Unwilling to wait, poorer countries seek their own vaccines

MARIA CHENG and ANIRUDDHA GHOSAL

Sat., February 6, 2021

NEW DELHI (AP) — With coronavirus cases still climbing, Honduras got tired of waiting to get vaccines through a United Nations program, so the small Central American country struck out on its own, securing the shots through a private deal.

Honduras “cannot wait on bureaucratic processes or misguided decisions" to give citizens “the peace of mind” offered by the COVID-19 vaccine, said Juan Carlos Sikaffy, president of the Honduran Private Business Council, which helped complete the purchase by providing a bank guarantee.

Other nations are getting impatient too. Unlike past disease outbreaks, where less wealthy countries have generally waited for vaccines to be delivered by the U.N. and other organizations, many are now taking matters into their own hands. Experts are increasingly concerned that these go-it-alone efforts could undermine a U.N.-backed program to get COVID-19 shots to the neediest people worldwide.

Countries including Serbia, Bangladesh and Mexico recently began vaccinating citizens through donations or commercial deals — an approach that could leave even fewer vaccines for the program known as COVAX, since rich countries have already snapped up the majority of this year's supply.

FILE - In this Jan. 29, 2021, file photo, Sri Lankan nursing staff administer COVID-19 vaccines to front-line health workers in Colombo, Sri Lanka. India has gifted neighbors, including Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal, with more than 5 million doses. (AP Photo/Eranga Jayawardena, File)

Led by the World Health Organization, a coalition for epidemic preparedness known as CEPI and a vaccine alliance called GAVI, COVAX was created to distribute COVID-19 vaccines fairly. Countries can join either to buy vaccines or to get donated shots.

Mustaqeem De Gama, a diplomat at the South African mission in Geneva, cited “a level of desperation” fueled by spreading virus variants and “the uncertainty of when any COVAX vaccines might arrive.” He doubted that countries that signed up for COVAX ”will even get 10% of what they require.”

Even if the effort succeeds, COVAX’s stated goal is to vaccinate less than 30% of people in poor countries, meaning that governments must seek other sources to obtain enough shots to achieve herd immunity.

Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic said his country was forced to cut its own deals after watching rich countries scramble for the scarce shots. He criticized nations that, he said, bought more doses than they needed.

“It’s as if they intend to vaccinate all their cats and dogs,” he said.

Although Serbia paid 4 million euros to COVAX last year, it has not yet received any shots and last month began its immunization campaign with vaccines from Pfizer, China's Sinopharm and Russia.

Recent manufacturing delays in Europe raise concerns about whether drugmakers will be able to fulfill the multiplying orders.

“There are so many deals being signed that I think it’s hard to see how the numbers could possibly add up for all the doses ordered to actually be produced in the foreseeable future,” said Amanda Glassman, a public health expert and executive vice-president of the Center for Global Development.

Last week, the African Union completed a deal for 400 million doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine, to be produced by the Serum Institute of India. That’s on top of a previously negotiated African Union deal for 270 million doses from several pharmaceutical companies and in addition to the 600 million doses Africa expects to receive from COVAX.

Some experts warn that these new deals could move COVAX further to the back of the line, especially if some countries are willing to pay a premium for speed.

To ensure South Africans got doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine quickly, government officials reluctantly agreed to pay a higher price per shot than Europe or North America. The first shipments arrived this week.

COVAX hopes to start sending its first vaccine batches to Africa later this month, but those plans are subject to change depending on manufacturers' production capacities and countries' immunization plans.

Mexico began vaccinating health workers in December because of a direct purchase agreement with Pfizer, but progress has been slow. In recent weeks, the country gave emergency approval to Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine but said the first batches weren't due until sometime later this month.

Kate Elder, senior vaccines policy adviser at Doctors Without Borders, said developing countries should not be criticized for securing private vaccine deals since that is precisely what rich countries did last year.

“Every country is just doing what it feels it needs to do to protect their people,” she said, but the ability of poor countries and regions to get vaccine faster than COVAX could hurt future U.N. efforts.

“If countries are getting vaccines on their own, then how are WHO and GAVI delivering for them?” she asked.

Although India is contracted to provide COVAX with several hundred million doses of vaccine, the shots have not yet been authorized by the WHO, meaning India cannot release them for the U.N. program. In the meantime, India has already gifted neighbors, including Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal, with more than 5 million doses.

Dr. Haritha Aluthge of Sri Lanka’s Government Medical Officers’ Association, called for the WHO to intervene amid the intense competition for vaccines and the failure of COVAX to deliver.

“Not a single dose (from COVAX) has been received,” Aluthge said.

WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus warned recently that the world is on the brink of a “catastrophic moral failure” if COVID-19 vaccines are not distributed fairly, but the agency has no authority to force rich countries to share.

Its entreaties for countries to act in solidarity have mostly been ignored.

Norway is the only country that said it would send vaccines to developing countries as its own citizens are immunized, but it has not specified how many would be donated. Britain said it would not divert any vaccines until it finishes its own immunization program. Australia, which has mostly stamped out COVID-19, has no timeline for when it might share vaccines with its poorer neighbors in southeast Asia and the Pacific islands.

The unrelenting pressure on the world’s vaccine supplies might only lift when more shots prove successful, said Krishna Udayakumar, director of the Duke Global Health Institute.

“COVAX is the only global, multilateral platform to enable something close to global access and equity, and yet, it has access to a relatively small amount of vaccines,” he said. “The only way out is to have more vaccines.”

___

Cheng reported from Toronto. Associated Press writers Dusan Stojanovic in Belgrade, Christopher Sherman in Mexico City, Marlon González in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, and Krishan Francis in Colombo, Sri Lanka, contributed to this report.

A Covid-19 vaccine apartheid would endanger us all

Until the whole world is vaccinated, no one is safe.

REUTERS/SIPHIWE SIBEKO/FILE PHOTO

LONG READ

This story was first published by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, a nonprofit newsroom based in the UK.

By Madlen Davies & Rosa Furneaux
February 6, 2021

Senam Agbesi has been trying to make the best of lockdown in London. “I’ve done lots of Zooms, lots of walks,” he said. The 34-year-old National Health Service (NHS) manager believes he could get the vaccine this month, as he is starting a new job that would mean visiting hospitals regularly.

Despite the good news about his own vaccine, he worries about his father, Yao, who lives in Accra, Ghana. Yao is 65 and has sickle cell trait, a condition that puts him at higher risk of suffering severe illness if he catches Covid-19.


A close family friend recently died of the virus and Senam wishes his father would be more careful. “He thinks he’s invincible. He drinks his little tea of lime juice and ginger in the mornings and thinks he has an invisible fortress around him,” he said.

Yao has not been given any information about being vaccinated nor seen any concrete information in the media about when any vaccines will arrive. Predictions suggest that the majority of the Ghanaian population will not be vaccinated until 2023, and some other sub-Saharan countries will be waiting until 2024.

Not only will poorer countries be forced to wait, but many are already being charged much higher prices for every dose. Uganda, for example, has announced a deal for millions of vaccines from AstraZeneca, at a price of $7 a dose—more than three times what the European Union (EU) paid for the same jab. Including transport fees, it will cost $17 to fully vaccinate one Ugandan.


Campaigners and scientists warn that we are on course for a “vaccine apartheid” in which people living in the global south are inoculated years after those in the West.

The effects of this inequity would be stark. Modeling by Northeastern University indicates that if the first 2 billion doses of Covid-19 vaccines were distributed proportionally by national population, worldwide deaths would fall by 61%. But if the doses are monopolized by 47 of the world’s richest countries, only 33% fewer people will die.

As the EU bickered with AstraZeneca last week over securing more vaccines, leaders in the bloc parroted the mantra “no one is safe until everyone is safe.” But globally unequal distribution will harm all of us—leaving reservoirs for the virus across the world in which new, potentially more dangerous variants will emerge and spread.


Distracted by in-fighting and protectionism in the West, we are sleepwalking into a world that will suffer more cases, more economic chaos and more deaths.
Survival of the quickest

In the rush to secure vaccines for their citizens, and before it was known which ones would be most effective, countries quickly arranged deals for billions of doses. About 12.7 billion doses of various coronavirus vaccines have been bought so far, enough to vaccinate roughly 6.6 billion people. (All of the vaccines approved so far require two doses, but some nations have already ordered a single-dose vaccine that has yet to be approved.)


More than half of those doses—4.2 billion secured, with the option of buying another 2.5 billion—have been bought by wealthy countries home to only 1.2 billion people.

Canada has bought enough doses to inoculate every Canadian five times, while the US, UK, EU, Australia, New Zealand, and Chile have purchased enough to vaccinate their citizens at least twice, although some of the vaccines are yet to be approved.

These vast existing orders leave fewer doses for poorer regions and raise questions over whether Covax, an organization created to ensure low-income countries can access vaccines, will be able to meet its target to vaccinate those most at risk across the world this year. (Covax told the Bureau that it was confident it would meet the target and hoped to exceed it.) Low- and-middle-income countries have made deals directly with pharmaceutical companies, but have so far secured only 32% of the world’s supply to cover 84% of the world’s population.


In Israel, which has the fastest vaccination program in the world, more than a third of people have had one dose, and over a fifth have had both. The Palestinian Territories is still waiting for vaccines from Covax to arrive, although Israel recently announced it would transfer 5,000 doses to immunize Palestinian frontline health workers.

“We’re in such a massive crisis,” said Fatima Hassan, the founder of South Africa’s Health Justice Initiative. “If even in South Africa we can’t get even half of our population vaccinated soon, I can’t even imagine how Zimbabwe, Lesotho, Namibia and the rest of Africa will cope. If this is going to continue for another three years, we’re not going to get any kind of continental or global immunity.”
Demand exceeding supply

This frenzied grab for vaccines is happening because supply is finite. After developing their vaccine, pharmaceutical companies must modify their product so it can be manufactured on an industrial scale, before transferring the technology to licensed factories around the world.


AstraZeneca, the company behind the Adenovirus-based vaccine developed with Oxford University, has licensed 10 other companies in the UK, India, Brazil, Japan, South Korea, China, Australia, Spain, Mexico and Argentina to make its product, on top of its own factories in the UK and Europe. While most of these companies have permission to make the vaccine only for a specific geographic area, it is at least an attempt to manufacture at scale globally. Campaigners have criticized other pharmaceutical giants for failing to license more manufacturing companies around the world.

Instead, some of these companies appear to have focused on supplying the West. Public Citizen, a US think tank, has found that just 2% of Pfizer/BioNTech’s global supply has been granted to Covax, while last year people familiar with Moderna’s plans believed the US company intended to prioritize high-income nations. In January, the South African government said Moderna has no intention of registering its vaccine in the country.

Pfizer and Moderna’s vaccines are also much more expensive. Although many of the vaccine deals have been kept secret, information leaked by a Belgian official showed the EU paid between $2 and $18 per dose, with Pfizer and Moderna’s mRNA vaccines the priciest at over $14—much more than low-income countries can afford.


Pfizer told the Bureau: “We have allocated doses for supply to low- and lower-middle-income countries at a not-for-profit price.”

AstraZeneca has promised to make its vaccine available at cost in the Global South in perpetuity (there is an as-yet-unspecified time limit for that price in the West). But some poorer nations have already ended up paying more for the AstraZeneca vaccine too, under another name.

In India, where much of the world’s pharmaceutical manufacturing takes place, the Serum Institute is producing the largest shipments of both AstraZeneca and Novavax’s vaccines. However, because it has a non-commercial license for the AstraZeneca jab, the Serum Institute can export its own version—Covishield—to 92 of the world’s poorest countries. Unlike AstraZeneca, the Serum Institute has not promised to keep to cost price, and is charging India $3 per dose, South Africa and Brazil $5, and Uganda $7, where the EU only paid AstraZeneca $2. Neither AstraZeneca nor the Serum Institute responded to a request for comment.


Many nations, particularly in Latin America, Asia, and the Middle East, have turned to Russian and Chinese vaccines, which are yet to be approved by what the WHO defines as a stringent regulator. According to the manufacturer’s website, more than 50 countries have also applied for Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine.

China has given at least 30 million doses of its homegrown vaccines to its citizens, and Indonesia and Turkey have begun administering doses. Last June, Chinese president Xi Jinping promised African countries they would “be among the first to benefit” from China’s vaccines, but it is not clear if any have yet arrived. In Uganda, at least one Chinese company has been allowed to import vaccines to inoculate its Chinese workers and their families before Ugandan nationals.

With inadequate supply at the root of both delays and inequity, many public health experts and campaigners are calling on pharmaceutical companies to waive patents to allow more factories to make vaccines. Within two months of declaring the pandemic, WHO had set up a mechanism for sharing intellectual property and data. Membership was voluntary. Not a single pharmaceutical company has participated.


In October 2020 a group of countries, led by India and South Africa, asked the World Trade Organization to temporarily suspend intellectual property rights for Covid-19 vaccines and medicines, meaning any generic producer could start making them. While the WHO supports this, countries including the US, Canada, Australia, EU, and UK are siding with pharmaceutical companies to oppose it. However, the recent row over AstraZeneca’s supply delays in Europe means even the EU Council is discussing waiving intellectual property rights.

Dr Mogha Kamal-Yanni, global health policy consultant at the People’s Vaccine Alliance, told the Bureau: “We’re all fighting for pieces of a small pie. Why not increase the size of the pie so everyone can get a fair slice?”

Critics from the pharmaceutical industry have argued there is no spare manufacturing capacity, either in approved factories or in trained technicians, so suspending vaccine patents would not increase supply.


Pfizer told the Bureau that those calling for IP waivers “disregard the specific circumstances of each situation, each product and each country.” It added: “IP will also continue to play a crucial role long after this pandemic is over, to ensure that the world is prepared with innovative solutions for future global health crises, in addition to other pressing healthcare needs.”
Counting on Covax

The difficulty in securing supply of the vaccine will leave many poorer countries dependent on Covax, an organization created in April 2020 to provide “innovative and equitable access to Covid-19 diagnostics, treatments, and vaccines.” It is coordinated by WHO, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations and GAVI, the international vaccine alliance.

Covax has a target of delivering 2 billion doses globally, including at least 1.3 billion for 92 low- and middle-income countries, by the end of 2021. This would be enough to inoculate 20% of each countries’ population—prioritizing health workers, the elderly and those with underlying medical conditions—although that target has been criticized as inadequate to deal with the pandemic.

It has negotiated advance deals for these 2 billion doses. However, Duke University analysts believe that the doses can only be delivered this year as planned if the Serum Institute can make all 900 million doses ordered as “options,” which they judge unlikely given the company’s publicly stated capacity and extant orders. The analysts estimate instead Covax will provide between 650-950 million doses, split between 145 nations—including some of those with enough confirmed deals for vaccines to inoculate their citizens several times over.

“The problem is GAVI has never worked in a situation where they’re competing with rich countries for vaccines,” said Prabhala. “They’ve never been in a situation where they are trying to supply highly, highly sought after vaccines to countries in developing countries and in the West.”

The Bureau understands that Covax is relying on a legally binding agreement with the Serum Institute to deliver all of its optioned doses, and that its figures do not include doses donated by other nations.

Although many countries entitled to Covax vaccines have already arranged other deals for more than enough doses, uncertainty over delays mean wealthy nations including Canada and New Zealand have opted to receive Covax vaccines in the first wave, rather than wait for poorer countries to receive theirs first.

Covax told the Bureau: “Nothing like COVAX has been attempted before, however we do know what would happen without it. As we saw in the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, those countries without the ability to pay would be left with no vaccines, the best route out of this pandemic, potentially for a year or more after the first wealthier countries. We are now well on track to bring down this lag to a couple of months.”

In January, Cyril Ramaphosa, president of the African Union, announced a deal for 270 million vaccines from multiple suppliers, and suggested the continent could not rely on Covax alone.
A fairer way forward?

Experts differ on the solutions to the vaccine supply crisis. The WHO has asked manufacturers to prioritize supplying Covax and urged countries ordering doses beyond their needs to donate—but that looks increasingly politically unpalatable as countries experience delays in supply.

Covax has only recently set up a mechanism for donation and, so far, only Norway, which has recorded fewer than 600 Covid-19 deaths, has agreed to donate supplies at the same time as rolling out their national vaccination plan. Canada will give up to CA$5 million in funding to this donating mechanism, but cannot commit to a timeframe of when it will begin handing over vials.

There are fragmented attempts at donation outside this mechanism. The EU, rowing back from earlier proposals for regular donations to Covax, has agreed to send vaccines to inoculate health professionals across Africa and the western Balkans. Australia and New Zealand have similar plans to sell or donate to neighboring countries in the Pacific, Southeast Asia and Polynesian islands.

According to the Times, the UK’s health secretary Matt Hancock acknowledged that the 400 million doses his department had ordered were “more than the UK population needs” and said the government would be generous while also completing its vaccination program.

Some campaigners believe the WHO is foolish to think asking countries to donate is a good solution. “I think it’s honestly the most ridiculous, most unworkable…most problematic solution I’ve ever seen,” said Prabhala. “I just don’t understand how anyone in this moment could justify donating vaccines that they have, and getting away with it.”
A deadly and destructive delay

Without equal access to vaccines, there are fears many lower-income countries will not have enough stock to inoculate key populations, including healthcare workers, in 2021. On the ground, health workers are struggling. “The situation is very tense,” said Ireen Mutombwa, national disaster management co-ordinator at the South African Red Cross. “Everyone’s life is at risk, especially when you are someone who is involved in working with the community.”

Scientists are also concerned that allowing the virus to thrive unabated in some countries could lead to greater risk for all. “The more circulation there is, the more opportunity there is for the virus to mutate,” said Marie-Paule Kieny, a virologist and director of research at Inserm. Mutated variants could result in more direct deaths in under-vaccinated countries, and may potentially make vaccines less effective over time.

The global economic cost could be vast. A study by RAND Corporation estimated that failure to ensure equitable Covid-19 vaccine allocation could cost the global economy up to $1.2 trillion a year. (Another study has put the figure even higher, at more than seven times that amount.) Even if wealthy countries vaccinated their populations, they could still lose around $119 billion a year if the poorest countries are denied a supply, RAND’s modeling showed.

“If you ask a random person on the street, they would never think we were in any way dependent economically on low-income countries,” Marco Hafner, lead author of the study, said. But because wealthy countries rely on global trade links, economic slowdown in poorer nations caused by pandemic restrictions will have a knock-on effect across the world.

“[There are] true economic incentives to provide equitable access to everyone, rather than just seeing this as some sort of act of charity,” Hafner said. “If you compare the costs of [funding Covax] to the benefits, just for wealthy nations, it’s kind of peanuts.”

“Governments are realizing that this mantra, ‘nobody’s safe until everyone is safe,’ that they have been saying but then doing the opposite is true, they are in danger,” Kamal-Yanni said. “The mutations mean now rich countries realize they can’t just vaccinate their own people.”

Back in the UK, Senam and his two brothers are hoping to go to Ghana for Christmas, once they’ve been vaccinated. It seems unfair to them that they will likely receive the jab before their more vulnerable father.

“It’s very frustrating,” Senam said. “You see in the news at the moment these fickle bickerings between the EU and AstraZeneca: ‘me, me, me’. It just demonstrates the selfishness of the Western world.”

BACKGROUNDER/LONG READ

Myanmar coup: Why the generals really took back power from Aung San Suu Kyi

A strangely familiar sight dominated the front pages of Myanmar's state-owned newspaper this week: photos of men in green military uniforms sitting in seats of power.

© STR/AFP/AFP via Getty Image

 Soldiers stand guard along a blockaded road near Myanmar's

 Parliament in Naypyidaw on February 2, 2021.

© Aung Shine Oo/AP In this May 6, 2016, file photo, Aung San Suu Kyi, 

left, Myanmar's then foreign minister, walks with Senior Gen.

 Min Aung Hlaing, right, Myanmar military's commander in chief, in Naypyidaw.

It was as if time had rewound a decade. "The Global New Light of Myanmar" has long been considered the mouthpiece for whoever is running the country, its pages dedicated to government propaganda and stiff images of officials on mundane visits to agricultural or development projects.

From 1962 until 2011, successive military regimes ruled Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, with an iron fist -- asserting their absolute power over the people through fear and brutality.

But six years ago, there was hope of change when Aung San Suu Kyi -- a Nobel Peace Prize winner and former political prisoner -- formed the first civilian government with her National League for Democracy Party (NLD) after winning a landslide in elections.

That all changed Monday, when the military seized power in a coup, arrested 75-year-old Suu Kyi, cut internet services and took news channels off the air. A presenter on the military-owned news channel announced that the 64-year-old commander in chief Min Aung Hlaing was now running the country.

"Senior General makes speech at government meeting" was Wednesday's "New Light" headline, a sign that Myanmar is now back under military rule, at least for the next 12 months.

Devastated residents in the country's biggest city, Yangon, said history was repeating itself. With many still bearing the mental and physical scars of the past, they expressed fears that the intervening years were all for nothing.

© STR/AFP/Getty Images Armoured personnel carriers are seen

 on the streets of Mandalay on February 3, 2021.

Myanmar has changed markedly in the years since the military last ruled, with more social freedoms, foreign investment and a growing middle class. For example, SIM cards that used to cost $1,000 a decade ago are now cheap and ubiquitous, and the population has quickly moved online with social media sites like Facebook synonymous with the internet.

While deep economic and inequality issues, conflict, and ethnic strife remain, Myanmar is a different place today than it was 10 or 20 years ago, especially in the major cities.

But the imperfect transition was not working for everyone.

The military justified their takeover by alleging widespread voter fraud during the November 2020 general election, which gave Suu Kyi's party another overwhelming victory and dashed hopes for some military figures that an opposition party they had backed might take power democratically.

But according to analysts a simpler explanation is that the coup, as most usually are, was driven by power and the personal ambition of an army chief who felt he was losing control and respect.

"This was a standoff between two people who were not allowed the presidency and both wanted it: Aung San Suu Kyi and the commander in chief. And he put his personal ambition ahead of the good of the military and the good of the country," said Yangon-based analyst Richard Horsey

.

© Myanmar Radio and Television/AFP/Getty Images

 This screengrab provided via AFPTV and taken from a broadcast by Myanmar Radio and Television (MRTV) in Myanmar on February 3, 2021 shows military chief General Min Aung Hlaing in Naypyidaw following the military coup.

CNN was unable to reach Myanmar's military for comment.


What is the Tatmadaw and who is Min Aung Hlaing?

The first thing to know about Myanmar's military -- officially known as the Tatmadaw -- is that it never really gave up political power.

Just over a decade ago, the military chiefs put in place a plan that would permit the country to hold elections, liberalize the economy, and transition into a semi-democracy while still maintaining their authority.

The 2008 constitution allocated the military a quarter of seats in parliament, giving it effective veto power over constitutional amendments, and the generals kept control of three key ministries -- defense, border and home affairs.

For 50 years, the military was the most powerful institution in the country. The army had control of the government, economy and every facet of life. Its sustained conflict with ethnic minorities has displaced hundreds of thousands of people, and rights groups have long linked soldiers to atrocities and human rights abuses, such as rape, torture and other war crimes.

© Nyein Chan Naing/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock 

Riot police block a road in Yangon, Myanmar, 06 February 2021.

A string of ruthless military dictators turned Myanmar into a pariah state. Gen. Ne Win, who seized power in a 1962 coup, plunged the country into poverty with his disastrous economic and socialist policies.

The general was alleged to have made policy decisions based on the advice of astrologers and demonetized several large denominations of Myanmar's currency, replacing them with bank notes that added up to nine. Citizens' savings were wiped out overnight.

His successor was labeled the "Butcher of Rangoon" (the former name of Yangon) for his brutal suppression of mass pro-democracy demonstrations in the then-capital during the late 1980s

.

© STR/AFP/Getty Images Protesters hold up the three finger salute during a demonstration against the military coup in Yangon on February 6, 2021.

Political persecution, harassment and violence against opponents, journalists, and minority groups has continued into recent years under the guidance of military chiefs and the government.

Min Aung Hlaing, who was picked as commander in chief as Myanmar's transition began in 2011, oversaw the campaign of violence waged against the Rohingya ethnic minority population in the country's west. Some 720,000 people fled into neighboring Bangladesh following the crackdowns in 2016 and 2017.

United Nations investigators said the offensive was carried out with "genocidal intent," accusing the military of horrific crimes such as gang rape, torture, arson and extrajudicial killings. The military and government deny the claims, saying they were targeting terrorists

© YE AUNG THU/AFP/AFP via Getty Images

Min Aung Hlaing, commander in chief of the Myanmar armed forces, 

pictured in Yangon on July 19, 2018.

In 2019, the United States sanctioned Min Aung Hlaing for serious human rights abuses related to the atrocities committed against the Rohingya. A genocide case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is ongoing.

The military is also reported to be extremely wealthy, controlling a vast web of companies with links to industries such as jade and ruby mining, tobacco, beer, manufacturing, tourism, banking and transport to name a few. Last year, an Amnesty International investigation found that almost every military unit had shares in the military-founded conglomerate, Myanmar Economic Holdings Limited (MEHL), which runs a huge business empire that includes global partners.

A 2019 UN report found that the military used its businesses and arms deals to support brutal operations against ethnic groups that include forced labor and sexual violence.

"This is a completely unreformed and unreconstructed, authoritarian, brutish institution that has violence and cruelty in its DNA," said David Mathieson, an independent analyst based in Yangon.


The commander sees his chance as relationship breaks down

The continuing power and influence of the military placed civilian leader Suu Kyi in a delicate position, as the NLD tried to move forward with its reform agenda while avoiding pushing too hard and potentially kindling a coup.

Analysts say Suu Kyi and Min Aung Hlaing's relationship was bad from the moment she took office in 2015, but had recently deteriorated, leading to what is believed to be a breakdown in communication between the two power-sharing bodies.

© Thet Aung/Pool/AFP/Getty Images

 Myanmar's recently deposed State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi pictured at the Presidential House in Naypyidaw on September 1, 2020.

When she entered office, Suu Kyi was wildly popular because of her decades-long struggle against military rule. However, unlike her standing in the West, her popularity sustained at home over her first term.

Suu Kyi's failure to condemn the Rohingya crisis led to her fall from grace internationally, but her appearance defending the country -- and the military -- from accusations of genocide at the ICJ may have actually increased support domestically ahead of the elections.

Analysts say the generals may have underestimated her continued popularity and were wary of what they saw as her outsized role in the country's governance.

The military drafted constitution was originally designed to constrain her power. A clause bans anyone with foreign family members from becoming President, and because Suu Kyi was married to a British man, she was barred from the top job.

To get around this clause, the NLD created the position of State Counsellor, making Suu Kyi de facto leader of the country and more powerful than the generals had ever intended for her to become.

Referring to the NLD's apparent circumvention of the rules, analyst Horsey said: "There was a feeling that the government and Aung San Suu Kyi violated the constitution and weaponized the military's own constitution against them." A feeling likely made worse by recent attempts by the government for constitutional reform seeking to curb the military's power.

Though Suu Kyi was criticized for not doing more to stand up to the military in parliament, analysts say she was not keen to work with them either.

"Negotiations, talks, discussion and deals are not in Aung San Suu Kyi's DNA," said Khin Zaw Win, director of Yangon think tank the Tampadipa Institute. "She stonewalled everything that came from the military."

With Min Aung Hlaing set to retire when he turns 65 in June, experts say he had his sights set on the presidency. To do that, the military's proxy Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) would need do well in the November elections. But Suu Kyi's NLD won 83% of the vote, giving her a mandate and signaling a strong rejection of the military -- putting those presidential ambitions out of reach

.

© STR/AFP/AFP/Getty Images 

Soldiers keep watch inside the City Hall compound in Yangon on February 1, 2021.

The USDP claimed widespread voter fraud and the military demanded the election commission investigate, but the body said any voting irregularities were not enough to impact the result of the ballot. Min Aung Hlaing asked the NLD to hold a special session of parliament to discuss the claims, which was denied.

"I think a feeling in the officer corps is that the NLD and Suu Kyi had disrespected them, and they were not paying any attention to their views and concerns," Horsey, the Yangon-based analyst said. "The military commander justified his coup via a manufactured crisis. But it tapped into genuine grievances among the top brass."

Intense meetings between Min Aung Hlaing and Suu Kyi's envoys didn't go well in the days before the coup, according to Horsey. The opening of the new parliament on Monday in the capital was the opportune moment for the army chief to reassert his power.

"It's very convenient that all members of parliament just happened to be in Naypyidaw right now, because you can put all of them under house arrest at the one time," said Melissa Crouch, law professor at University of New South Wales, Australia and author of "The Constitution of Myanmar." "This is more than simply election fraud, this is about the military perhaps feeling as though it's lost a bit of control or perhaps needs to reassert its power and its dominance in the political system."

Other analysts have called the move a "preemptive strike" as the generals didn't like how powerful Suu Kyi had become.

"This is a coup to protect their interests," Mathieson said. "(They thought) she has a mandate now to dilute our economic power and our constitutional power, and our immunity from prosecution. There is no way that we're going to allow ourselves to be that vulnerable."

What happens next

The military's coup, coming as it did during a period of crisis owing to the coronavirus pandemic and disregarding the overwhelming will of millions, is a leaf out of the playbook of the Burmese militaries of old, and suggests the new generation of generals are not so different from their forebears. The threat of further international sanctions, experts have said, would likely not have bothered them.

"Min Aung Hlaing is a dictator. He was a dictator all along," Mathieson said. "This is a coup against democracy in Myanmar because it's not as if this was a close election -- it was overwhelming, with a high turnout during a pandemic."

What happens next, and what kind of regime Min Aung Hlaing will run, is uncertain.

Fears of a wider clampdown targeting critics, activists, and journalists are rampant. Myanmar human rights organization, Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (AAPP) has documented at least 133 government officials and legislators, and 14 activists detained since Monday. Suu Kyi is under house arrest, charged with breaching the Import Export Law, while ousted President Win Myint is accused of violating the Natural Disaster Management law -- charges that have been described as "trumped up."

On Saturday, large-scale protests broke out, with thousands of people taking to the streets of Yangon in the first major organized demonstration since the military seized power.

The crowd, many of whom could be seen waving flags and holding banners, called for the military to release Suu Kyi, and other democratically-elected lawmakers.

But Khin Zaw Win, the director of the Yangon think tank, said this coup differs from those of 1962 and 1988, which were brutally enforced and imposed a new order over the country.

"This time it's been, lets say, very restrained and the language they use and the statements ... appears they are trying to placate the population," he said. "In the past, the existing constitutions were ditched, this time they are being meticulous about it."

At this stage, there is little to suggest the military wants to unwind the progress of the past 10 years or drastically change citizens' way of life. Investigating election fraud and fighting the pandemic are priorities, according to the new regime.

Myanmar will be under the whims of the military -- and a state of emergency -- for at least a year and Min Aung Hlaing has said elections will be held once the fraud probe has been completed, though analysts say they will want to ensure Suu Kyi cannot contest.

But dictators have a nasty tendency of promising one thing and doing another. And if street protests do gain momentum in the weeks to come, the full force of the military's might could be unleashed.

Trump could be fined $12 million after an Illinois judge ruled his Chicago hotel violated an environmental protection law for 3 years

© KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI/AFP via Getty Images

 A man walks by Trump International Hotel and Tower in Chicago, Illinois, on March 21, 2020.

Trump's Chicago hotel is violating environmental protection laws, an Illinois judge ruled.

The ruling stems from a 2018 lawsuit against the former president's hotel, The Washington Post reported.

The hotel is improperly using water from the Chicago River to cool the building, the judge decided. 

Former President Donald Trump's Chicago hotel is improperly using water from the Chicago River to cool the building in violation of environmental protection regulations, a judge in Illinois ruled this week.

The ruling stems from a 2018 lawsuit against the Trump International Hotel and Tower in Chicago, The Washington Post reported. The Illinois attorney general had argued that Trump's property used 19 million gallons of water each day from the Chicago River to cool the property and returned the water to the river at a warmer temperature.

The hotel had initially secured a permit that allowed it to cool the building in this way, but the permit expired in 2017 and was not renewed, according to the report, sparking more than three years of violations.

The Trump Organization, which owns and operates the Chicago hotel, did not immediately return Insider's request for comment.

Cook County Circuit Court Judge Sophia Hall, who decided the case, said a penalty would be decided at a future date.

According to the Washington Post, the office of the Illinois Attorney General had asked that the judge impose the maximum possible fines: $50,000 for two violations plus an additional $10,000 per day for each day the hotel continued to cool the building using water from the river.

With violations occurring since 2017, the former president's hotel chain could be ordered to pay as much as $12 million in fines, The Chicago Tribune reported. It added, however, that fines that high were ultimately unlikely.

The lawsuit had first been filed by former Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, but a spokesperson for current Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, in office since 2019, told The Washington Post he was happy with the judge's ruling, adding he planned to "continue to seek to hold the defendants accountable for violations of Illinois' environmental laws that jeopardized the quality of the Chicago River."

The ruling in Chicago is just one in a series of legal battles that the former president faces now that he is out of office.

The Far-Right Militia Member Providing Muscle for Top Trump Allies and Aides


When Oath Keeper Rob Minuta provided security for Roger Stone on the day of the Capitol riot, it wasn’t his first time providing muscle for a top Trump aide. Imagery obtained by The Daily Beast shows Minuta marched alongside former Trump National Security Adviser Mike Flynn when he attended a similar march in Washington, D.C. in December which sought to overturn the 2020 election.

© Provided by The Daily Beast Photo Illustration by Elizabeth Brockway/The Daily Beast/Tasos Katopodis/Getty

His appearance in similar roles for Flynn and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones at pro-Trump rallies after the election highlights the troubling network of connections between members of the far-right militia and some of Trump’s closest advisers and supporters.

ABC News first reported that Minuta was one of the Oath Keepers seen providing security for Roger Stone on the day of the riot. Minuta’s wife told the news outlet her husband didn’t enter the Capitol and he hasn’t been charged with a crime or accused of wrongdoing.

Much like the Jan. 6 rally that turned into a riot, the Dec. 12 rally drew a host of Trump supporters—including members of the extremist Oath Keepers militia and the white nationalist Proud Boys—after the pro-Trump group Women for America First organized a rally to support Trump’s attempts to overthrow the 2020 election.

Flynn was among the many top tier Trump supporters who attended and spoke at the Dec. 12 events, where he gave speeches on the Mall and in front of the Supreme Court.

That evening, the rally descended into a bloody brawl as members of the Proud Boys clashed with counter-protesters. Washington, D.C. police reported four stabbings as a result of the clashes and charged Proud Boys founder Enrique Tarrio with destruction of property and felony firearms possession after he was seen allegedly vandalizing a historic Black church by tearing down and burning its Black Lives Matter banner.

Minuta, clad in black and wearing an Oath Keepers New Jersey hat, is visible escorting Flynn earlier in the day in an apparent security cordon seen in imagery taken as the former national security adviser walked towards the Supreme Court. In one video, Minuta is visible alongside other apparent members of the cordon pushing bystanders out of Flynn’s way as he heads up the steps of the court.

Citizen Lab researcher John Scott Railton and a Discord group of volunteers known as the “Capitol Terrorists Exposers” first identified Minuta in imagery escorting Flynn.

“This case is yet another illustration of the troubling tendrils connecting organized groups, such as the Oath Keepers, to this event and a reminder of the role of volunteers in identifying what may be key people in this story,” Railton told The Daily Beast.

Flynn did not respond to a request for comment from The Daily Beast.

Minuta appears to have performed a similar escort role for InfoWars conspiracy theorist Alex Jones at a Nov. 14 “Million MAGA March” Trump rally in Washington. In photos taken by UPI and Getty, Minuta is visible as part of an escort for Jones alongside reported members of the Proud Boys as he heads towards the Supreme Court.

© Provided by The Daily Beast Proud Boys and supporters escort Alex Jones away from the Supreme Court after Jones spoke to the "Million MAGA March" protesters in Washington on Saturday, Nov. 14, 2020. Photo Illustration by Elizabeth Brockway/The Daily Beast/Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call/Getty

A week before the Nov. 14 rally, an account in Minuta’s name posted in the RocketChat Forum, a website reportedly used by Oath Keepers which leaked to the left-wing UnicornRiot media collective.

“Fellow patriots, take this period of uncertainty to make sure provisions and gear is set up properly!,” the account wrote. “We must be ready to be in the streets in a controlled manor (Virginia 2A rally style). We must OVERTAKE the streets in massive numbers.”

Minuta identified himself as a Jones fan in a January 2020 interview, where he told the Virginia Mercury that he had attended a Virginia gun rights demonstration during the state’s Lobby Day after he heard about it on Jones’ show.

Minuta did not respond to email and text messages from The Daily Beast.

Minuta is visible in another photograph taken that evening standing next to an infamous Proud Boy, Dominic “Spazzo” Pezzola, the alleged rioter charged with smashing a Capitol window on Jan. 6 and allegedly telling a confidential witness that he “would have killed [Vice President] Mike Pence if given the chance.”

In a post on the now-defunct right-wing social media site Parler, one account in the name of Minuta’s father’s company posted a link to a photograph of Minuta standing behind “Spazzo.”

“THAT IS MY SON ROB STANDING FOR WHAT IS RIGHT,” the account posted next to a picture taken by Washingtonian photographer Evy Mages. “SPAZZOLINI IS THE MARINE IN FRONT AN ICONIC MARINE.”

Minuta’s father did not respond to a request for comment from The Daily Beast.

The Oath Keepers have drawn increased scrutiny from federal law enforcement after members of the group were charged with participating in the riot. Prosecutors have charged three Oath Keepers—Thomas Caldwell, Jessica Marie Watkins, and Donovan Crowl—with conspiracy to obstruct Congress. So far, prosecutors have only used conspiracy charges against alleged rioters who were members of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, and the government is reportedly considering whether to use a Nixon-era anti-mafia law to charge some rioters.

Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes was present at the rally in Washington on Jan. 6 but was not seen inside the Capitol and has not been charged with any wrongdoing.

Minuta’s relationship with the extremist Oath Keepers militia dates back at least to May 2020, when Rhodes supported an anti-lockdown protest at Minuta’s tattoo shop, Casa Di Dolore.

Minuta opened his tattoo shop in May in defiance of New York state public health regulations in what he called “a display of defiance against a tyrannical dictator,” Gov. Andrew Cuomo, according to an interview with the Mid Hudson News. In an interview in 2019, Minuta identified himself as an anti-vaxxer and told a local news outlet that he and his wife began looking at houses in New Jersey after New York passed a mandatory vaccination law for children.

Rhodes traveled from Texas to Newburgh, New York along with other members of the Oath Keepers to participate in the protest.

“I asked to be his first customer, and I’m going to get ‘We the people” tattooed on my arm,” Rhodes told the Times Herald-Record.

In a video posted to the Oath Keepers YouTube channel at the time, Minuta, again dressed in Oath Keepers garb, tattoos “We the people” on Rhodes’ arm using the iconic scrawl seen in the original Constitution.

Read more at The Daily Beast.

Bob Joseph: Why the Indian Act must go and Canada will be better for it

Last week in a virtual Q & A session, Indigenous author Bob Joseph was asked “How will people know that they’ve achieved reconciliation?”

Joseph answered, “When people are at peace with the past.”

The first step is moving away from the Indian Act, according to Joseph, who advocates for First Nations heading towards self-governance, self-reliance and self-determination.

The bestselling author of ‘21 Things You May Not Know About the Indian Act’ has been enabling discourse about the act, since his 2015 blog post about the legislation went viral. In Canada, many people are still oblivious to the Indian Act, says Joseph.

READ ALSO: ‘We’re still in it’: Wet’suwet’en push forward on rights recognition

Since it was first passed in 1876, the Indian Act has undergone numerous amendments but it still stands as law, governing matters pertaining to Indian status, bands and reserves, among other things.

The legislation – originally created to ‘assimilate’ Indigenous people into mainstream Canadian life and values – is a paradox in which both the rights of Indigenous people and their bondage co-exist.

And while some Indigenous groups have called for its dismissal due to what have been called its regressive and paternalistic excesses, others have resisted its abolition.

Joseph is a member of the Gwawa’enuxw Nation, Gayaxala (Thunderbird) clan, who grew up in Campbell River. He believes the Indian Act must go, simply because it was unsuccessful (and now outdated) in its original purpose of assimilating Indigenous people into the political and economic mainstream.

“If anything, it (the Indian Act) has kept Indigenous people separate under different laws and under different lands,” he said.

In a virtual seminar last week hosted by the Vancouver Island Regional Library, Joseph interacted with more than 500 viewers. He provided insights into the legislation’s history before discussing modern day solutions that could replace the Indian Act.

Through 21 points Joseph not only highlighted the obsolete nature of the legislation but also why it is relevant to understanding reconciliation going forward – especially at a time when Canada is undertaking a commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

Before some of its amendments, the Indian Act denied Indigenous status to women, introduced residential schools, created reserves, renamed individuals with European names, restricted First Nations from leaving reserves without permission from Indian Agents, expropriated portions of reserves for roads, railways, etc, imposed the ‘band council’ system and created other personal and cultural tragedies on First Nations.

Despite that, it was legally significant for Indigenous peoples. For example, in 1969 when Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau’s white paper policies proposed to abolish it, Aboriginal leaders across Canada opposed the move. Since the Indian Act affirms the historical and constitutional relationship Aboriginal peoples have with Canada, they wanted it to legally maintain the Indian status and the rights that it afforded them.

This paradox, Joseph pointed out, has created a relationship wherein Indigenous people are dependent on the federal government. Even today, these concerns remain when discussions about breaking away from the Indian Act comes up.

“I hear people tell me ‘we need to make sure we protect our status’” He reminds them that thought is “in fact an objective of the Indian Act” which keeps them tied to it. The Indian act will never help them grow their nation and their people – “it’s not designed to do that.” That is why First Nations must find a better way, break the cycle of dependency and give way to self determination, self reliance, and self governance.

“A place to look for solutions already exists,” he says, pointing to modern day treaties in B.C. like the Nisga’a Treaty and the Westbank First Nation Self-government Agreement from the early 2000’s.

“The Nisga’a Treaty got rid of the Indian Act, they were able to get control and jurisdiction over lands and resources and the ability to make decisions about those lands and resources.”

But he also said that these treaties are not necessarily a one-size-fits-all framework that will work for all Nations. Each group must arrive at a model that works best for them through negotiations.

This is where knowledge of history comes in handy – for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people – as a powerful medium to achieve true reconciliation.

As people become aware about the history of Indigenous people in Canada through the ages, there is a wider scope of conversation that can be had in families, educational institutions, places of worship etc.

He urges people to learn about history and then make a personal pledge to reconciliation – which is going to take “political will, knowledge and understanding and empathy.”

“Reconciliation has to be a grassroots movement and not by politicians,” he says.

Because when it comes to something as important as reconciliation, politics “holds back” the process of moving away from the Indian Act as “politicians are all over the place,” with government agendas changing every four years.

“I would rather hang my hat on individuals in Canada to do reconciliation. That seems to have a lot more longevity.”

When political agendas come into the picture, conversations pivot to the “cost of change,” that First Nations are asking for.

To drive home the point, Joseph gives an example from the early ’90s when he had a conversation with a group of people who were worried after a front-page article in the Vancouver Sun stating Indian land claims could cost taxpayers $10 billion.

“I told them this was a great article. It talks to you about the cost of change, but it doesn’t talk to you about the cost of not changing it,” he said and added, cost of years-long legal battles, loss of direct investments and jobs etc, ultimately end up costing governments more than the estimated cost of change.

“So I try to tell taxpayers, look, if it’s money you’re worried about, if that’s what makes your world go round. I can tell you honestly, it will be cheaper to resolve land claims quicker than it is to let them fester.”

Such issues resurface at different intervals of history, he warns, referring to the ongoing Wet’suwet’an pipeline conflict in B.C. and it’s all because there’s no relationship with Indigenous people.

“We’re not listening to their concerns.”

Which is why in retrospect, Joseph says it would be cheaper to move away from the Indian Act and have mutually beneficial relationships.

“It will be better for the country.”

Binny Paul, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Campbell River Mirror

RIP 

Former heavyweight champion Leon Spinks

dies at 67

“It was one of the most unbelievable things when Ali agreed to fight him because you look at the fights he had up to then and he was not only not a top contender but shouldn’t have been a contender at all,’’ 

© Provided by The Canadian Press

LAS VEGAS — Leon Spinks, who won Olympic gold and then shocked the boxing world by beating Muhammad Ali to win the heavyweight title in only his eighth pro fight, has died. He was 67.

Spinks, who lived his later years in Las Vegas, died Friday night, according to a release from a public relations firm. He had been battling prostate and other cancers.

His wife, Brenda Glur Spinks, and a few close friends and other family members were by his side when he passed away.

A lovable heavyweight with a drinking problem, Spinks beat Ali by decision in a 15-round fight in 1978 to win the title. He was unranked at the time, and picked as an opponent because Ali was looking for an easy fight.

He got anything but that, with an unorthodox Spinks swarming over Ali throughout the fight on his way to a stunning win by split decision. The two met seven months later at the Superdome in New Orleans, with Ali taking the decision this time before a record indoor boxing crowd of 72,000 and a national television audience estimated at 90 million people.

“It was one of the most unbelievable things when Ali agreed to fight him because you look at the fights he had up to then and he was not only not a top contender but shouldn’t have been a contender at all,’’ promoter Bob Arum said Saturday. ”He was just an opponent but somehow he found a way to win that fight."

Spinks would lose the rematch to Ali in New Orleans and fought for the title only once after that, when he was stopped in the third round in 1981 by Larry Holmes. He continued fighting on and off into the mid-1990s, finishing with a record of 26-17-3.

Spinks, with a big grin that often showed off his missing front teeth, was popular among boxing fans for both his win over Ali and his easygoing personality. But he burned through his earnings quickly, and at one point after retiring was working as a custodian at a YMCA in Nebraska, cleaning locker rooms.

He later was part of a group of ex-fighters who had their brains studied by the Cleveland Clinic Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health in Las Vegas. Spinks was found to have brain damage caused by a combination of taking punches to the head and heavy drinking, though he functioned well enough to do autograph sessions and other events late in his life.

“He was a good soul,” said Gene Kilroy, who was Ali’s business manager when he fought Spinks and became friends with the fighter.

Spinks won the light heavyweight division at the 1976 Olympics in Montreal, beating Sixto Soria of Cuba in an upset to become one of five U.S. fighters to win gold. His brother, Michael, who would later become heavyweight champion himself, won the middleweight gold, and Sugar Ray Leonard took the welterweight title.

Spinks was hardly spectacular after turning pro, winning six of his first seven fights. Just four months before he met Ali, he could manage just a draw with journeyman Scott LeDoux and he wasn’t on anyone’s radar in the heavyweight title picture.

But Ali was coming off a brutal fight with Earnie Shavers and wasn’t looking forward to what would have been a mandatory bout against Ken Norton, whom he had already fought three times and who seemed to have Ali’s number. Instead, he sought an easy mark for a fight that was to be nationally televised on ABC, even knowing he would be stripped of one of his titles for taking another fight.

Enter Spinks, who was such a big underdog most sports books didn’t even take bets on the fight.

“In that fight everything clicked,” Arum said. “He came in with a game plan and he beat Ali. It wasn’t that Ali wasn’t at his best, but Leon shocked everybody with how good Leon was.”

Suddenly, Spinks was the heavyweight champion of the world at the age of 25.

“I'm not The Greatest,” Spinks said afterward. “Just the latest.”

Arum was in the dressing room with Ali after the fight, and said Ali directed him to sign Spinks to a quick rematch. The two fought seven months later in a prime-time fight on CBS that set television viewing records at the time, with nearly half the country tuning in.

Ali took the rematch more seriously than he did the first fight, winning a decision though Spinks was competitive. Spinks might have been better, Arum said, but enjoyed the life of being heavyweight champion too much and partied much of the time between fights.

“Leon posed in a bathtub with a glass of champagne smoking a cigar. He suddenly had an entourage as big as one that Ali had,” Arum said. “We were all staying at the same hotel in New Orleans for the rematch and one morning I was coming down to breakfast and Leon got in the elevator and collapsed on the floor. Obviously he had been out drinking and I said, `Leon, are you crazy, you’re fighting in just a few days.’ He said `What do you mean? I’m just coming in from roadwork.'”

Among the notable people in Spinks’ entourage was Lawrence Tureaud, who would later be known as the actor Mr. T and served as bodyguard for the champion.

Spinks was born July 11, 1953, in St. Louis, raised in poverty along with his brother Michael. After discovering boxing both brothers became top amateurs, culminating in the 1976 Olympics where Leon won the light heavyweight gold and Michael won the middleweight gold.

Michael Spinks would go on to win the heavyweight title himself in 1985, defending it three times before being knocked out by Mike Tyson in 91 seconds in their 1988 fight in Atlantic City. By then, the best part of Leon’s career was over, though he would fight until losing a December 1995 fight against Fred Houpe in St. Louis.

After moving to Las Vegas, Spinks was married to Brenda Glur Spinks in 2011. The two were often seen at boxing-related activities, including Spinks’ 2017 induction into the Nevada Boxing Hall of Fame.

“He was happy go lucky, the salt of the earth,” Arum said, chuckling at the memories. “Leon was nutty but you couldn’t get angry at the guy. He never meant any harm to anyone. You couldn’t help but love him even though you shook your head at how he acted.”

Tim Dahlberg, The Associated Pres

Rare meteorites from the moon, Mars and more to go under the hammer

For those looking for an accessory a little out of this world, an auction house has an extraordinary offering: meteorites

.

© Christie's

Amy Woodyatt 

In an online sale, Christie's auction house is presenting a portfolio of celestial objects, including specimens hailing from the moon and Mars, as well as aesthetic iron meteorites and rocks containing gemstones.

Meteorites are small natural objects from space that survive their passage through Earth's atmosphere and land on the surface -- and while some of the specimens are housed in museums, 75 of them are being sold this month as part of "Deep Impact: Martian, Lunar and Other Rare Meteorites" auction.

Among the collection is a statue composed of 7-billion-year-old stardust -- an oriented stone meteorite that found its way to Earth in an unusual way.

Unlike most other meteorites, this one did not tumble or invert as it fell to Earth and instead kept a stable orientation as it dropped, according to Christie's. Weighing almost 16 lbs., the stone, which is estimated to sell for $50,000-80,000, has distinctive, diverging markings on the side that faced Earth.

"Everyone has an image in mind of how a meteorite "should look" -- an extraterrestrial body frictionally heated while punching through Earth's atmosphere," James Hyslop, head of science and natural history at Christie's said. "Rarely do the objects survive this fiery descent look like that shared ideal seen in this meteorite," he added

.

© Christie's A gibeon meteorite, on sale for an estimated $15,000 - $25,000

Also on sale is a cross-section of Martian rock, with bubbles of the planet's atmosphere trapped inside the slice, estimated at $30,000-50,000. Auctioneers are also offering a specimen of meteorite hailing from the US' largest meteorite shower, in Odessa, Texas, which auctioneers expect could fetch $60,000, along with a sphere fashioned from the meteoritic core of a shattered Swedish asteroid, which could sell for $18,000.

But not all of the objects command astronomical prices -- some of the otherworldly items have a reserve tag starting at $250 for the auction, which will start on February 9.

  

Also up for sale is a sphere fashioned from the meteoritic core of a shattered Swedish asteroid.

You can now buy 7 billion-year-old stardust, pieces of the moon and Mars

If you're looking for an out-of-this-world gift this Valentine's Day, an auction house is offering up rare meteorite chunks from the moon, Mars and beyond — for as little as $250.

© Christie's my-post-35.png

In an online sale beginning Tuesday, February 9, Christie's auction house is auctioning off 72 meteorites — solid pieces of debris from celestial objects like comets and asteroids that arrive on Earth as shooting stars, somehow managing to survive their journey through our atmosphere to land on the surface.

"The weight of every known meteorite is less than the world's annual output of gold, and this sale offers spectacular examples for every collector, available at estimates ranging from hundreds to hundreds of thousands of dollars," the auction house wrote on its website.

Included in the collection is a meteorite containing 7 billion-year-old stardust, space gems encased in iron and the fourth-largest slice of the moon. A large chunk of Martian rock, worth an estimated $30,000 to $50,000, holds bubbles of the planet's atmosphere trapped inside.

According to Christie's, there are a dozen samples from the moon and Mars, and another dozen previously housed by famous museums around the world.

"Everyone has an image in mind of how a meteorite 'should look' – an extraterrestrial body frictionally heated while punching through Earth's atmosphere," James Hyslop, head of science and natural history for Christie's, said in a statement. "Rarely do the objects survive this fiery descent look like that shared ideal seen in this meteorite. It is a wonder to behold and an honor to have been entrusted with its sale."

One object in the collection never hit the ground — a young boy in Morocco found the meteorite in the branches of a tree a day after a meteor shower — it's worth an estimated $15,000 to $25,000. Yet another hailed from the U.S.' largest meteorite shower in Odessa, Texas, expecting to fetch $40,000 to $60,000.

"If there was ever a time to be awed by the infiniteness of the night sky, we're living in it, but if you want to inspire and see eyes widen — touch a meteorite," said curator Darryl Pitt.

© Provided by CBS News

The auction house said that one of the highlights of the sale is a 16-pound "highly aesthetic oriented stone meteorite," estimated to sell for $50,000 to $80,000.

"Unlike 99% of all other meteorites, this meteorite did not tumble or invert as it plunged to Earth but maintained a stable orientation throughout its descent," the auction house said. "The surface that faced Earth showcases elongated flight marks that radiate outwards in this compelling, extraterrestrial aerodynamic form."

The meteorites have been found all over the world, from the Sahara Desert to Chile to Russia.

The "Deep Impact: Martian, Lunar and Other Rare Meteorites" auction runs until February 23, and interested buyers located in New York can see them in person, by appoi

Health Canada says baby foods safe after U.S. investigates levels of toxic metals

OTTAWA — Health Canada is reassuring parents that baby foods sold in the country are safe after reviewing the results of a U.S. investigation into levels of toxic metals in products from several major manufacturers.

Canadian Food Inspection Agency in Ottawa on Wednesday, June 26, 2019.

The department says in an emailed statement that it works with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to regularly monitor for trace elements, including arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury.

It says the levels in Canada are "low and not expected to pose a safety concern" based on the available surveillance data.

The U.S. report released Thursday says the House of Representatives subcommittee on economic and consumer policy requested test results from seven of America's largest baby food manufacturers and received information from four, while three refused to comply.

It says arsenic, lead and cadmium were present in baby foods made by the four responding companies at levels higher than the maximum amounts allowed in other products, such as drinking water.

Health Canada, meanwhile, says yearly national surveys test a range of baby foods and brands, such as infant formula, purees and cereals, and immediate action would be taken to protect Canadians from contaminants if levels were found to pose health risks.

The testing results are assessed "to verify compliance to Canadian standards, limits and guidelines and to ensure that the levels found do not pose a risk to consumers" the department says.

It notes the U.S. report is not a scientific risk assessment.

The subcommittee is recommending mandatory testing, labelling and a voluntary phase-out of toxic ingredients by manufacturers, as well as new U.S. Food and Drug Administration standards that set maximum levels of toxic heavy metals in baby foods.

Health Canada says it's working to establish a maximum level of 100 parts per billion for inorganic arsenic in rice-based foods for babies and children, and to lower maximum levels in fruit juices.

It says new maximum levels for inorganic arsenic in rice came into force last summer, as did maximum levels for lead in baby formula.

The department notes the Canadian Food Inspection Agency publishes the results of its surveillance programs online.

The companies that complied with the U.S. subcommittee's request were Nurture, Beech-Nut Nutrition Company, Hain Celestial Group and Gerber, while the report says Campbell Soup Company, Walmart and Sprout Foods refused to co-operate with the investigation.

The U.S. report says internal company standards permit "dangerously high levels of toxic heavy metals" and the subcommittee is concerned the lack of co-operation from some companies could "obscure the presence of even higher levels of toxic heavy metals."

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 6, 2021.

The Canadian Press

Alberta animal rescue organization opens first Edmonton facility

Alberta Animal Rescue Crew Society (AARCS) has opened a new animal shelter in southeast Edmonton.

The organization leased a 10,000 square-foot space on Coronet Road more than a year ago, finally opening in January.

"We’re so excited this is finally here," said AARCS operations manager Jamey Blair.


"We feel pretty blessed to be open and part of the Edmonton community."

Late Friday, 44 puppies and dogs arrived at the new AARCS facility — their biggest intake so far.

"Often a lot of these dogs are outside, exposed to the elements, so you can see things like frostbite and overall just being outside in this weather is just very hard on them," Blair explained.

"Most of them were just scared. We have some that are a little malnutritioned. We did get one that was injured — hit by a car, but she's doing well," volunteer Tawny Michael said.

The animal welfare organization is based in Calgary. In Edmonton, it's been strictly foster-based for the last five years.

Read more: Second Chance Animal Rescue Society closes doors to new intakes amid COVID-19 funding shortfall

Blair said this new facility is critical when it comes to helping animals from areas further north.

"The drive for some of these animals is very long," Blair said. "Having a safe space where volunteers can go out at a moment's notice, rescue the animals, and us provide temporary care for them until we can get them into foster homes, has been remarkable."

"A lot of times they would have to still keep driving to make it to Calgary, so it's nice to have that stop in between," Michael explained.

The dogs will continue on to Calgary this weekend where, once cleared by the vet, they will be ready for foster homes.

Blair said since opening, they've helped roughly 250 animals.

"We’ll be able to help so many more animals because of a facility like this, and hopefully find many more homes too," she added.

AARCS is looking for more volunteers.

For more information on adoptable animals and how to donate to the rescue organization, head to the website.