Wednesday, January 27, 2021

On nights before a full moon, people go to bed later and sleep less, study shows

by University of Washington
The moon. Credit: University of Washington

For centuries, humans have blamed the moon for our moods, accidents and even natural disasters. But new research indicates that our planet's celestial companion impacts something else entirely—our sleep.


In a paper published Jan. 27 in Science Advances, scientists at the University of Washington, the National University of Quilmes in Argentina and Yale University report that sleep cycles in people oscillate during the 29.5-day lunar cycle: In the days leading up to a full moon, people go to sleep later in the evening and sleep for shorter periods of time. The research team, led by UW professor of biology Horacio de la Iglesia, observed these variations in both the time of sleep onset and the duration of sleep in urban and rural settings—from Indigenous communities in northern Argentina to college students in Seattle, a city of more than 750,000. They saw the oscillations regardless of an individual's access to electricity, though the variations are less pronounced in individuals living in urban environments.

The pattern's ubiquity may indicate that our natural circadian rhythms are somehow synchronized with—or entrained to—the phases of the lunar cycle.

"We see a clear lunar modulation of sleep, with sleep decreasing and a later onset of sleep in the days preceding a full moon," said de la Iglesia. "And although the effect is more robust in communities without access to electricity, the effect is present in communities with electricity, including undergraduates at the University of Washington."

Using wrist monitors, the team tracked sleep patterns among 98 individuals living in three Toba-Qom Indigenous communities in the Argentine province of Formosa. The communities differed in their access to electricity during the study period: One rural community had no electricity access, a second rural community had only limited access to electricity—such as a single source of artificial light in dwellings—while a third community was located in an urban setting and had full access to electricity. For nearly three-quarters of the Toba-Qom participants, researchers collected sleep data for one to two whole lunar cycles.


Past studies by de la Iglesia's team and other research groups have shown that access to electricity impacts sleep, which the researchers also saw in their study: Toba-Qom in the urban community went to bed later and slept less than rural participants with limited or no access to electricity.
New research shows that on nights before a full moon, people sleep less and go to bed later on average. The pattern's ubiquity, which was observed in urban and rural settings, may indicate that our natural circadian rhythms are somehow synchronized with the phases of the lunar cycle. 

This visualization is interactive: 

Credit: Rebecca Gourley/University of Washington

But study participants in all three communities also showed the same sleep oscillations as the moon progressed through its 29.5-day cycle. Depending on the community, the total amount of sleep varied across the lunar cycle by an average of 46 to 58 minutes, and bedtimes seesawed by around 30 minutes. For all three communities, on average, people had the latest bedtimes and the shortest amount of sleep in the nights three to five days leading up to a full moon.

When they discovered this pattern among the Toba-Qom participants, the team analyzed sleep-monitor data from 464 Seattle-area college students that had been collected for a separate study. They found the same oscillations.

The team confirmed that the evenings leading up to the full moon—when participants slept the least and went to bed the latest—have more natural light available after dusk: The waxing moon is increasingly brighter as it progresses toward a full moon, and generally rises in the late afternoon or early evening, placing it high in the sky during the evening after sunset. The latter half of the full moon phase and waning moons also give off significant light, but in the middle of the night, since the moon rises so late in the evening at those points in the lunar cycle.

"We hypothesize that the patterns we observed are an innate adaptation that allowed our ancestors to take advantage of this natural source of evening light that occurred at a specific time during the lunar cycle," said lead author Leandro Casiraghi, a UW postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Biology.

Whether the moon affects our sleep has been a controversial issue among scientists. Some studies hint at lunar effects only to be contradicted by others. De la Iglesia and Casiraghi believe this study showed a clear pattern in part because the team employed wrist monitors to collect sleep data, as opposed to user-reported sleep diaries or other methods. More importantly, they tracked individuals across lunar cycles, which helped filter out some of the "noise" in data caused by individual variations in sleep patterns and major differences in sleep patterns between people with and without access to electricity.

These lunar effects may also explain why access to electricity causes such pronounced changes to our sleep patterns, de la Iglesia added.


"In general, artificial light disrupts our innate circadian clocks in specific ways: It makes us go to sleep later in the evening; it makes us sleep less. But generally we don't use artificial light to 'advance' the morning, at least not willingly. Those are the same patterns we observed here with the phases of the moon," said de la Iglesia.

"At certain times of the month, the moon is a significant source of light in the evenings, and that would have been clearly evident to our ancestors thousands of years ago," said Casiraghi.

The team also found a second, "semilunar" oscillation of sleep patterns in the Toba-Qom communities, which seemed to modulate the main lunar rhythm with a 15-day cycle around the new and full moon phases. This semilunar effect was smaller and only noticeable in the two rural Toba-Qom communities. Future studies would have to confirm this semilunar effect, which may suggest that these lunar rhythms are due to effects other than from light, such as the moon's maximal gravitational "tug" on the Earth at the new and full moons, according to Casiraghi.

Regardless, the lunar effect the team discovered will impact sleep research moving forward, the researchers said.

"In general, there has been a lot of suspicion on the idea that the phases of the moon could affect a behavior such as sleep—even though in urban settings with high amounts of light pollution, you may not know what the moon phase is unless you go outside or look out the window," said Casiraghi. "Future research should focus on how: Is it acting through our innate circadian clock? Or other signals that affect the timing of sleep? There is a lot to understand about this effect."


Explore further  Access to electricity is linked to reduced sleep

More information: L. Casiraghi el al., "Moonstruck sleep: Synchronization of human sleep with the moon cycle under field conditions," Science Advances (2021). advances.sciencemag.org/lookup … .1126/sciadv.abe0465

Journal information: Science Advances

Provided by University of Washington
Experiments show people with contrasting views more respected if they use personal experiences rather than facts

by Bob Yirka , Phys.org
Credit: Pixabay/CC0 Public Domain

A team of researchers with the University of Koblenz-Landau, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Wharton School of Business has found that people looking for more respect from others with contrasting viewpoints are more likely to get it if they argue using personal anecdotes rather than facts. In their paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the group describes 15 unique experiments they conducted to learn more about tolerance in political arguments.


In the U.S. and many other countries, political differences have led to animosity—differences between those with liberal views and those who hold more traditional or conservative beliefs have grown more heated in recent times. In this new effort, the researchers wondered if different approaches used by people when engaging in a political discussion might have different degrees of success. More specifically, they wondered if people would respond with more tolerance for one another if arguments were personally based rather than fact-based. To find out, they carried out a series of experiments.

In their first experiments, they simply asked volunteers to rate whether they would respect the opinions of another person more or less based on facts versus personal anecdotes. More than half of such respondents reported that they would respect another's opinions more if they were fact-based. Subsequent experiments designed to test these feelings, however, showed the opposite to be true.

The next experiments involved observing people with differing views engaging in a political discussion and noting whether they were more respectful of one another when anecdotes were used rather than facts. Other experiments involved analyzing comments left on YouTube videos about controversial topics such as the death penalty, abortion and gun control. The researchers likewise studied comments left on op-eds posted on well known sites like the New York Times, CNN and Fox News.

The researchers found that people were more respectful with people of opposing views if the person expressing their views used anecdotal experience rather than data. In taking a closer look, they found that the more personal the anecdotes were (particularly if they were painful experiences), the more respectfully they were treated.

Explore further  In crisis, people trust feelings over facts

More information: Emily Kubin et al. Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2021).

Journal information: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

© 2021 Science X Network

For Trudeau, there's no political reason to fight for Keystone XL

The Liberals have little reason to push for the project when Canadians seem ready to move on

Éric Grenier · CBC News · Posted: Jan 27, 2021 

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has expressed disappointment over the U.S. decision to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline. A poll by the Angus Reid Institute suggests a majority of Canadians don't think the pipeline is worth prioritizing over other issues in the U.S.-Canada relationship. (Justin Tang / Canadian Press)


After U.S. President Joe Biden moved recently to revoke permits for the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline project, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he was "disappointed."

That was a fairly tepid reaction to losing an infrastructure project billed as a job-generator and an essential prop for a struggling Canadian energy sector.

But Trudeau doesn't really have an incentive to take on the Biden administration over Keystone because — economic and environmental arguments for and against the project notwithstanding — there simply isn't much of a political case for fighting for it any longer.

Like Trudeau, most Canadians just want to move on.

A survey by the Angus Reid Institute published on Tuesday found that 59 per cent of Canadians would "accept Biden's decision on Keystone XL and focus on other Canada-U.S. priorities" if they were in the prime minister's shoes. Only 41 per cent said they would instead "press for the authorization of Keystone XL above other Canada-U.S. priorities".

That doesn't mean Canadians are indifferent, however.

The poll found that 52 per cent of Canadians think Biden's decision is a bad thing for this country, while just 30 per cent think it's a good thing. While there were some regional divides on the issue, pluralities in every part of the country said losing Keystone is bad for Canada.

Albertans want Ottawa to fight for Keystone XL while most Canadians ready to move on, poll suggests

So Trudeau's response might have been an accurate reflection of how most Canadians are reacting to the news — with grudging acceptance.

Canadians also might be taking a dim view of the federal government's chances of convincing the U.S. president to abandon a campaign promise — one that Biden thought was important enough to get out of the way on his first day in the Oval Office.

Biden has his own supporters to think about. So does Trudeau.

Keystone a big issue where Liberals have little support


Among those who voted for the Liberals in the 2019 federal election, 77 per cent of those polled by the Angus Reid Institute said they believed it would best for Ottawa to focus on priorities other than Keystone with Biden. The share of NDP and Green voters polled who felt the same way was even higher — at 81 and 87 per cent, respectively.

Those NDP and Green supporters happen to be the voters the Liberals need on their side to secure a majority government in the next election.

Regionally, the survey shows how the Liberals have little to gain by bringing up Keystone XL again. Only in Alberta and Saskatchewan did a majority of those polled by the Angus Reid Institute say they believe that the defence of Keystone XL should be placed above other priorities.

U.S. President Joe Biden signed his first executive orders in the Oval Office of the White House on Jan. 20, 2021, including the order revoking the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. (AP)

The Liberals don't hold any seats in either province. They also don't have great prospects to change that situation any time soon. The party fell 13 seats short of a majority government in the last election — and not one of the 13 seats the Liberals came closest to winning was located in either Alberta or Saskatchewan.

Those near-miss seats were in Ontario (seven), Quebec (three), British Columbia (two) and Nova Scotia (one) — all provinces where a majority of voters expressed a willingness to let Keystone go.

In fact, the seat the Liberals came closest to winning in Alberta or Saskatchewan last time — Edmonton Centre — would rank just 30th on their list of target ridings based on voting margins in 2019.

It may sound cynical, but when an entire region of the country is no longer politically competitive for a particular party, that party no longer has a strong incentive to compete for those votes.

Canadians want the U.S. relationship to work

And there's little for Trudeau to gain in picking a fight with Biden.


In the days after the U.S. vote, the Angus Reid Institute found that 61 per cent of Canadians expected Biden's victory to have a positive impact on U.S.-Canada relations. Just 12 per cent expected the impact to be negative.

More recently, an Abacus Data survey conducted between Jan. 15 and 18 found that 49 per cent of Canadians held a positive impression of Biden and just 16 per cent had a negative one. By comparison, 80 per cent of Canadians polled have a negative impression of Donald Trump, and just nine per cent have a positive view of the ex-president.

Polls indicate Canadians were relieved to see Biden defeat Trump in the November presidential election. The former U.S. president was deeply unpopular in this country and most Canadians are unlikely to perceive the actions taken by the Biden administration as negatively as they viewed the decisions made by Trump — even the ones that could have a bad impact on Canada's interests.
Preaching to the choir

So this is a relatively easy political choice for the Liberals. The Conservatives are in a trickier position.

According to the Angus Reid Institute poll, 79 per cent of Conservative voters think Keystone XL should be given priority over other issues. Conservative Leader Erin O'Toole has criticized the Liberals' "total failure" on Keystone XL. He has not, however, gone as far as Alberta Premier Jason Kenney by calling for retaliatory sanctions.

It's the duty of the Official Opposition to oppose — but going hard against the Liberals over Keystone is unlikely to appeal to many people outside the Conservative base.

The Conservatives already have 47 of 48 seats in Alberta and Saskatchewan. They need that last seat (Edmonton–Strathcona, occupied by a New Democrat) a lot less than they need to win dozens of new seats across Ontario, B.C. and Atlantic Canada.

Conservative Leader Erin O'Toole used his first two questions in the first question period of 2021 on the cancellation of the Keystone XL project. (Justin Tang / Canadian Press)

It makes sense for Kenney to go on the offensive against the federal government over Keystone XL, of course. He's doing what most of his constituents would do in his shoes, according to the Angus Reid Institute poll.

Kenney also needs a political boost. Polls have shown he is now one of the least popular premiers in the country. Since the end of last summer, polls have consistently shown his United Conservative Party either statistically tied with or trailing the opposition New Democrats. The NDP even out-fundraised the UCP last year.

ANALYSIS How political symbolism brought down Keystone XL

O'Toole doesn't need to worry about his Alberta flank. But he still used his opening question in the first House of Commons question period of 2021 to needle the government over Keystone XL — on the one-year anniversary of the first recorded case of COVID-19 in Canada, during a week when no vaccines were being shipped into the country.

According to a poll released by Nanos Research this week, 42 per cent of Canadians think the pandemic is the top issue facing the country. Just 12 per cent said it was jobs and the economy. Less than one per cent pointed to pipelines or energy issues.

After the trauma of the Trump presidency, most Canadians appear ready to go along to get along — especially when there are plenty of other things to worry about.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Éric Grenier is a senior writer and the CBC's polls analyst. He was the founder of ThreeHundredEight.com and has written for The Globe and Mail, Huffington Post Canada, The Hill Times, Le Devoir, and L’actualité.
Farmers storm India's Red Fort by the thousands
Sheikh Saaliq

The Associated PressStaff
Tuesday, January 26, 2021

Thousands of farmers protest in India

NOW PLAYING
Thousands of farmers stormed the Red Fort in New Delhi to demand the withdrawal of new laws which they say will impact their earnings.

NEW DELHI -- Tens of thousands of farmers marched, rode horses and drove tractors into India's capital on Tuesday, breaking through police barricades to storm the historic Red Fort -- a deeply symbolic act that revealed the scale of their challenge to Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government.

As the country celebrated Republic Day, the long-running protest turned violent, with farmers waving farm union and religious flags from the ramparts of the fort, where prime ministers annually hoist the national flag on the country's August independence holiday. Riot police fired tear gas and water cannons and set up barricades in an attempt to prevent the protesters from reaching the centre of New Delhi, but the demonstrators broke through in many places.

People watched in shock as the takeover of the fort, which was built in the 17th century and served as the palace of Mughal emperors, was shown live on hundreds of news channels. Protesters, some carrying ceremonial swords, ropes and sticks, overwhelmed police.


Related Stories
India's top court suspends implementation of new farm laws

The farmers have been staging largely peaceful protests for nearly two months, demanding the withdrawal of new laws that they say will favour large corporate farms and devastate the earnings of smaller scale farmers.

The contentious legislation has exacerbated existing resentment among farmers, who have long been seen as the heart and soul of India but often complain of being ignored by the government. As their protest has gathered strength, it has rattled the government like never before since they form the most influential voting bloc in India and are also crucial to its economy.

"We want to show Modi our strength," said Satpal Singh, a farmer who drove into the capital on a tractor along with his family of five. "We will not surrender."

Leaders of the farmers said more than 10,000 tractors joined the protest, and thousands more people marched on foot or rode on horseback while shouting slogans against Modi. At some places, they were showered with flower petals by residents who recorded the unprecedented protest on their phones.

Authorities used tear gas, water cannons and placed large trucks and buses in roads to try to hold back crowd, including rows upon rows of tractors, which shoved aside concrete and steel barricades. Police said one protester died after his tractor overturned, but farmers said he was shot. Several bloodied protesters could be seen in television footage.

Farmers -- many of them Sikhs from Punjab and Haryana states -- tried to march into New Delhi in November but were stopped by police. Since then, unfazed by the winter cold and frequent rains, they have hunkered down at the edge of the city and threatened to besiege it if the farm laws are not repealed.

"We will do as we want to. You cannot force your laws on the poor," said Manjeet Singh, a protesting farmer.

The government insists that the agriculture reform laws passed by Parliament in September will benefit farmers and boost production through private investment. But the farmers fear it will leave those who hold small plots behind as big corporations win out.

The government has offered to amend the laws and suspend their implementation for 18 months. But farmers insist they will settle for nothing less than a complete repeal and plan to march on foot to Parliament on Feb. 1.

Farmers are the latest group to upset Modi's image of imperturbable dominance in Indian politics.

Since returning to power for a second term, Modi's government has been rocked by several convulsions. The economy has tanked, social strife has widened, protests have erupted against laws some deem discriminatory and his government has been questioned over its response to the coronavirus pandemic.

In 2019, the year that witnessed the first major protests against his administration, a diverse coalition of groups rallied against a contentious new citizenship law that they said discriminated against Muslims.

But the latest protests -- which began in northern states that are major agricultural producers -- have triggered a growing farmer rebellion that is fast spreading to other parts of the country, presenting a serious challenge to Modi's government.

Agriculture supports more than half of the country's 1.4 billion people. But the economic clout of farmers has diminished over the last three decades. Once producing a third of India's gross domestic product, farmers now account for only 15% of the country's $2.9 trillion economy.

More than half of farmers are in debt, with 20,638 killing themselves in 2018 and 2019, according to official records.

Devinder Sharma, an agriculture expert who has spent the last two decades campaigning for income equality for Indian farmers, said they are not only protesting the reforms but also "challenging the entire economic design of the country."

"The anger that you see is compounded anger," Sharma said. "Inequality is growing in India and farmers are becoming poorer. Policy planners have failed to realize this and have sucked the income from the bottom to the top. The farmers are only demanding what is their right."


Modi has tried to dismiss the farmers' fears as unfounded and has repeatedly accused opposition parties of agitating them by spreading rumours.

The protests overshadowed Republic Day celebrations, in which Modi oversaw a traditional lavish parade along ceremonial Rajpath boulevard displaying the country's military power and cultural diversity. Authorities shut some metro train stations, and mobile internet service was suspended in some parts of the capital, a frequent tactic of the government to thwart protests.

The parade was scaled back because of the pandemic. People wore masks and adhered to social distancing as police and military battalions marched along the route displaying their latest equipment.

Republic Day marks the anniversary of the adoption of the country's constitution on Jan. 26, 1950.

Police said the protesting farmers broke away from the approved protest routes and resorted to "violence and vandalism."

The group that organized the protest, Samyukt Kisan Morcha, or United Farmers' Front, blamed the violence on "anti-social elements" who "infiltrated an otherwise peaceful movement."

------

AP video journalist Rishabh R. Jain contributed to this report
RELATED IMAGES




Indian Railway Protection Force (RPF) personnel march during Republic Day celebrations in Hyderabad, India, Tuesday, Jan. 26, 2021. (AP Photo/Mahesh Kumar A.)


Sikhs wave the Nishan Sahib, a Sikh religious flag, as they arrive at the historic Red Fort monument in New Delhi, India, on Jan. 26, 2021. (Dinesh Joshi / AP

Indian farmers storm historic Red Fort in Republic Day protests

Growers have camped outside New Delhi for almost 2 months

Thomson Reuters · Posted: Jan 26, 2021 
Protesters gather at the Red Fort as Indian farmers continue to demonstrate against the central government's recent agricultural reforms in New Delhi on Tuesday. (Sajjad Hussain/AFP/Getty Images)

Thousands of Indian farmers protesting against agricultural reforms overwhelmed police on Tuesday and stormed into the historic Red Fort complex in New Delhi after tearing down barricades and driving tractors through roadblocks.

Police fired tear gas in an unsuccessful bid to force the protesters back. One protester was killed, a witness said, and Delhi police said 86 officers had been injured across the city.

Some of those who scaled the walls of Red Fort carried ceremonial swords, scattering police who tried to prevent them from entering. Footage from Reuters partner ANI showed police jumping from the ramparts to escape. Once inside, the protesters hoisted flags.

Angered by laws they say help large, private buyers at the expense of producers, farmers have camped outside the capital for almost two months, posing one of the biggest challenges to Prime Minister Narendra Modi since he came to power in 2014.

CBC EXPLAINSWhat's behind the farmers' protests that are blocking highways in India
Indian farmers escalate protest against new laws with countrywide strike

"Modi will hear us now, he will have to hear us now," said Sukhdev Singh, 55, a farmer from the northern state of Punjab.

The body of one protester draped in an Indian tricolour lay in the street after the tractor he rode overturned in one clash, said a witness, Vishu Arora.

"He died right there," Arora said.


Indian farmers descend on capital to protest reforms

A Reuters witness saw several police and protesters with head injuries following clashes at the Red Fort, from whose ramparts Modi delivers an annual speech.

The government ordered internet services in some parts of the capital to be blocked, according to mobile carrier Vodafone Idea, in an attempt to prevent further unrest.
Breakaway protests condemned

Tens of thousands of farmers began the day in a convoy of tractors festooned with flags along the city's fringes.


But hundreds of protesters — some on horseback — broke away from approved routes, heading for government buildings in the city centre where the annual Republic Day parade of troops and military hardware was taking place.


OPINION Farmers' protests in India are not just about land rights. They're about our very identity

Indian farmers reject talks with government amid blockades, furor over agriculture legislation

They commandeered cranes and used ropes to tear down roadblocks, forcing constables in riot gear to give way, Reuters witnesses said. A second group rode tractors to a traffic junction, also breaching barricades after clashes with police.

Police accused those who diverged from the agreed routes of "violence and destruction."

"They have caused great damage to public property and many police personnel have also been injured," a police statement said.


Farmers in New Delhi take part in a tractor rally on Tuesday as they demonstrate against the Indian government's recent agricultural reforms. (Money Sharma/AFP/Getty Images)

Protest organizer Samyukt Kisan Morcha said the groups deviating from set routes did not represent the majority of farmers.

"We also condemn and regret the undesirable and unacceptable events that have taken place today and dissociate ourselves from those indulging in such acts," the group of farm unions said in a statement.

Amarinder Singh, chief minister of Punjab state where many of the protesters came from, called the clashes "shocking."

"The violence by some elements is unacceptable," he said in a tweet. "It'll negate goodwill generated by peacefully protesting farmers."
Farmers' unrest concerns government

Agriculture employs about half of India's population of 1.3 billion, and unrest among an estimated 150 million landowning farmers worries the government.

Nine rounds of talks with farmers' unions have failed to end the protests, as farm leaders rejected the government's offer to delay the laws for 18 months, making a push for repeal instead.

A farmer in New Delhi covers his face to protect himself from
 tear gas during the protest on Tuesday against controversial 
farm laws introduced by the government. 
(Adnan Abidi/Reuters)

"The farm organizations have a very strong hold," said Ambar Kumar Ghosh, an analyst at New Delhi think-tank the Observer Research Foundation.

"They have the resources to mobilize support, and to continue the protest for a long time. They have also been very successful in keeping the protest really focused."

India showcases its military hardware with a parade every year on Republic Day, which marks the adoption of its constitution in 1950.




Canadians Against War on Yemen Block Shipment of Armoured Vehicles Headed to Saudi Arabia

The direct action in Hamilton, Ontario coincides with hundreds of events to pressure the new Biden administration and other world governments to stop arming Saudi Arabia.


Published on Monday, January 25, 2021 
by
People hold a banner and stand in front of trucks at Paddock Transport International in Hamilton, Ontario to stop the company from shipping what activists say are Canadian-made tanks to Saudi Arabia, on January 25, 2021.

People hold a banner and stand in front of trucks at Paddock Transport International in Hamilton, Ontario to stop the company from shipping what activists say are Canadian-made tanks to Saudi Arabia, on January 25, 2021. (Photo: World BEYOND War Canada)

Antiwar activists in southern Ontario put their bodies in front of trucks at a Canadian company Monday to disrupt what organizers say is the transport of weaponry that will worsen the Western-backed war on Yemen to Saudi Arabia.

The direct action in Hamilton targeting Paddock Transport International's transport of Canadian-made tanks is one of hundreds of events taking place across the globe Monday as part of the Global Day of Action for Yemen.

The Saudi-led coalition's war on Yemen—fueled with Western-made weapons, airstrikes, and intelligence—has resulted in a six-year war and worsened what the United Nations has described as the world's worst humanitarian disaster in which millions are on the brink of famine, infrastructure is devastated, and at least 20,000 civilians have been killed.

Paddock Transport is complicit in the disaster, according to organizers, because it transports General Dynamics Land Systems tanks made in the province to port where they're brought onto Saudi ships.

"Most Canadians don't realize that weapons manufactured here continue to fuel a war that has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people," Simon Black, a member of Labour Against the Arms Trade, said in a statement.

"Countries like Germany, Finland, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Sweden have all cancelled their weapons deals with Saudi Arabia," said Black. "There's absolutely no reason why Canada can't do the same and help end this war."

"People across Canada are demanding the federal government immediately end arms exports with Saudi Arabia and expand humanitarian aid for the people of Yemen," Rachel Small of World BEYOND War said in a statement.

"A child in Yemen dies every 10 minutes because of this horrific war. As a parent, how can I ignore that tanks made in Canada are rolling right by me on their way to the worst humanitarian situation on Earth?" said Small.

Also coming in for scrutiny Monday for its role in continuing the Saudi-led war is the U.S., with groups including the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) and CodePink urging the new Biden administration to act quickly to stop worsening Yemenis' suffering. A key way, they say, is by stopping the flow of arms.

The kingdom is the biggest recipient of U.S. arms, and Saudi Arabia is overall the world's biggest weapons importer, according to (pdf) data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). Saudi Arabia's biggest arms suppliers, in order, are the U.S., U.K., and France.

SIPRI's data also suggests Western nations' arms sales are fueling the conflict that began in 2015 with weapons imports by Saudi Arabia 130 per cent higher 2015–19 compared to the previous five-year period.

With that key role in mind, CodePink singled out ending arms sales to Saudi Arabia as one of the key demands antiwar groups are addressing to Biden and other world leaders:

CodePink and other critics of the Saudi-led war on Yemen amplified demands for peace with a global online rally Monday. Featuring speakers including Yanis Varoufakis and Cornell West, the virtual rally was timed, according to the event's description, to "take place just days after the inauguration of Joe Biden, who has promised to end U.S. support for the war. This is our one central aim—to hold him to his word and force fellow governments to follow suit."

Chris Nineham, founder of Stop the War Coalition, echoed those sentiments in a Monday op-ed.

"A global movement to end this war has now been launched," he wrote. "We have a chance for change, we must take it."

Yemen Can't Wait: Why a Global Day of Action Has Created a Chance for Change

Joe Biden has suggested a new direction on Yemen—we must seize the opportunity to protest in his first week as US President to make sure he keeps his promise.

by 
Chris Nineham
Published on Monday, January 25, 2021
by The Morning Star

Supporters of Yemen's Huthi rebels march with banners during a rally denouncing the United States and the outgoing Trump administration's decision to apply the "terrorist" designation to the Iran-backed movement, in the Huthi-held capital Sanaa on January 25, 2021
(Photo: MOHAMMED HUWAIS/AFP via Getty Images)


P TO a quarter of a million people have died as result of the Saudi-led military intervention in Yemen. The UN believes the war and the accompanying blockade threaten 24 million people with acute food shortages.

Yemen has experienced the worst cholera outbreak anywhere in the world for decades while the Covid-19 situation in the country remains unclear because the health system has been pulverised.

Yet the war on Yemen is a largely unreported catastrophe. The problem for the Western media is that this is a disaster whose roots lie in Western foreign policy.

As Jan Egeland, the council’s secretary-general and a former UN humanitarian relief official said recently, “Yemenis aren’t falling into starvation, they are being pushed into the abyss by men with guns and power.”

Everyone who wants to see an end to the hidden savagery of this war should get involved one way or another.

Saudi Arabia is the biggest recipient of arms sales from both the US and Britain.

In the nearly six years since the start of the war both countries have increased their support for Saudi Arabia, diplomatically, politically and militarily.

Saudi’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has had red carpet receptions in both Washington and Whitehall in the intervening years.

Though government spokespeople deny direct involvement, both Britain and the US have forces and technology supporting front-line troops.

Saudi’s military effort is in fact largely dependent on Western support. A former MoD mandarin and defence attache to Saudi Arabia, John Deveril, said in 2019, “the Saudi bosses absolutely depend on BAE Systems, they couldn’t do it without us.”

A BAE employee confirmed this view to Channel 4’s Dispatches, “If we weren’t there, in seven to 14 days there wouldn’t be a jet in the sky.”

Britain’s support for the war effort is partly a product of its colonial history in the country.

It is driven too by post-colonial concern to secure oil supplies from the region as well as the recent emphasis on Britain’s global role.

But more than anything it is a product of the general strategy of strengthening the anti-Iranian alliance in the region with Saudi Arabia at its heart.

We have now, however, a real opportunity to push for the end of the war.

Public opinion in the West is clearly against the intervention. In Britain fully 63 per cent of the population have opposed arms sales to Saudi Arabia for at least the last two years, with only 13 per cent in favour.

In the US the figure is even higher.

Despite a recent accord between the UAE and Saudi Arabia, the war coalition is no nearer achieving its war aims than it was after the initial bombing campaign in 2015.


The majority of the population remain in areas controlled by the Houthi-backed Alah Ansar who oppose the Western-backed former president Hadi.

The growing economic crisis in Saudi Arabia makes this costly war more and more difficult to sustain.

All this is reflected in the fact that Joe Biden has changed his attitude to the war.

In 2015 as vice-president he was instrumental in launching US involvement in hostilities.

During last year’s election campaign he promised to end US support for the war and to push for a peaceful solution, even if he provided little detail.

His picks for his foreign policy team are not particularly encouraging, but the new administration and Biden’s promises provide an opportunity to escalate the pressure on the Western powers to change course.

That is why the global day of action against the war is so important. Timed to coincide with Biden’s first full day at work, its purpose is to maximise pressure on all the countries backing the Saudi-led coalition of war.

Support has been remarkable. There are 320 organisations from eighteen different countries backing the protests.

These range from local anti-war groups to national peace coalitions and political groups like France Insoumise and the Democratic Socialists of America.

Many Yemeni organisations from the country itself and beyond are involved.

Despite the difficulties posed by Covid-19, news of more and more local protests keeps coming in. In other places, local groups are putting on their own zoom events in support.

The protest will culminate in an international online rally at 7pm GMT on the day.

Speakers include Cornel West, Danny Glover and Shireen Al-Ameida from the US, Daniele Obono from France, Yanis Varoufakis from Greece and Jeremy Corbyn.

Everyone who wants to see an end to the hidden savagery of this war should get involved one way or another.

Post photos and video messages on social media, tweet using the #YemenCantWait hashtag, lobby your MP, and above all get along to what looks like being a historic rally.

A global movement to end this war has now been launched, we have a chance for change, we must take it.

© 2020 The Morning Star


Christopher Mark Nineham is a British political activist and founder member of the Stop the War Coalition serving as National Officer and Deputy Chair of the Stop the War Coalition in the UK. He served under Jeremy Corbyn from 2011 to 2015.

US Designation of Houthis as 'Terrorists' Is Wrong and Hurts the Most Vulnerable

Ending America's endless wars should mean not only withdrawing troops but also putting an end to the misuse of terrorist designations and the accompanying destructive economic sanctions.


 Published on Tuesday, January 26, 2021

by
A Yemeni boy rides a bike on rubble of houses destroyed in a recent airstrike carried out by warplanes of the Saudi-led coalition, on May 23, 2019 in Sana'a, Yemen. (Photo: Mohammed Hamoud/Getty Images)

A Yemeni boy rides a bike on rubble of houses destroyed in a recent airstrike carried out by warplanes of the Saudi-led coalition, on May 23, 2019 inSana'a, Yemen. (Photo: Mohammed Hamoud/Getty Images)

On January 10, then US Secretary of State Pompeo announced that the Trump administration was designating Ansar Allah, the de facto Houthi-led government in North Yemen, as a terrorist entity, “to hold [it] accountable for its terrorist acts.” As most commentators pointed out, this designation would dramatically worsen the already dire humanitarian situation in Yemen, making it extremely difficult to provide much-needed aid to the country and undermine the prospects for a peaceful resolution of the war.

It also further exposes the US as a belligerent actor that has knowingly harmed the people of Yemen for the past six years.

As damaging, but rarely noted, is the unprincipled politicisation of America’s “terrorism” designation and its selective use as a tool of warfare against political opponents. It undermines any credibility that the US might retain in a facts-based, even-handed designation of terrorist actors around the world. It also further exposes the US as a belligerent actor that has knowingly harmed the people of Yemen for the past six years.

There is no doubt that since the start of the Saudi-UAE-led war on Yemen in March 2015, all parties to the conflict – and there are now many – have carried out heinous attacks on civilians in violations of the laws of war. The facts of Ansar Allah’s abuses are well documented, including indiscriminate attacks on civilian areas, obstruction of food and medical aid, and the use of child soldiers.

Even more catastrophic, in terms of scale, severity and frequency, have been war crimes by the Saudi-Emirati-led coalition. These have included deliberate and indiscriminate attacks that have terrorised Yemeni civilians, including repeated attacks on children, resulting in over 112,000 casualties.

As of 2016, coalition airstrikes were responsible for two-thirds of the civilian deaths. The coalition has carried out widespread and systematic attacks on Yemeni hospitals, medical clinics, schools, universities, factories, weddings, funerals, and residential areas using US-supplied bombs.

The coalition’s harm to Yemen has been dramatically compounded by its unprecedented land, air, and sea blockade on the country, making it extremely difficult, if not often impossible, to import food, medicine and fuel into the country and contributing to record-breaking starvation, malnutrition, and disease. The recklessness and cruelty of Saudi and Emirati conduct in this war have led to countless denunciations by the United Nations and governments around the world, notwithstanding endless bullying, threats and bribery from Riyadh and Abu Dhabi.

The US’s participation in this war – as a party to the conflict, providing intelligence, targeting support, and refuelling, in addition to billions of dollars worth of arms to Saudi Arabia and the UAE and its contribution to the needless devastation in Yemen – has faced serious domestic challenges and even worries about war crimes liability.

In 2018, over two dozen Obama administration officials signed a letter urging an end to US involvement in the Yemen war – an unprecedented public mea culpa for green-lighting and then supporting the war effort. The US Congress also weighed in, passing a number of resolutions demanding an end to the US role in this war and to ongoing arms sales to Saudi Arabia, which were saved by former President Donald Trump’s vetoes.

It remains to be seen if President Joe Biden – whose staff is filled with many of the signatories of the Yemen letter, including Antony Blinken, Wendy Sherman, and Jake Sullivan – will keep his own promise to end arms sales to Saudi Arabia and US participation in the Yemen war.

Frustrated by their inability to defeat Ansar Allah, despite billions spent on bombarding Yemen, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have persistently lobbied the US Department of State to designate the group as “terrorist”, in order to trigger severe sanctions on the country. Like the economic sanctions and terrorist designations applied to Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba and entities within them, the State Department’s designation of Ansar Allah has nothing to do with an impartial assessment of the facts on the ground or merits of such a policy.

Instead, it has been deployed as an economic tool of warfare against international nemeses in the hopes that they will say uncle to US demands and give up power. Every one of these targeted governments remains in power, while the sanctions against them have only harmed ordinary people who have little to no say in what their governments do or do not do.

To argue against the terrorist designation of Ansar Allah purely on humanitarian grounds or for their negative impact on future peace negotiations, as some progressive groups have done, is overly narrow and avoids addressing a different but equally nefarious consequence. When the US chooses to designate as “terrorist” one side of an armed conflict, in this case, Ansar Allah, while not only ignoring but supporting the even more egregious terrorist attacks of the other, our government undermines any credibility the designation may have and diminishes its own international standing.

The Ansar Allah terrorism designation and related sanctions deserve condemnation not only because of the harm and suffering they will cause the Yemeni people, but because they manipulate and distort the original purpose and intent of such labelling. To argue only about the extent of the suffering these designations cause is a distraction that opens a tangential debate about whether or not the suffering is as bad as claimed, or who is actually to blame for the consequent suffering – the sanctions or the government.

Arguments against any terrorism designation should centre on Washington’s extensive misuse of sanctions and terrorism designations as an undeclared tool of warfare. Failure to confront the policies and laws that allow the US to sanction, starve, and harm peoples around the world – as it is doing in 39 countries around the world – leaves us endlessly arguing the particular merits of sanctions in one place, then another, then another.

President Biden has a responsibility to dramatically reform legislation that empowers one administration after another to deploy economic harm to peoples around the world. Ending America’s endless wars should mean not only withdrawing troops but also putting an end to the misuse of terrorist designations and the accompanying destructive economic sanctions.

Sarah Leah Whitson is the Executive Director of Democracy for the Arab World Now and formerly Executive Director of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East and North Africa Division.

 

Budget Chair Sanders Dares GOP to Criticize Him for Using Reconciliation to 'Protect Ordinary People, Not Just the Rich'

"If they want to criticize me for helping to feed children who are hungry or senior citizens in this country who are isolated and alone and don't have enough food, they can criticize me."

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) arrives at the inauguration of President Joe Biden on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol on January 20, 2021 in Washington, D.C.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) arrives at the inauguration of President Joe Biden

 on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol on January 20, 2021 in Washington, D.C.

 (Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Sen. Bernie Sanders, the incoming chairman of the powerful Senate Budget Committee, dared his Republican colleagues on Sunday to criticize him for attempting to use the expedited reconciliation process to push through a coronavirus relief package, noting that the GOP utilized the same procedural tool to pass major tax cuts for the rich just over three years ago.

In an interview on CNN Sunday, the Vermont senator said the Democrat-controlled federal government cannot wait "months and months" trying to convince austerity-obsessed Republicans to support the kind of sweeping Covid-19 relief package that experts say is necessary to slow the spread of the deadly virus, stimulate the economy, and provide crucial aid to millions of struggling families.

"You did it, we're gonna do it, but we're gonna do it to protect ordinary people, not just the rich and the powerful."
—Sen. Bernie Sanders

If Republicans—who in recent days have criticized the $1.9 trillion price tag of President Joe Biden's opening relief proposal—refuse to quickly come aboard, Sanders reiterated that he is prepared to use the budget reconciliation process to pass a coronavirus aid package and legislation that addresses other key priorities, from the existential climate crisis to prescription drug prices. The reconciliation process is filibuster-proof and thus requires only a simple-majority vote.

"Reconciliation... was used by the Republicans under Trump to pass massive tax breaks for the rich and large corporations," said Sanders. "It was used as an attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act. And what we are saying is, 'You used it for that, that's fine. We're gonna use reconciliation—that is, 50 votes in the Senate plus the vice president—to pass legislation desperately needed by working families in this country right now. You did it, we're gonna do it, but we're gonna do it to protect ordinary people, not just the rich and the powerful."

Top Democrats in the House and Senate, according to Roll Call, are already "prepping an audacious and fast-moving game plan" to pass a relief package through reconciliation should the GOP continue to obstruct.

When CNN host Dana Bash noted that Sanders has previously criticized Republicans over their use of the reconciliation process, the Vermont senator responded, "Yes, I did criticize them for that. And if they want to criticize me for helping to feed children who are hungry or senior citizens in this country who are isolated and alone and don't have enough food, they can criticize me."

Sanders' remarks came as the work of the Senate has effectively been "ground to a halt" by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who is threatening to block a must-pass organizing resolution if Democrats refuse to commit to leaving the archaic 60-vote legislative filibuster in place. The organizing resolution itself is subject to the filibuster, a fact McConnell is using in an attempt to extract early concessions from the new majority party.

In a floor speech on Friday, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said McConnell's proposal is "unacceptable" and "won't be accepted."

As the Washington Post reported Sunday, "Without an organizing accord, Republicans remain in the majority of most Senate committees—veteran GOP lawmakers such as Sens. Charles E. Grassley (Iowa), Richard C. Shelby (Ala.) and James M. Inhofe (Okla.) continue as chairs of key panels, while veteran Democrats eager to seize the gavels and advance their long dormant agendas can only wait and wonder."

"That's because the old Senate structures—which had Republicans controlling the committees—will remain in place until Schumer and McConnell reach a power-sharing agreement," the Post explained. "Newly sworn-in Democratic senators cannot get committee assignments until an organizational deal is struck."

One option available to Senate Democrats is to immediately eliminate the filibuster—a move that would require the support of the entire Senate Democratic caucus and a tie-breaking vote from Vice President Kamala Harris—and then pass an organizing resolution with 51 votes.

"If McConnell insists, the Dem response should be to go nuclear on the organizing resolution, which under current rules needs 60 to pass," former Senate aide Adam Jentleson, public affairs director at Democracy Forward, said last week. "Dems extended a reasonable deal, McConnell spit on it. So reform the filibuster now, organize the Senate as Dems want, and pass Biden's agenda."

In an appearance on "Meet the Press" Sunday, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)—the number two Senate Democrat—said that "if this filibuster has now become so common in the Senate that we can't act, that we just sit there helpless, shame on us."

"Of course we should consider a change in rule under those circumstances," Durbin added. "But let's see."