and this is confirmed by the statements of the Israeli army minister himself.
Asked about possible options to bridge the gaps in the negotiations, Badran said that the Palestinian demands have always been clear and specific, adding that “we agreed to the proposal presented on July 2, and that the mediators had pledged at the time that the Palestinian resistance’s approval of that paper would bring approval from the occupation,” explaining that if the US is serious about achieving a ceasefire or reaching an agreement, it must abide by what it had previously offered and agreed upon.
He further stressed that pressure must be directed towards Netanyahu, who refuses to abide by international demands calling for an end to the war.
Badran reiterated that “the US is not just a mediator in this conflict, but a real partner in the war against the Palestinian people,” saying that the US support for Israel goes beyond armament and funding, to include political, diplomatic and media support.
Badran stressed that the Palestinian resistance will not give Netanyahu the opportunity to manipulate through empty negotiation rounds, stressing that the resistance will continue to defend the Palestinian people with all its capabilities and abilities.
Given that official Washington seems increasingly determined to fight Beijing over Taiwan, concerned Americans are right to wonder: how did the question of Taiwan come to be of such purported importance to these global powers?
While several closer islands, such as the Penghu (or the Pescadores as they are now known), were incorporated into the Chinese polity during the period of Ming blue water exploration in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, Formosa (or Taiwan as it came to be known) never was.
After shuttering its large scale naval activities in the mid-fifteenth century, the Ming were thereafter largely content to let the rival trading companies of the Portuguese and Dutch quarrel for influence on Formosa, where trade revolved around tea and camphor.
In an odd bit of history repeating itself, the island first became a central focus of a ruling mainland Chinese regime as a result of a civil war that needed concluding: displaced by the invading Manchurian forces (the eventual Qing), in 1661 what remained of the Han, Ming ruling clique retreated to Formosa. It was following their ultimate defeat in 1683 that Formosa started to become ethically and administratively integrated into China (a process completed around a century later).
Despite its import as a trading hub in the centuries thereafter, when the Japanese took possession of Formosa at the end of the First Sino-Japanese War (1894-95), per the terms of the Treaty Shimonoseki (1885), the island’s new rulers found a society, economy, and polity virtually untouched by modernity.
And while initially brutal, putting down an anti-Japanese insurgency of emigre Han Chinese and native Taiwanese, the Japanese colonial administration of the island, which lasted until the end of World War II, would see the island transformed into an educated, urbanized, and rationalized society with living standards far higher than on the mainland.
Despite the increasing gap, most Taiwanese, whose cultural links with the mainland were still strong, were open to rejoining mainland China when the war finally ended—although it is worth noting that this willingness proved short-lived, the Kuomintang (KMT) regime needing to viciously suppress a mass uprising against its terrible misrule in 1947.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt, at whose feet a great deal of blame for a whole host of problems may be laid, also laid the foundation stone for misadventure in dealing with China, including Taiwan.
Indeed, while there was a reasonable possibility that Taiwan could have been its own independent country at the end of the Second World War, it was FDR and his successor, Harry Truman, who ensured this would not happen.
Ignoring the wisdom of multiple of his predecessors, who had refused to get involved either in internal Chinese squabbles or its feuds with neighboring Japan, FDR began supporting the KMT regime of Chiang Kai-Shek.
Mao had, at least on one occasion, expressed ambivalence, stating for the record in 1936 that he did not consider Taiwan to be a “lost territory.”
However, at a meeting in Cairo (1943) FDR acquiesced to Chiang Kai-Shek’s insistence that Taiwan be returned to China. Once that had happened, and once Harry Truman safeguarded his retreat in Taiwan, the calculation from Beijing’s perspective changed.
As in the seventeenth century case of the Ming and Qing, no government claiming to be the legitimate government of China could brook the continued existence of a rival claimant to the title occupying a large island fortress less than one hundred miles from the mainland shore.
Virtually all the primary and secondary sources are in agreement: the outbreak of mass war in Korea led to the fate of Taiwan being drawn into the Cold War paradigm. From official histories to revisionist and post revisionist accounts, whatever the particular nuances of the account in question, including libertarian realists who point to the domestic political incentive structures that principally drove foreign policy decision-making, the decision to fight the Cold War made certain Taiwan would be an American protectorate following Chiang and the KMT’s flight to the island following their loss of the Chinese Civil War to Mao and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
To be sure, there were many voices in the State Department who had championed abandoning the incompetent, corrupt, and brutal Chiang and simply making the best of things with the communist government they saw as inevitably on their way to winning the resumed Chinese Civil War—these would mostly be purged or resign during the (second) red scare, however, and the constraining Cold War atmosphere that followed meant that possible openings to China were unable to be grasped.
That this logical move, to exploit the growing divisions between Moscow and Beijing, was unable to be grasped by eager Cold Warriors was largely due to the efforts of the “China Lobby,” the supporters of “free China,” or the Republic of China on Taiwan.
Some, like New York businessman Alfred Kohlberg, had financial interests at stake; others, like the former U.S. Ambassador to China Patrick J. Hurley, had personal and ideological commitments; still others, like Senators Barry Goldwater and William Knowland, combined these factors; while media magnate Henry Luce, owner of Time and Life, ensured high profile oppositional platforms. They combined to resist moves to normalize relations with Beijing and abandon Taiwan, despite the desire of several White House administrations to do precisely that.
As authoritative, mainstream historians, such as Nancy Bernkopf Tucker, readily admit, it was these forces that made the clean break with the authoritarian and provocative Taipei regime, desired by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter, impossible.
When Ronald Reagan, a rabid Taiwan champion, won the White House it cemented the unhealthy status quo.
Taiwan continues to enjoy a strong lobbying presence on Capital Hill, abetted now by the complex of think tanks aligned with military industrial and foreign governmental interests. None of them are ever going to say something so obvious as the truth: the fate of Taiwan has literally nothing to do with the well-being of the American people or even the American state in general.
It is about power—Washington’s power, specifically.
As Dave DeCamp reported back in 2021, a fundamental change came over official Washington during the Donald Trump years: no longer was Taiwan viewed as a “problem” in Sino-American relations. Rather, it was viewed as an “opportunity” to advance Washington’s anti-Beijing, containment agenda.
Americans should be made aware of this fact; the only thing China “threatens” is Washington’s attempted domination of the region through its network of clients.
Taiwan is increasingly front and center in this battle.
For its part, Taiwan has remained since the 1950s a primary objective of Beijing and this is unlikely to ever change.
Has the thin line between proxy war and direct war now been eliminated? I spoke with Colonel Douglas Macgregor as NATO’s direct involvement in the war is evident with its involvement in the invasion of Russia.
Russia has restrained itself to a large extent as retaliating against NATO could trigger another world war and possible nuclear exchange, although the failure to retaliate emboldens NATO and results in subsequent escalations. Even Zelensky referred to the failure of Russia to respond to the invasion of Kursk as a reason for why NATO should not fear stepping over more Russian red lines. Colonel Macgregor suggests that the assumption of the US and NATO being all-powerful will continue to contribute to reckless escalations in the war against Russia – but also in the Middle East, and against China.
Most Ukrainian, Western and Russian observers seemed to recognise during the first days of the invasion of Kursk that it was a mistake. Ukrainian troops emerged out of well-defended frontlines and could be easily targeted in the open and with poor supply lines. As this is a war of attrition, it is likely a huge mistake to throw away Ukraine’s best soldiers and NATO’s military equipment on territory that is not strategic and cannot be held. However, the propaganda machine has since been turned on and the war is now sold to the Western public as a great opportunity to improve negotiation power, to develop a buffer zone, and to humiliate Putin – although none of these arguments can stand up to scrutiny.
The Ukrainian and NATO invasion of Kursk has changed the war completely as the Ukrainian causalities have increased dramatically, the Ukrainian defensive lines in Donbas are now collapsing even faster, and NATO’s role in the war is no longer ambiguous. This is all happening as internal divisions in NATO are surfacing, and the US/Israel will likely trigger a regional war in the Middle East.
They say history is written by the victors, but the Crusades offer an interesting historical contrast: a two-century collision that produced not one history, but two parallel, irreconcilable realities. The dates and the battles are identical in both accounts, but the moral axis is entirely flipped.
In the traditional Western narrative, the Crusades are framed as a heroic, if tragic, epic. The First Crusade is a pious pilgrimage; the knights are romanticized figures of chivalry in shining armor, bravely holding the line in a hostile, exotic land. The eventual loss of the Holy Land is mourned as the “fall of Outremer,” a tragic retreat of European civilization. In this telling, the East is often reduced to a passive backdrop, its inhabitants viewed through a lens of mystique or backwardness, mere obstacles to a divine mandate.
But cross the Mediterranean, and the exact same timeline reads like a chronicle of foreign invasion and eventual, hard-won restoration against the barbarous northerners. The dates do not change, but the adjectives do. Here is the history as it is remembered in the Levant… continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 