CAPITALISM IN SPACE

Of course billionaires like Elon Musk love outer space. The Earth is too small for their egos

This week, Musk’s SpaceX will launch the first US astronauts into space in nine years. We’re meant to be inspired, but back on the ground the workers are struggling

Arwa Mahdawi  THE GUARDIAN Wed 27 May 2020
 

Astronauts Douglas Hurley (left) and Robert Behnken, part of Nasa and SpaceX’s joint mission. Photograph: Nasa/Kim Shiflett/PA

Here is the bad news: Earth is a bit of a mess at the moment. Here is the good news: there is still an entire universe out there for humans to destroy. And thanks to the ingenuity of a few space-obsessed billionaires, we might be poised to destroy it sooner rather than later.

On Wednesday, Elon Musk’s SpaceX company will (unless bad weather delays things) launch astronauts into orbit from US soil; the first time that has happened in nine years. It’s one small step for man, but one giant leap for the commercial space industry. We are at the beginning of a new era of privatised, and mainly billionaire-backed, space exploration. Musk has SpaceX; Jeff Bezos has Blue Origin; Richard Branson has Virgin Orbit.

There are some people who find billionaires with big rockets very inspirational. Axios’s space reporter, for example, opined: “If SpaceX can pull it off, its first crewed flight … will mark a beacon of hope in an otherwise dark time for the world.” Hope for whom, I want to know? The World Bank estimates that between 40 and 60 million people will fall into extreme poverty (earning less than $1.90 a day) in 2020, thanks to Covid-19. What hope, exactly, does a rocket blasting into space provide when you can’t put food on your plate?

Of course, space exploration is not a zero-sum game. You can solve problems on Earth while also trying to expand humanity’s understanding of the universe. However, a lot of billionaires seem far more interested in colonising – and profiting from – space than they do in making life more bearable for their workers. Last year, for example, Bezos cut health benefits for 2,000 part-time workers at his grocery store Whole Foods, saving him a few million. He did that after boasting that he is so rich, “the only way that I can see to deploy this much financial resource is … space travel”.

Seriously, if you think that billionaires are exploring space for the good of humankind then I have a bridge on Mars I can sell you. They are doing it for their ego and the commercial opportunity. They are doing it because they think they, quite literally, are the masters of the universe.

British newborn first baby in world to join cannabis therapy trial


Norwich hospital in Europe-wide trial using plant ingredients to counter risk of seizures and brain injury


Ben Quinn THE GUARDIAN Wed 27 May 2020
 

Chelsea Parodi with her baby, Oscar, and grandmother, Christine Bell, left, at Norwich university hospital. Oscar is getting cannabis-derived medicine in a clinical trial. Photograph: Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital/PA

A newborn boy who was delivered by emergency caesarean section in March at a Norwich hospital became the first baby in the world to join a cannabis-derived treatment trial.

The study is the first step in what researchers say could one day lead to a cannabis-derived medicine being used routinely in neonatal care to help babies at risk of seizures and brain injury.

The baby, Oscar Parodi, was delivered on 11 March at Norfolk and Norwich university hospital (NNUH). He was unexpectedly born in a poor condition and needed to be transferred to the neonatal intensive care unit, where he had cooling therapy for 72 hours.

His mother, Chelsea Parodi, from Watton, Norfolk, said: “I was approached after the birth about taking part in this study and I consulted my mum and my brother who is training to be a paramedic. It was hard but I wanted to do everything I could to help my baby boy. Oscar was in hospital for nine days and he was being monitored 24/7.” Parodi said her son was “doing fantastically well”.

The study is examining whether the medicine is safe and effective in lessening the degree of brain injury for babies with the condition neonatal hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy (HIE).

Prof Paul Clarke, a consultant neonatologist at NNUH, said there was a lot of excitement at the neonatal intensive care unit. “This is the first time a cannabis-derived medicine has been tested intravenously in human babies. It is hoped that it will be good for preventing seizures and protecting the brains of newborn babies with HIE.

“We have always had good support from families wanting to take part in research on our [unit] and they often do it from an altruistic point of view to help benefit future babies. One of the attractions of this trial for parents is the closer brain monitoring babies get as part of the study, because a more advanced brainwave monitor is used for the trial babies. This gives parents more reassurance that any seizures will be picked up.”

A second child, born in April at the hospital, is also part of the trial. Children in the trial receive standard hypothermia treatment for HIE, where the whole body is cooled down to 33.5C, as well as a single dose of the study drug or placebo, followed by some tests to measure levels of the drug in the blood.

The trial, in which the drug is administered intravenously and in which the first babies to take part only receive a 30th of the usual dose, involves other neonatal intensive care units in the UK and elsewhere in Europe and will take a year to complete.

Babies in the trial will be given a single dose of study medication, or a placebo, as soon as possible within 12 hours of birth.

The therapeutic ingredient of the medicine occurs naturally in the cannabis plant and is extracted under highly controlled conditions to ensure that the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) component which causes a “high” is minimal.

Clarke added: “As with any study of a new medicine there may be unexpected side effects and unknown risks. With this in mind the trial has been carefully designed to make it as safe as possible, and so we are only giving the babies a minuscule dose at the beginning, and we monitor them even more closely than usual.”

Brazil media boycott Bolsonaro residence after abuse of reporters

Globo among those to suspend reporting owing to harassment by president’s supporters


Tom Phillips in Rio de Janeiro

Tue 26 May 2020
 

Supporters of Jair Bolsonaro hurl abuse at journalists outside the Palácio da Alvorada in Brasília on Monday. Photograph: Eraldo Peres/AP


Some of Brazil’s top news organisations are to suspend reporting from outside the presidential residence in the latest sign of deteriorating press freedoms under the country’s media-bashing president, Jair Bolsonaro.

The decision – the equivalent of British outlets ceasing to report from outside No 10 – follows months of verbal attacks on reporters outside the Palácio da Alvorada in Brasília by hardcore supporters of the far-right president.

The harassment reached new heights on Monday as journalists were subjected to a vicious torrent of abuse from Bolsonaristas, with footage showing reporters being called scum, rats, extortionists, rogues, crooks and sons of bitches.

“Communist, sellout media. Bunch of crooks,” one man shouted.
Folha de S.Paulo(@folha)

Já à tarde, em frente ao Ministério da Defesa, manifestantes voltaram a xingar jornalistas após Bolsonaro deixar o local. Foi necessária intervenção da PM, conta @danielcarvalho_

"Lixo! Filhos da puta! Mentirosos! Vocês são mentirosos! Comunistas! Achacadores da República" pic.twitter.com/r7Pr4dnXR1May 25, 2020

The news organisations withdrawing journalists include the television broadcasters Globo and Band, the radio station CBN, the websites G1 and Metrópoles and a trio of leading newspapers – Valor Econômico, O Globo and Folha de São Paulo.


“The lack of security for its journalists outside the Palácio da Alvorada has led Grupo Globo to decide that its professionals will no longer work there,” Brazil’s largest media group said in a statement.

Verbal attacks on journalists have become a hallmark of Bolsonaro’s presidency, with Brazil’s Trump-admiring leader often egging on supporters outside his home.

Bolsonaro’s third son, Eduardo, who is the representative of Steve Bannon’s far-right The Movement in South America – regularly attacks what he calls the “extrema imprensa” (extreme press) .

On Monday, the president suggested Brazil’s overseas image was being damaged by a leftwing media conspiracy, after the British Daily Telegraph described him as “the man who broke Brazil” because of his handling of the Covid-19 crisis.

“Trump suffers a lot with this,” Bolsonaro said.

Politicians from across the political spectrum condemned the Bolsonarian attacks on the media.

Alessandro Molon, a member of the Brazilian Socialist party who is leader of the opposition in the chamber of deputies, told Folha de São Paulo: “This just shows the extent to which Bolsonaro remaining in the presidency threatens our democracy and our fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression. What we are witnessing is very serious. Either our institutions stop Bolsonaro or he will destroy the country.”

Manuela D’Ávila, from the Communist party of Brazil, tweeted: “It is absurd that [these organisations] … have to suspend their coverage outside the palace because the president disrespects, threatens and incites his followers to attack journalists.”

Vera Magalhães, a prominent political journalist, tweeted: “Brazil no longer enjoys full freedom of the press.”

Canada: neglected residents and rotten food found at care homes hit by Covid-19

Justin Trudeau describes ‘deeply disturbing’ military report after soldiers visit facilities in Quebec and Ontario
Leyland Cecco in Toronto
Tue 26 May 2020 THEGUARDIAN
 

Members of the Canadian armed forces are seen outside the Eatonville care center in Toronto, Canada, last month. Photograph: Xinhua/Rex/Shutterstock

Canadian troops deployed to long-term care homes overwhelmed by coronavirus outbreaks found neglected and malnourished residents, rotten food and insect infestations, and a blatant disregard for critical safety protocol, according to a bombshell report from the country’s armed forces.

Military medics were dispatched to long-term care facilities in Quebec and Ontario in late April, with aim of blunting Covid-19 outbreaks among vulnerable populations.

Soldiers deployed to five of Ontario’s worst-hit care homes encountered rotten food, cockroaches and residents in soiled diapers, according to the report published on Tuesday.

At one facility, residents had not been bathed in weeks. At another, staff made “derogatory or inappropriate comments directed at residents’”. Neglect of resident hygiene and health, often.

“It is extremely troubling, and as I’ve said from the very beginning of this, we need to do a better job of supporting our seniors in long-term care right across the country, through this pandemic and beyond.”

Long-term care homes in Canada, many of which are privately run, have been hit the hardest by the pandemic, with residen
The damage has been felt most acutely in Ontario and Quebec, which have the vast majority of the country’s coronavirus cases and fatalities.

An estimated 225 people died at the five homes where the military was assisting in Ontario.

The report chronicled widespread “burnout” among staff, a number of whom hadn’t seen family in weeks. The military also found numerous examples of staff showing little knowledge of how to properly wear personal protective equipment when dealing with coronavirus cases.

As his government released the report to the public on Tuesday, an emotional Ontario premier, Doug Ford, called the findings “gut-wrenching” and “shocking”.


“Reading these reports was the hardest thing I’ve done as premier,” said Ford. “What we’re feeling is little compared to the hardship these residents and their families have had to ensure. There’s nothing worse than feeling helpless when it comes to caring for a loved one.”

Ford’s mother-in-law, who lives in a long-term care home, was recently diagnosed with Covid-19.

Ford said investigations have been launched following the report, saying his government would pursue “accountability” and “justice”. One death has been referred to the coroner for investigation and once complete, police will determine if charges for neglect are warranted.

Meanwhile, the Canadian military said today that some 36 members working in long-term care homes in Ontario and Quebec have become sick with Covid-19.

“This tragedy must serve as a wakeup call to our entire country,” said Ford. “It’s no secret that Covid-19 has taken a system with deep problems – a system that has been neglected for years – and pushed it to the brink.”

• This article was amended on 27 May 2020. An earlier version suggested that the coroner investigates criminal charges, when it meant to say that one of the cases had been referred to the corner for investigation, and once complete, police will determine if charges for neglect are warranted. This has been corrected.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/26/canada-care-homes-military-report-coronavirus

• Protect all wild animals under the law, China’s legislature urged
  Scope of national legislation should be expanded from focus on endangered species, NPC deputy suggests
• Management of wildlife needs to be overhauled to allow for ‘wild species’ that are farmed, another lawmaker says
  Alice Yan in Shanghai Published 26 May, 2020
• 
• A Chinese legislator has called for the law to protect all wild animals. Photo: Shutterstock

China’s wildlife protection law should be expanded to cover animals that are not endangered and include tougher regulation of commercial breeding, according to proposals put before t
he country’s top legislature.

In a submission to the National People’s Congress, Zhao Wanping, an NPC deputy and vice-president of the Anhui Academy of Agricultural Sciences, said the Wildlife Protection Law should be amended to ban commercial breeding of all wild species, particularly in light of
the coronavirus pandemic, news site The Paper reported on Monday.

Under the law, which was enacted in 1989 and revised in 2018, wild animals are classified as “precious and endangered” terrestrial and aquatic species as well as terrestrial animals that have “important ecological, scientific and social value”.

Zhao said the law’s protections should be extended to all animals living in the wild in the interest of public health.

Although the origin of the virus is still not known, it is thought to have
passed from animals to humans before spreading and mutating.

Zhao said breeding of wild animals should be outlawed to reduce the risk of infection from rearing, buying, transporting and slaughtering the animals.

“Our technology cannot keep up with the changes in microbes in nature. The ... pandemic is sweeping the whole world and it is more unpredictable than Sars,” he said referring to severe acute respiratory syndrome. “No one can forecast how the next virus will mutate.”

Hunting, killing and abusing wild animals for commercial purposes should also be banned, Zhao said.

The NPC Standing Committee fast-tracked a decision in February to ban
eating and trading in wild animals.

China’s frog breeders silenced over opposition to wildlife trade ban
23 Feb 2020


But another NPC delegate, Zhou Hongyu, said existing management of wild animals made it difficult to enforce the ban on consuming them.

Zhou, a history professor at Central China Normal University, said wild animals were managed based on their species and not on whether they originated in the wild, complicating regulations that allow some “wild” species to be farmed, The Paper reported.

He said habitats needed to be protected and commercial breeding strictly regulated.]

Zhou also urged the legislature to increase penalties for violations of the law from the present 1-5 times the value of the wild animals killed to 5-10 times.

In addition, Zhao, from Anhui, said rules should be introduced to protect the welfare of laboratory animals.

People should be punished if they ignored the well-being of the animals, such as through starvation or killing other laboratory animals in their presence, Zhao said.

He said protections for companion animals should be stipulated and people should be banned from eating dogs or cats.

Sign up now and get a 10% discount (original price US$400) off the China AI Report 2020 by SCMP Research. Learn about the AI ambitions of Alibaba, Baidu & JD.com through our in-depth case studies, and explore new applications of AI across industries. The report also includes exclusive access to webinars to interact with C-level executives from leading China AI companies (via live Q&A sessions). Offer valid until 31 May 2020.

This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as: NPC urged to protect all wild animals


COMMENTS

Alice Yan is a Shanghai-based social and medical news reporter. She started her journalism career in 2003 and has degrees in economics and public administration. Her Twitter account is @TingYanalice

Explainer | Will the HUAWEI CFO Meng Wanzhou extradition saga end this week? Here’s why the stakes for key Canadian ruling are so high

A judge in Vancouver will decide on Wednesday if the US extradition bid for the Huawei executive satisfies the requirement of ‘double criminality’

The case could be dismissed, and Meng free to leave Canada, after 17 months of legal drama that threw China’s relations with Ottawa and Washington into turmoil

Ian Young in Vancouver 27 May, 2020 SCMP
Meng Wanzhou (third from right) poses for photos with supporters on the steps of the BC Supreme Court on Saturday. Photo: SCMP

VIDEOS AT END 

Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou stood on the steps of the British Columbia Supreme Court complex on Saturday, posing for pictures with supporters.

They included about a dozen Huawei employees and friends who have attended Meng’s court appearances since her arrest at Vancouver’s airport on December 1, 2018.

But if Meng gets her way, she will not be seeing much more of the building that served as the backdrop.

On Wednesday, judge Heather Holmes will deliver a ruling that could set free Huawei’s chief financial officer, ending her 17-month court battle

Meng, who is currently under partial house arrest on C$10 million (US$7.2 million) bail, was arrested by Canadian police at the request of US authorities, who want her extradited to face fraud charges in New York.

Meng Wanzhou (left) meets supporters outside the BC Supreme Court on Saturday. Her GPS monitoring bracelet can be seen on her ankle. Photo: SCMP

The arrest triggered a major international incident, as China’s government accused Washington of using Meng as a political pawn. Two Canadians, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, were promptly arrested in China on charges of espionage that were widely seen in Canada as retaliation and hostage-taking.

But for all the intrigue, Meng’s fate could hinge on the ruling by Holmes, BC’s associate chief justice, who will decide whether the case meets the Canadian extradition standard of “double criminality”.

At Saturday’s photo shoot in downtown Vancouver, Meng’s private security guards shooed off onlookers, said a source who provided the South China Morning Post with photos of the occasion. The guards are officially tasked with preventing Meng from escaping, but also serve as her bodyguards and drivers.

“We thought it was odd, that one of these security guards was asking us to move on … he was polite about it, but he still asked us to leave,” said the source.

Smiling and with her arm casually draped around her companions, Meng’s demeanour gave no indication of the stakes in this week’s ruling.

It will be a key moment in a battle that has poured petrol on the US-China trade conflagration and upended China-Canada relations.

What is double criminality?

Double criminality is a benchmark for extradition cases in Canada – suspects must be accused of something that would constitute a crime in Canada as well as in the country seeking the suspect’s extradition.

Meng is accused by US prosecutors of bank fraud, in which she allegedly deceived a HSBC executive in Hong Kong about Huawei Technologies’ business in Iran, in breach of US sanctions against the Middle Eastern country.

Her lawyers say the accusations fail the test of double criminality because they amount to an attempt to “dress up” a case of breaching US sanctions, which is not a crime in Canada.

The Canadian government lawyers representing US interests in the case say the charge is fraud, a crime in Canada.

Why is Wednesday’s ruling important?

If Holmes rules the case fails the test of double criminality, Meng will be set free – unless there is an appeal and a request for her detention to be extended pending its outcome.

If Holmes rules double criminality has been satisfied, the extradition case will continue, with Meng’s lawyers arguing for her release on other grounds.

These include that the case has been tainted by political interference, such as US President Donald Trump’s assertion that he might intervene if it suited US economic interests. They have also said Meng’s Canadian rights were violated by her treatment at Vancouver’s airport, when border agents searched her belongings and questioned her in what her lawyers say was a “covert criminal investigation”.

Court appearances have been scheduled until October, pending Wednesday’s ruling. An appeal process could last years.
]

In the background is the long-delayed decision by Canada’s government whether to allow Huawei to participate in its 5G telecoms networks. Canada is part of the so-called “five eyes” group of intelligence allies (along with the US, Britain, Australia and New Zealand), so its decision on whether to let Huawei into its 5G networks will be a matter of intense scrutiny at the highest levels. Critics say Huawei poses a security risk.

When will the ruling be made?

The decision will be announced at about 11.30am PST Wednesday, Vancouver time, which is 2.30am Thursday Hong Kong time.

Lawyers for Meng and the opposing Canadian government counsel will be informed of the ruling earlier, at 9am. At 10am, the lawyers will be allowed to inform Meng, the Canadian government and US authorities of the decision, but are sworn to keep it secret until 11.30am, when a hearing will be held at the court complex and the written reasons for judgment will be released on the court’s website.

Whether Meng attends the hearing will depend on the decision.

What do the Chinese and Canadian governments say?

Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said this week regarding the case that “Canada has an independent judicial system that functions without interference or override by politicians”, adding that “China doesn’t work quite the same way.”

However, China’s foreign ministry this week urged Canada to free Meng in order to safeguard ties with Beijing. “The Canadian side should immediately correct its mistake, release Meng and ensure her safe return to China at an early date, so as to avoid any continuous harm to China-Canada relations,” spokesman Zhao Lijian said on Tuesday.

Meng Wanzhou (second from right) poses with supporters outside the BC Supreme Court on Saturday. Photo: SCMP

US authorities have not commented on the case recently. On January 10, 2019, Trump said he might intervene if it was for the good of the US in its trade war with China, or it was in the interests of national security. “I would certainly intervene if I thought it was necessary,” he told Reuters.

What is Meng’s current status?

Meng is living in the exclusive Vancouver neighbourhood of Shaughnessy in a C$13.6 million mansion that is one of two homes she owns in the city.

She is allowed to roam around the city, subject to an 11pm-6am curfew. She must wear an electronic monitoring bracelet to ensure she does not leave an area of about 260 square kilometres, and does not go near the city’s airport.

Meng is guarded by employees of Lion’s Gate Risk Management, who have been empowered by the BC Supreme Court to prevent her escaping. Meng pays Lion’s Gate, under the terms of her C$10 million bail.

Ian Young

Ian Young is the Post's Vancouver correspondent. A journalist for more than 20 years, he worked for Australian newspapers and the London Evening Standard before arriving in Hong Kong in 1997. There he won or shared awards for excellence in investigative reporting and human rights reporting, and the HK News Awards Scoop of the Year. He moved to Canada with his wife in 2010.

Coronavirus: Washington Governor Jay Inslee personally appealed to Xi Jinping for PPE, on advice of Chinese-American entrepreneur

Outreach revealed in a trove of emails obtained by the South China Morning Post

Inslee’s move followed an intervention by software services entrepreneur Qiang Wan, a naturalised American born in Beijing


John Power SCMP
Published: 5:00am, 27, 2020

Washington Governor Jay Inslee. Photo: Reuters

A US state with close ties to Chinese President 

Xi Jinping’s alma mater directly petitioned the Chinese leader for protective clothing for its medical workers battling the coronavirus last month, leading to it receiving supplies from Sichuan province, Tsinghua University and other Chinese sources.


Jay Inslee, the governor of Washington state, wrote a personal letter to Xi on April 2 asking to “access the enormous productive capacity of China to obtain critically needed medical supplies” such as surgical masks, disposable gowns and gloves as state health authorities faced “extreme challenges” securing supplies.

Inslee’s letter to Xi Jinping.
The outreach by the state governor – a former Democratic Party candidate in the upcoming US presidential election – came after Beijing had tightened its vetting of exports of medical supplies, resulting in major delays of shipments of personal protective equipment to the
United States. The snag emerged as new cases were peaking in the state and as infections in the US approached 250,000 nationwide.

Beijing’s heightened screening followed complaints by some governments and hospitals that large quantities of PPE sent from China were below acceptable standards.

The governor’s plea also came as weeks of friction in
US-China relations at the national level briefly appeared to be subsiding after Xi and US President
Donald Trump agreed to a truce in their war of words over the origins of the coronavirus during a phone call in late March.

The plea came at a time when Chinese President Xi Jinping and US counterpart Donald Trump had agreed to a truce in their war of words over the origins of the coronavirus. Photo: AFP

The previously undisclosed outreach, revealed in a trove of emails obtained by the South China Morning Post through a public records request, was brokered at the urging of Qiang Wan, a Chinese-American entrepreneur who was born in Beijing but migrated to the US to study at the University of Southern California in the 1980s.

Now a naturalised American citizen, Wan, 58, is an entrepreneur in the software services industry based in Washington state, which in January recorded the first coronavirus cases in the US.

Wan also chairs Tsinghua GIX Institute North America, a non-profit organisation that provides “operational support” for programmes at the Seattle-based Global Innovation Exchange (GIX).

US state officials overruled expert advice on listing places visited by Patient 1
28 Mar 2020


GIX, a “multi-culture and open education-research platform”, was founded in 2015 as a partnership between Microsoft, the University of Washington and Tsinghua University, where Xi graduated with a doctorate in law in 2002.

The institute, which describes itself as a “milestone in the internationalisation of higher education in China”, received a tree for its campus as a gift from Xi during a visit by the Chinese leader to Washington state the same year.

Wan, whose father served as the Chinese ambassador to Morocco in the late 1980s and early 1990s, said he had been moved to act after watching the virus take hold in his home state while in China on business. Washington state, which has recorded about 19,500 coronavirus cases and 1,000 deaths, ultimately received donations of an unspecified quantity of supplies from several Chinese government and private sources following the letter appealing directly to Xi.





Emails obtained by the South China Morning Post.

“I grew up in a diplomatic family; to me, it’s normal,” Wan said. “Whenever there’s a crisis, diplomats do their best, through personal relationships or other channels to get things done, and this was sort of my way of trying to move things along.”

In emails to the governor’s office, Wan stressed how the university’s “very strong and influential network” could be the key to quickly getting supplies to the state despite “current tensions at the national level”.


“This requires diligent work and thoughtful planning, and I am aware of the sensitivities and intricacies around such tasks,” Wan wrote in an email on March 27. “But I am fully committed to line up the right resources on my side and will take full responsibility to reduce and minimise the risks associated with this effort while maximising the result.”

Caught between China and the US: why Hong Kong is the latest battleground
22 May 2020



In Inslee’s letter to Xi, delivered through the Chinese embassy in Washington, DC, the governor said Tsinghua officials had “generously offered to assist” and an “expression of support from you in these efforts would have a very dramatic impact on our ability to successfully acquire supplies”.


“In this time of great need for our state, I am looking to our friends in China for help and support,” Inslee wrote.


On April 10, Chinese Ambassador to the United States Cui Tiankai wrote to Inslee to tell him Xi had received his letter and “directed relevant government departments of China to provide needed assistance and facilitation”.

Ambassador Cui Tiankai's letter to Inslee. Click to enlarge.


Cui said Sichuan, Chongqing and other sister provinces and cities had mobilised to donate supplies to “show their sympathy and support to the people of Washington state”.


Chinese government agencies and other groups have donated tens of millions of masks abroad as part of a “mask diplomacy” push that Western critics have cast as an attempt by Beijing to deflect criticisms of its handling of the initial coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan.


Trump administration officials spent weeks debating whether to accept donated masks from the Chinese Foreign Ministry, according to a New York Times report last month, fearing that doing so would aid Chinese propaganda efforts. In March, the European Union’s top diplomat, Josep Borrell, warned that Beijing’s outreach included a “geopolitical component, including a struggle for influence, through spinning and the ‘politics of generosity’.”

United States Cui Tiankai. Photo: AFP

Mike Faulk, a spokesman for the Washington state governor’s office, said the state had been donated supplies by the Chinese Consulate in San Francisco, Sichuan Province, Tsinghua University and private individuals.


“Turbulent supply chain and shipping conditions meant that Chinese government action in support of PPE exports could be helpful,” Faulk said. “We greatly appreciate the support and being connected to the San Francisco Consulate General for assistance and coordination on logistics regarding shipments from China as needed, which is ongoing.”
Wan, who remains in Beijing after arriving in the city for a business trip in December, said he was troubled by the escalating tensions between the US and China, which have locked horns over the causes of the pandemic and a host of other issues ranging from the
unrest in Hong Kong to technology and trade.


Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi on Sunday warned that “political forces” in the US were attempting to push the two sides toward a “new cold war”, after US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo labelled Beijing’s proposed national security law for Hong Kong a “death knell” for the city’s autonomy.


Wan said he believed people-to-people exchanges could help “bridge the conversation”.


“I always believed that better understanding, better communication – between the people, between the cultures – is very, very important,” he said.


Wan said he couldn’t be sure of the letter’s impact but said it may have given manufacturers and officials the confidence to act on the state’s pleas.


Inslee launched his campaign as a Democratic candidate for president in the 2020 election on March 1, 2019. Throughout his campaign, he was a frequent critic of Republican president Trump. He ended his presidential campaign last August, citing low poll numbers, but said he would seek a third term as governor in the November elections.

A dodgy dossier? How News Corp hyped a US government reading list into a China coronavirus 'bombshell'

A Murdoch media exclusive about China covering up the origin of Covid-19 appears to be based on an unclassified US state department reference paper

Daniel Hurst in Canberra
Wed 27 May 2020  

News Corp tabloid the Daily Telegraph carried this report on 2 May 2020 claiming it had a ‘bombshell dossier’ revealing China covered up the origins of coronavirus. Photograph: News Corp


It was touted as a world exclusive – a “bombshell dossier” that exposed China’s “batty science” and backed up Donald Trump and US claims that Beijing was covering up the true origin of Covid-19.

Rupert Murdoch’s Sydney tabloid, the Daily Telegraph, went big with a Saturday morning splash and six pages of reporting attributed to “a dossier prepared by concerned western governments” – and the story was quickly amplified and exaggerated by Trump’s media backers in the United States.

It gathered steam in subsequent reporting as something even more weighty: the New York Post called it “a damning dossier leaked from the ‘Five Eyes’ intelligence alliance” while Fox News host Tucker Carlson asked why it was so hard for some people to accept “objectively that the evidence suggests [coronavirus] came from a lab” in Wuhan, China. Carlson’s program contained a graphic that claimed: “Dossier was compiled by intel agencies of the US, Canada, UK, Australia and New Zealand.”

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/may/08/murdoch-media-china-coronavirus-conspiracy-trump-kevin-rudd
The Murdoch media’s China coronavirus conspiracy has one aim: get Trump re-elected
Kevin Rudd


But there was a problem: the document at the heart of the reporting did not contain any genuinely new information, it did not outline any direct evidence of the lab leakage theory, and it wasn’t culled from intelligence gathered by the Five Eyes network.

Instead, the material – now reported to have been authored by the US State Department – was a fairly straightforward timeline and summary of publicly available material. A source likened it to a “reading list” or “reference paper”.

The Guardian understands from a source who has read the 15-page document that the material relevant to the Wuhan lab leakage theory makes up only a small portion of the file, and it does not include any conclusive findings.


The Australian Broadcasting Corporation first reported on Tuesday that the original paper was a background research report compiled and widely distributed by the US state department. The ABC went on to say that the US embassy in Canberra has held private meetings with Australian government officials to clarify the matter.

The embassy declined to respond to these claims when contacted by the Guardian on Tuesday.

But the former Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd, a longstanding critic of Murdoch’s News Corp empire, told the Guardian: “These revelations should be utterly humiliating to the Murdoch media, except that the Murdoch media has zero shame.”

Rudd says the damage has already been done. He believes the document “was leaked to News Corp in Australia with the clear intention that it would be funnelled back into the American media, giving the appearance that Australian spies were backing Trump’s claims”. In reality, though, “Australian intelligence officials don’t believe Trump at all”.
Origins of a suspect scoop

The saga began on 2 May when the Saturday version of Sydney’s Daily Telegraph trumpeted a “WORLD EXCLUSIVE” under the headline “CHINA’S BATTY SCIENCE: Bombshell dossier lays out the case against the People’s Republic”.

The journalist, Sharri Markson, noted in the original story that the dossier included a raft of criticisms of China’s “assault on international transparency’’ and concerns about practices at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, but she also referred in other paragraphs to an ongoing investigation by Five Eyes intelligence agencies.


Those two elements got conflated when the story was picked up and amplified by rightwing media in the US and elsewhere, with many reporting that it was a joint report by western intelligence partners.

When Markson was interviewed a few days later on Tucker Carlson Tonight on Fox News, the graphics referred to a “leaked intel dossier” and the US host declared that “this is the most substantial confirmation of what we suspected that we’ve had so far, and because it’s a multinational effort I think it would be hard to dismiss it as a political document”.

Markson told Carlson everything in the document was “factual” but there were “leftwing sections of the media that don’t want to believe that this virus may have leaked from a laboratory”. She added: “Of course we don’t know that yet, that’s being investigated, but they don’t want to even think about it.”

I would attach no significance to it whatsoever. It’s just a listAllan Behm, Australia Institute

Markson was also interviewed about the story by rightwing Trump backers Sebastian Gorka and Steve Bannon. In the Bannon interview, Markson herself clarified that it was not an intelligence document that formed the basis of her report. “This isn’t an intelligence dossier,” she told Bannon. “This is a factual report that builds the western case against China’s cover-up over this virus and it’s a case that China is denying.”

It came against the backdrop of claims by Trump and his secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, that there was “enormous evidence” the coronavirus came from a lab – a view that is at odds with the mainstream scientific view about the likely origins.

The resulting media coverage in the US was part of a “boomerang effect”, according to one Australian official.
What is the ‘dossier’?

The Guardian understands the 15-page research paper doesn’t have any markings on it showing who authored it, and nor does it contain any classification markers, but it includes a chronological list of relevant public open-source reporting from 2013 to late April.

The document points to published news reports and journal articles about a range of issues including the Chinese officials moving to silence doctors and whistleblowers and the delays in acknowledging human-to-human transmission of coronavirus. The ABC reported it had the status of a “non-paper”, a document that can be used to trigger discussion or debate with foreign governments.

Peter Jennings, the executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and a former defence department deputy secretary for strategy, says a “non-paper” usually means a document that does not have “policy weight” behind it.


“It seems very clear that this is not classified intelligence product. It seems to have been a summary of publicly reported information about the outbreak of the virus,” Jennings says.

“I would expect that our own departments would be doing precisely the same thing. Often these things are compiled as reading lists for senior officials. This is absolutely routine business for bureaucracies anywhere.”

Allan Behm, the head of the international and security affairs program at the Australia Institute and a former senior defence official, says the reporting had made “a mountain out of a molehill”.

“I would attach no significance to it whatsoever. It’s just a list,” Behm says.

“I think the net result was to build up a nothing into something and that fed into the kind of shrill hysteria we saw a few weeks ago, and it still echoes.”

Behm says from what he knows about the document he doesn’t believe it was created maliciously or represented an attempt “to set Australia up” with dodgy intelligence. Instead it was “hyped” up in media reporting.

Jennings doesn’t write off the labs theory as a possibility to explain what happened, saying it should continue to be explored, and he argues China’s lack of transparency over the issue “doesn’t help”.

“But equally I think a major concern that does seem to have been lost in the discussion of the labs has been about China’s handling of wet markets,” Jennings says.

Prof Rory Medcalf, the head of the Australian National University’s national security college, played down the significance of the fact the document was leaked to media, telling the ABC all governments were likely to be “trying to persuade media organisations of their world view, their policy positions, their perspective”.
‘Overreach’ to help Trump

Rudd, the former prime minister, says the version of reality repeated in news reports around the globe had the side-effect of “politicising and discrediting western intelligence”.

He argues the dossier was never intended to put pressure on China, but to bolster Trump’s re-election campaign and distract from the US president’s failures to manage Covid-19 at home.

“While it may have helped Trump, the Daily Telegraph’s overreach has only helped efforts by China to wriggle off the hook for the questions they actually must answer – including the role of wildlife wet markets, failures to control the virus early on, and dealings with the World Health Organization,” Rudd says.


Markson declined to comment, saying she had no intention of speaking about confidential sources, while News Corp Australia did not respond to requests for a response. Markson responded to the ABC report by retweeting her original piece:
Sharri Markson(@SharriMarkson)

You can re-read my original story on the dossier that details the factual case of cover-up against China over the COVID-19 pandemic by concerned western governments here! https://t.co/gnVZNmQivWMay 25, 2020

The Guardian reported earlier this month that the Australian government had pushed back at US claims the coronavirus may have originated in a Wuhan lab and had determined that the supposed “dossier” was not a Five Eyes intelligence document.

The saga is one of several to cause tension in the relationship between the US and Australia in recent times. On Sunday, the US embassy moved quickly to clarify comments by Pompeo that communication channels may potentially be severed because of the state of Victoria’s involvement in China’s belt and road Scheme.

The speed of the walk-back of Pompeo’s latest comments suggests, according to one Australian source, that the embassy had learned lessons from the dossier episode.

Tory privatisation is at the heart of the UK's disastrous coronavirus response

George Monbiot

From PPE failures to care home tragedies, this crisis has exposed the pernicious role of corporate power in public policy


Wed 27 May 2020

‘Private monopolies have either failed to meet their contracts, or have provided defective gear to the entire NHS, like the planeload of useless surgical gowns that had to be recalled.’ PPE from Turkey arrives in an RAF plane at Brize Norton in Oxfordshire. Photograph: Steve Parsons/PA

Amid the smog of lies and contradictions, there is one question we should never stop asking: why has the government of the United Kingdom so spectacularly failed to defend people’s lives? Why has “this fortress built by Nature for herself against infection”, as Shakespeare described our islands, succumbed to a greater extent than any other European nation to a foreseeable and containable pandemic?

Part of the answer is that the government knowingly and deliberately stood down crucial parts of its emergency response system. Another part is that, when it did at last seek to mobilise the system, crucial bits of the machine immediately fell off. There is a consistent reason for the multiple, systemic failures the pandemic has exposed: the intrusion of corporate power into public policy. Privatisation, commercialisation, outsourcing and offshoring have severely compromised the UK’s ability to respond to a crisis.

Take, for example, the lethal failures to provide protective clothing, masks and other equipment (PPE) to health workers. A report by the campaigning group We Own It seeks to explain why so many doctors, nurses and other hospital workers have died unnecessarily of Covid-19. It describes a system built around the needs not of health workers or patients, but of corporations and commercial contracts: a system that could scarcely be better designed for failure.

Four layers of commercial contractors, each rich with opportunities for profit-making, stand between doctors and nurses and the equipment they need. These layers are then fragmented into 11 tottering, uncoordinated supply chains, creating an almost perfect formula for chaos. Among the many weak links in these chains are consultancy companies like Deloitte, whose farcical attempts to procure emergency supplies of PPE have been fiercely criticised by both manufacturers and health workers.

At the end of the chains are manufacturing companies, some of which have mysteriously been granted monopolies on the supply of essential equipment. These private monopolies have either failed to meet their contracts, or provided defective gear to the entire NHS, like the 15m protective goggles and the planeload of useless surgical gowns that had to be recalled.

Instead of stockpiling supplies, as emergency preparedness demands, companies in these chains have been using just-in-time production systems, whose purpose is to cut their costs by minimising stocks. Their minimised systems could not be scaled up fast enough to meet the shortfall. Where there should be a smooth, coordinated, accountable programme, there’s opacity, byzantine complexity and total chaos. So much for the efficiencies of privatisation.

The pandemic has also exposed the privatised care system as catastrophically unfit and ill-prepared. In 1993, 95% of care at home was provided publicly by local authorities. Now, almost all of it – and almost all residential care – is provided by private companies. Even before the pandemic, the system was falling apart, as many care companies, unable to balance the needs of their patients with the demands of their shareholders, collapsed, often with disastrous consequences.

Now we discover just how dangerous their commercial imperatives have become, as the drive to make care profitable has created a fragmented, incoherent system, answerable sometimes to offshore owners, that fails to meet basic standards, and employs harassed workers on zero-hour contracts. If there is one thing we have learnt from this pandemic, it’s the need for a publicly owned, publicly run National Care Service – the care equivalent of the NHS.

It could all become much worse, due to another effect of corporate power. A report by the Corporate Europe Observatory shows how law firms are exploring the possibility of suing governments for the measures they have taken to stop the pandemic. Many trade treaties contain a provision called “investor state dispute settlement”. This enables corporations to sue governments in opaque offshore tribunals, for any policies that might affect their “future anticipated profits”.

So when governments, in response to coronavirus, have imposed travel restrictions, or requisitioned hotels, or instructed companies to produce medical equipment or limit the price of drugs, the companies could sue them for the loss of the money they might otherwise have made. When the UK government commandeers private hospitals or the Spanish government prevents evictions by landlords, and stops water and electricity companies from cutting off destitute customers, they could be open to international legal challenge. These measures, which override democracy, have already hampered attempts by many governments, particularly of poorer nations, to protect their people from disasters. They urgently need to be rescinded.

The effectiveness of our health system is also threatened by the trade treaty the UK government hopes to sign with the US. The Conservatives promised in their manifesto that “the NHS is not on the table” in the trade talks. But they have already broken their accompanying promise, “we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards”. Earlier this month, they voted that measure out of the agriculture bill. US companies are aggressively demanding access to the NHS. The talks will be extremely complex and incomprehensible to almost everyone. There will be plenty of opportunities to give them what they want while fooling voters.

Boris Johnson’s central mission, overseen by Dominic Cummings, is to break down all barriers between government and the power of money. It is to allow private interests to intrude into the very heart of government, while marginalising the civil service. This helps to explain why Johnson is so reluctant to let Cummings go. The disasters of the past few weeks hint at the likely results.

• George Monbiot is a Guardian columnist

Hong Kong crisis: riot police flood city as China protests build


Pro-democracy groups gather to protest against national anthem bill


Helen Davidson, and Verna Yu in Hong Kong

Wed 27 May 2020

Thousands of armed police have flooded the streets of Hong Kong in a show of force to prevent protests against a law criminalising ridicule of China’s national anthem.

At lunchtime rallies, police fired pepper bullets into crowds, and arrested at least 180 protesters.

Protests have also been fuelled by growing anger at Beijing’s increasing interference in the semi-autonomous city, with the National People’s Congress expected to rubber-stamp national security laws on Thursday.

Roads around the Legislative Council building (LegCo), where lawmakers have begun a second reading debate on the anthem law, had been blocked off since at least Tuesday, and pedestrian walkways were cordoned off to all except those with work passes. Shops near LegCo were closed.


In the morning rush hour police in riot gear stopped and searched mainly young people outside Hong Kong’s MTR railway stations, and lined walkways as commuters shuffled past, prompting accusations on social media that the city had become “a police state”.

On social media, protest organisers urged people to “be water” and keep moving throughout the city, but acknowledged it would be difficult to stop the anthem debate without high risk of arrest. “But you can at least make a statement,” said one post.

Crowds regrouped from lunchtime in Mong Kok, where people including schoolchildren were detained; in Causeway Bay, where police arrested at least 180 people for unauthorised gatherings; and Central, where officers fired pepper ball rounds to disperse crowds, and repeatedly charged at protesters.

Police said people had put rubbish on the roads and thrown objects at officers.

“Police had no other option and needed to employ minimal force, including pepper balls to prevent the relevant illegal and violent behaviour,” the force said.

The Guardian view on Hong Kong’s future: China’s doublespeak

Read more

The crowds remained, swearing at police and chanting: “Hong Hong independence, it’s the only way.”

“I’ve come for something I care deeply about – ultimately it’s freedom,” said a 40-year-old lawyer who wished to remain anonymous, citing the national security laws, Beijing encroachment, and a recent report clearing police of wrongdoing.


“If we keep quiet, they can get away with it. I don’t think we can change things but need to make sure our voices are heard.”
Xinqi Su 蘇昕琪(@XinqiSu)

Rounds of pepper ball were fired at protesters on D’Aguilar St in Central. pic.twitter.com/NCmgspwI0TMay 27, 2020

Shortly before midday, crowds led by thee former legislator Leung Kwok-hung gathered at Admiralty station, near LegCo, where they were told by police to leave or they would be prosecuted. Shouting back, protesters told the police to “be Hongkongers”.

They chanted: “Human rights are higher than the regime” and “Five demands, not one less”, and demanded the government withdraw the national anthem bill and national security legislation.
Pak Yiu(@pakwayne)

Protesters have now gathered in Hysan Place chanting slogans instead of surrounding legco due to heavy security pic.twitter.com/udjzq7hiT4May 27, 2020


“Of course I need to make my voice heard. They’re forcing this upon us and we can’t fight against them,” said Mrs Lam, a 74-year-old woman.

A 73-year-old woman who gave the surname Cheung said she swam to Hong Kong from China to “escape the dictatorial rule of the CCP [Chinese Communist party]” when she was 15.

“The Communist party is not trustworthy,” she said. “When they say you’re guilty then you’re guilty. Is there still ‘one country, two systems’? Of course we need to fight.”

A district councillor, Roy Tam, said police had pointed pepper spray at him. “Police use force to intimidate people to disperse gatherings,” he said. “Freedom of assembly has gone.”

Elsewhere, protesters gathered in Hysan Place shopping centre shouting slogans, including some calling for independence – a demand previously on the fringe but now growing in popularity.

Police said they had arrested several young people and teenagers for possession of weapons, including petrol bombs. On Facebook police said protesters had thrown barriers on to rail lines, driven slowly to hold up traffic and set fire to rubbish bins.

Opponents say the anthem bill is another step towards authoritarianism, and could be weaponised against pro-democracy activists and legislators.

Under the proposed law, a person commits an offence if they take various actions with “intent to insult” the anthem, such as changing lyrics or music or singing in a “disrespectful way”. It carries financial penalties and jail time of up to three years.

March of the Volunteers is the national anthem of the People’s Republic of China, as well as Hong Kong and Macau, but booing of the anthem at Hong Kong football marches has previously embarrassed Beijing.

FacebookTwitterPinterest Riot police check a pedestrian in Causeway Bay, Hong Kong. Photograph: Vincent Yu/AP


Macau enacted laws in January 2019, but Hong Kong’s stalled amid political gridlock which later descended to violence. The government said it had a constitutional responsibility to enact the law quickly, and has declared it a priority.

It has denied the bill would suppress freedom of speech, and said an offence would occur only if someone expressed their views by publicly and intentionally insulting the national anthem.

Several days have been set aside for debate, and the vote is scheduled for 4 June – the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre and another source of controversy given Hong Kong’s vigil this year won’t be allowed.

On Sunday thousands joined an unauthorised protest against both the anthem bill and Beijing’s plan to impose national security laws, which was quickly cracked down on by police.
Trump ‘displeased’ with proposed national security law

Hong Kong media reported on Wednesday that Beijing had expanded the scope of the draft security law legislation. “Mainland lawyers who have handled national security cases in the past say this change could bring not just individuals, but also organisations under the scope of the law,” RTHK said.

On Tuesday, the US president, Donald Trump, warned he would take action against China if it imposed the laws. Trump didn’t say if it involved sanctions or changes to the city’s special trading status but his press secretary, Kayleigh McEnany, said the president was “displeased”, and it was “hard to see how Hong Kong can remain a financial hub if China takes over”.

The president’s vague warning came hours after his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, said China’s military must increase its preparations for armed confrontations.


“It is necessary to step up preparations for armed combat, to flexibly carry out actual combat military training, and to improve our military’s ability to perform military missions,” he told military officers on the sidelines of the country’s annual Two Sessions political gathering.

The comments, which did not refer to Hong Kong directly, came just a day after the commander of the People’s Liberation Army garrison stationed in Hong Kong said his troops – estimated to number around 10,000 – stood ready to “safeguard” Chinese sovereignty in the city and support national security laws.



Hong Kong crisis: protesters and police clash over new anthem law – video