Saturday, November 13, 2021

THE HAQQANI NETWORK: THE NEW KINGMAKERS IN KABUL
JEFF M. SMITH
NOVEMBER 12, 2021
COMMENTARY


LONG READ 

In some ways, the Taliban that is now in power in Kabul looks a great deal like the Taliban that ruled Afghanistan in the run-up to 9/11. In their first weeks in office, the Taliban whipped women in public, tortured journalists, targeted minorities, executed former collaborators with the United States, and canceled female sports and secondary education.

In other ways, the Taliban, and its new leadership, looks very different. The recent focus on the Taliban’s human rights violations and the group’s escalating battle with the Islamic State in Afghanistan risks overshadowing a potentially bigger story: the bloodstained rise of Sirajuddin Haqqani and the Haqqani Network. A loyal proxy of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence, the network has been active in Afghanistan since the 1970s. Through brutal tactics and battlefield successes, the Haqqani Network — a terrorist group allied with, and increasingly embedded in, the Taliban leadership structure — has now established itself as a dangerous and influential kingmaker in Kabul.

Throughout the course of the Afghan War, the Haqqani Network was often responsible for the deadliest and highest-profile terrorist attacks on U.S. forces. It may be no coincidence that Khalil ur-Rahman Haqqani, a terrorist with a $5 million U.S. bounty on his head, was appointed to serve as the head of security in the Afghan capital one week before an August 2021 suicide bombing at the Kabul airport killed 13 U.S. soldiers and over 160 Afghan civilians. The fox was finally guarding the henhouse.

When the Taliban announced a new hardline government in September, several members of the Haqqani Network were given key ministerial positions, handing the terrorist group control of internal security in Afghanistan. It increasingly seems that the fall of Kabul was as much a victory for the Haqqani Network as it was for the traditional Taliban leadership. Indeed, within days of announcing the new government, senior Haqqani commanders engaged in a fistfight with a key Taliban leader, sending him fleeing from the capital to traditional Taliban strongholds in the south.

The ascendence of the Haqqanis has also been a victory for Pakistan’s military and intelligence agencies. As longtime Afghanistan scholar Barnett Rubin notes, today “Pakistan’s favored Taliban, the Haqqanis, dominate. Taliban leaders who sought to gain some independence from Pakistan or to seek a negotiated solution have been marginalized.”

A Taliban-ruled Afghanistan was already a nightmare scenario. The Haqqani Network, with its “track record of supporting overseas jihad,” is even more ideologically and operationally aligned with global jihadist groups like al-Qaeda and the Islamic State in Afghanistan than the Taliban is. The Biden administration recently warned that both al-Qaeda and the Islamic State in Afghanistan are intent on conducting terrorist attacks on the United States, and the latter could generate that capability in as soon as six months.

With limited access to Afghanistan following the withdrawal of U.S. forces, the Biden administration should begin preparing for the worst — for the possibility that globally ambitious terrorist groups find either direct support or a more permissive environment to operate by an Afghan government heavily influenced by the Haqqani Network. It should lead international efforts to pressure the new Taliban-Haqqani government to abandon support for global terrorist groups, and it should seek to re-establish counter-terrorism capabilities in the country and broader region. Critically, it should do so while avoiding falling into a Faustian bargain with Pakistan, exchanging access to Afghanistan for acceptance of Pakistan’s support to the very same terrorist groups the United States is targeting.

Haqqani’s Aces


The origins of the Haqqani Network date back to a 1973 coup in Afghanistan that brought to power Prime Minister Daoud Khan. When Khan offered “shelter, training, and weapons to Baloch insurgents and Pakistani Pashtun nationalists alike,” Pakistani intelligence began mobilizing exiled Afghan dissidents like Jalaluddin Haqqani for “anti-regime operations.” From their base in Pakistan’s tribal areas, in 1975, Haqqani’s fighters launched their first attack in Afghanistan, killing 12.

After the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Pakistani intelligence re-activated various Afghan mujahideen proxies, with Haqqani and his allies receiving an “extraordinary share” of the arms and aid. Pakistan accepted arms and aid from the United States and Saudi Arabia for the anti-Soviet jihad, even as Pakistani intelligence “controlled their distribution and their transport to the war zone,” while limiting contact between the CIA and the mujahideen. Nevertheless, CIA officers, who observed that Jalaluddin “could kill Russians like you wouldn’t believe,” idolized him.

Jalaluddin’s tribal connections, fundraising skills, and fluency in Arabic were key assets in his ascension. Haqqani’s Zadran tribe straddles the Afghan-Pakistani border where Loya Paktia meets Waziristan. The border crossings under its control provided the network leverage over the flow of drugs, trade, and fighters coming across the porous border, with additional revenue earned from smuggling, kidnapping, and extortion.

Jalaluddin further distinguished himself by drawing Gulf money and Arab fighters to the anti-Soviet Afghan jihad, even taking an Arab wife from the United Arab Emirates with which he had a son, Sirajuddin. According to Steve Coll, the “Haqqanis did more than any other commander network in Afghanistan to nurture and support Arab volunteer fighters, seeding al-Qaeda’s birth.” Indeed, al-Qaeda’s first training camp was established in Haqqani territory, though at the time Haqqani did not espouse a global jihadist ideology.

After the 1989 Soviet withdrawal, Afghanistan was consumed by civil war. In the chaos, a movement of ultra-conservative Pashtun religious students (“Talibs”) arose seemingly out of thin air, vowing to end corrupt warlordism and implement strict Islamic law in Afghanistan. After a string of battlefield victories, in late 1994, Pakistan “threw its support behind the emerging Taliban movement” led by Mullah Omar. Initially opposed to the group, in 1995, Jalaluddin “defected” to the Taliban while maintaining his own power base in Loya Paktia. The following year, the Taliban seized control of Kabul and effectively ended the Afghan civil war. Jalaluddin was later appointed Minister of Borders and Tribal Affairs in the Taliban government that ruled from 1996 to 2001.


After the 9/11 attack and U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, U.S.-allied forces cornered key Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders, as well as Pakistani army officers and intelligence advisers, along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. As Pakistan arranged an airlift to ferry these groups to its tribal areas, the Haqqani Network reportedly “served as [a] key conduit for the escape of al-Qaeda operatives into Pakistan.”

The Rise of Siraj


From his sanctuary in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas, Jalaluddin “began to remobilize his front, and [by late 2002] Haqqani fighting groups were operating in Paktia and Khost” in eastern Afghanistan. In 2003, the Taliban formed new regional leadership councils or “shuras.” The quasi-autonomous “Miram Shah shura,” headquartered in North Waziristan, was “composed exclusively of the Haqqani Network.”

Meanwhile, Sirajuddin (“Siraj”) began assuming operational control of the Haqqani Network from his aging father. By mid-2005, he was “spearheading the insurgency in Loya Paktia,” eventually overseeing an expansion of the network’s operations and stretching a campaign of terror to the Afghan capital.

Inside Pakistan, Siraj was making the Haqqani Network increasingly indispensable to Pakistani intelligence. In the mid-2000s, militant groups in the Haqqani stronghold of North Waziristan began turning their guns inward, targeting the Pakistani state and civilians, eventually coalescing under the banner of a new Pakistani Taliban in 2007. Pakistani intelligence leaned on the Haqqani Network to broker a series of peace deals with the Pakistani Taliban. Siraj used his connections to “pressure them to cease attacking [Pakistan’s] security forces — and attack Afghan and Western forces in Afghanistan instead.”

In 2007, the Haqqani Network became “officially affiliated” with the Taliban. Siraj was granted membership to the Taliban Leadership Council and was later appointed head of the Miram Shah Shura.

U.S. military officials began warning that the Haqqani Network were “becoming more violent and self-serving” under Siraj, who was part of a “younger, more aggressive generation” usurping power from traditional Zadran tribal elders. The Haqqani Network was the first among all Taliban factions to embrace suicide bombing tactics and is believed to have played a role in the July 2008 suicide bombing at the Indian embassy in Kabul that killed over 50 people, as well as the December 2009 suicide bombing of a CIA outpost in Khost.

In 2011, the Haqqani Network orchestrated a suicide bombing at the Inter-Continental Hotel in Kabul, wounded 77 U.S. soldiers in an attack on a U.S. military base, and assaulted the U.S. embassy in Kabul. The same year, Siraj published a violent manifesto advocating for global jihad outside Afghanistan’s borders, a departure from his father’s more traditional focus on eastern Afghanistan. It urged Muslims to travel to the West on student visas and attack soft targets, praising al-Qaeda and promoting suicide bombings and beheadings.

The Haqqani Network had by now positioned itself in the crosshairs of the United States, which began heavily targeting the group in Loya Paktia and, through drone strikes, in North Waziristan. However, Pakistani intelligence would reportedly “warn Siraj of an impending drone strike, after which he would seek shelter in the mountains surrounding Miram Shah,” limiting the United States’ ability to degrade the network’s capabilities in its Pakistani safe havens.

Frustrated U.S. officials began publicly and privately pressuring Islamabad to cut all ties with the network. In 2011, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen described the Haqqani Network as a “veritable arm” of Pakistani intelligence. In 2012, the same year Siraj officially assumed control of the network from Jalaluddin, the U.S. State Department designated the group a terrorist organization.

Pakistan ostensibly “banned” the Haqqani Network in 2015. However, the following year Senator Bob Corker vented about how the group had simply moved from Pakistan’s tribal areas, where they were being targeted by U.S. drones, to Pakistan’s suburbs, where they were receiving protection and medical care.

Haqqani and the Taliban

When the Afghan government fell in August 2021, it should have been cause for a joint celebration by Taliban and Haqqani leaders. After all, Siraj had been named deputy emir of the Taliban in 2015 and, to the outside world, the Taliban and Haqqani Network appeared increasingly indistinguishable. Yet, within days of forming a new government, Haqqani and Taliban leaders were reportedly involved in a power-sharing struggle that descended into violence, sending a key Taliban leader fleeing the capital.

While the Haqqani Network is generally billed as an “autonomous but integral” part of the Taliban hierarchy, it has always maintained “distinct command and control, and lines of operations.” In 2010, U.S. assessments concluded Siraj “operates independently, choosing his own targets and only loosely coordinating with the Taliban’s supreme leadership.”

The Taliban is perhaps best seen as a conglomeration of roughly aligned Pashtun tribes of which the Haqqani Network is a part. However, the traditional Afghan Taliban leadership and the Haqqani Network are separated by geography and identity. Among others, legacy Taliban leaders like the late Mullah Omar, his son Mullah Yaqoob, and current Afghan deputy prime minister Mullah Baradar hail from the greater Kandahar region in southern Afghanistan. The Haqqani’s Zadran tribe lies to the more mountainous northeast.

According to Jeffrey Dressler, the Haqqani stronghold of Loya Paktia was “an area in which the southern Taliban were never able to gain influence because of a history of strong tribal independence and a fierce aversion to outsiders.” The Haqqani Network and the eastern Zadran tribes have historically resisted centralized authority, operating autonomously despite periods of intimate cooperation with the southern Taliban factions.

The announcement of Mullah Omar’s death in 2015 further propelled Siraj’s rise while exacerbating fissures between the Haqqani Network and the Taliban’s Kandahari leaders. Siraj was named deputy emir of the Taliban under Omar’s immediate successor, Mullah Mansour. When the latter was killed in a drone strike in 2016, a religious scholar, Haibatullah Akhundzada, was named the Taliban’s new emir. By one account, Akhundzada “intentionally split operational control of the Taliban’s military forces between [his two deputies] Haqqani and Yaqoob in order to prevent the two from creating potentially powerful breakaway factions.”

With Mullah Omar out of the picture, Siraj reportedly enjoyed final authority over the appointment of Taliban shadow governors while “Akhundzada’s relative lack of battlefield experience meant Sirajuddin had almost total autonomy over military strategy and operations.” By 2016, scholars observed that the “pre-eminence of Sirajuddin’s voice amongst the Taliban elite is palpable — so much so that certain critics have pointed to a ‘Haqqanization’ of the Taliban.”

When Kabul fell amid a chaotic U.S. withdrawal in August 2021, Haqqani leaders and Taliban Deputy Prime Minister Mullah Baradar sparred over the allocation of ministerial posts and who deserved credit for the Taliban’s victory: Baradar’s political negotiations with the United States in Doha or the Haqqani Network’s brutal battlefield tactics. The dispute was serious enough that Pakistan’s intelligence chief flew to Kabul to oversee negotiations. (There is a rumor that the Taliban’s reclusive Supreme Leader Hibatullah Akhunzada was killed in Pakistan in 2020, but that is unconfirmed. The Taliban, for its part, claimed he made a public appearance last month.)

Four Haqqani leaders were ultimately given ministerial positions in the new Taliban government: Khalil (refugees minister); Najibullah (communications minister); Abdul Baqi (minister of education); and Siraj (interior minister). As head of the Interior Ministry, Siraj oversees internal security and the power to issue passports. He also secured the right to nominate governors for several eastern Afghan provinces.

Within days of forming the new government, Haqqani leaders and Baradar reportedly engaged in a fistfight, which sent Baradar and Mullah Yaqoob fleeing to Kandahar. Baradar later released what some said looked like a “hostage” video claiming the two sides had settled their differences. By October, he had returned to Kabul, apparently refusing a security detail from the Haqqani-led interior ministry.

Pakistan and the Haqqani Network

In this internecine rivalry, Pakistani intelligence has predictably “backed the Haqqanis over Baradar.” The Haqqani Network’s relationship with the Pakistani state is older, deeper, and less contentious than the Taliban’s.

Siraj’s uncle, Khalil Haqqani, reportedly enjoys “recurring” meetings with Pakistan’s army chief and was “a regular visitor to Pakistan’s military headquarters in Rawalpindi.” By contrast, Pakistan arrested Baradar in 2010 for daring to explore early peace talks with the United States. “We picked up Baradar and others because they were trying to make a deal without us,” a Pakistani security official told the New York Times that year.

The Taliban’s relationship with Pakistani intelligence has been characterized by tactical cooperation and mutual dependency but also substantial mistrust. Strains of Pashtun nationalism within the Taliban’s ranks make Pakistan uncomfortable. As a result, Pakistani intelligence has sought to make itself indispensable to the group while populating it with more loyal operatives and factions, including the Haqqani Network. But it hasn’t always been smooth sailing.

When the Taliban ruled Afghanistan in the 1990s, it categorically refused to recognize the Durand Line, the de facto Afghan-Pakistani border created by the British Raj in 1893 that divides the nearly 60 million Pashtuns in both countries. Mullah Omar is said to have grown irate with his Pakistani counterparts when the issue was raised. Since taking power last month, the Taliban has again withheld recognition of the Durand Line, complaining about Pakistan’s efforts to fence the Afghan-Pakistani border.

Notably, the Taliban has also rebuffed requests by Pakistan to pressure the Pakistani Taliban to cease attacks inside the country. “The issue of the [Pakistani Taliban] is one that Pakistan will have to deal with, not Afghanistan,” a Taliban spokesman explained in August. Since the fall of Kabul, the Pakistani Taliban has launched an escalating campaign of terror inside Pakistan from its base in North Waziristan. Initial Pakistani government efforts to secure a truce with the group failed, but a tentative peace agreement was reportedly reached in mid-November. The Pakistani government claimed the Afghan Taliban helped serve as a mediator in the peace talks but a Taliban spokesman denied the claim: “we have not been involved in such talks, nor are we aware of it.” As in the past, Islamabad is likely leaning on the Haqqani Network to serve as an interlocutor with the Pakistani Taliban and other restive militant groups in its tribal areas.

The Haqqanis and the Islamic State in Afghanistan

The Haqqani Network’s relationship with the Islamic State in Afghanistan is a hotly debated topic. Abdul Sayed and Colin Clarke recently argued that, while there are connections between the groups at lower ranks, “there is scant evidence of a more robust relationship or anything resembling organizational support.” However, other analysts have found evidence of significant operational links among the terrorist groups.

The shadowy regional offshoot of the Islamic State has become a point of concern for the international community since emerging in the region in 2017 and claiming responsibility for the deadly suicide bombing at the Kabul airport this August. Initially comprised of disaffected former members of the Pakistani Taliban driven out of North Waziristan by a Pakistani military offensive, the Islamic State in Afghanistan first established a base in eastern Afghanistan. From there it engaged in an increasingly bloody turf war with the Taliban, fighting over territory and recruits.

After a series of battlefield defeats at the hands of the Taliban and U.S. forces from 2017 to 2020, the regional affiliate of the Islamic State began reinventing itself. In 2020, the group appointed a former “midlevel Haqqani commander” as its new leader. A 2020 U.N. report noted “most attacks claimed by [the Islamic State in Afghanistan] demonstrated some degree of ‘involvement, facilitation, or the provision of technical assistance’ by the Haqqani Network.” In May 2020, the Afghan government busted a “joint cell” of Haqqani Network and Islamic State fighters. Reports that year suggested Pakistani intelligence was pushing the Haqqani Network to establish closer links to the group in order to “maintain plausible deniability in future terror attacks.”

Scholar Theo Farrell contends “the Haqqanis have the deepest links with [the Islamic State] of any faction within the Taliban,” noting that the Haqqani Network “sent hundreds of fighters to support [its] struggle in Iraq and Syria. Many of these ‘foreign fighters’ returned home to join [the group].”

Nevertheless, the Islamic State’s turf war with the Taliban has intensified since the fall of Kabul. The former has claimed responsibility for dozens of attacks across the country in recent weeks, including a funeral ceremony attended by senior Taliban figures and an attack on a Shi’ite mosque that killed over 70. According to a Lowy Institute report, these attacks are meant to distinguish [the Islamic State in Afghanistan’s] brand from the Taliban’s, cast doubt on the Taliban’s ability to govern and provide security, and signal their own resolve to various audiences—all of which can ultimately increase terrorist organizations’ longevity and serve as a recruiting tool. [It] also uses these attacks to paint its long-time Taliban rival as illegitimate collaborators with the West, incapable of delivering security to the Afghan people.

The Haqqanis and Al-Qaeda

Finally, the Taliban and Haqqani Network both continue to maintain robust links to al-Qaeda. According to a 2021 U.N. report, the Haqqani Network “remains a hub for outreach and cooperation with regional foreign terrorist groups and is the primary liaison between the Taliban and Al-Qaida.”

Khalil Haqqani is “known to American intelligence as the Taliban emissary to Al Qaeda.” Stanford’s “Mapping Militant Organizations” explains that Khalil “has acted on behalf of Al Qaeda and facilitated its terrorist operations” and “organized the detention of enemy prisoners captured by [the Haqqani Network] and Al Qaeda.” Experts believe al-Qaeda and the Haqqani Network are today “intertwined, and it is highly unlikely they will cut ties.”

Last year, the U.S. Treasury Department concluded that, “as of 2020, al-Qaeda is gaining strength in Afghanistan while continuing to operate with the Taliban … Senior Haqqani Network figures have discussed forming a new joint unit of armed fighters in cooperation with and funded by al-Qaeda.”

Looking Ahead

America’s counter-terrorism options in Afghanistan, like its access to the landlocked country, are limited. The Biden administration could opt to take a hands-off approach, maintaining a modest over-the-horizon strike capability. Perhaps it believes predictable governance challenges, internal infighting, and fear of U.S. retaliation will mitigate the risk that Afghanistan will again be a platform for terrorist attacks against America or its interests and allies abroad. Perhaps in their desire for international recognition and aid, more pragmatic Taliban leaders intend to uphold their pledge to prevent terrorists from using Afghan soil to launch such attacks.

However, it is far from clear the Taliban has either the intent or the ability to enforce their commitments. In any event, it is the Haqqani Network — not the Taliban’s Doha negotiators — that is increasingly pulling the strings in Kabul.

Under Jalaluddin, the Haqqani Network was historically unconcerned with global jihad, confining its operations to Afghanistan. But this is a different Haqqani Network under new management. One that pioneered suicide bombing in Afghanistan. One that sent several hundred fighters to the Middle East to support the Islamic State’s efforts in Iraq and Syria. One that published a global jihadist manifesto. One that has refined a “signature brand of urban terrorist attacks and cultivated a sophisticated international fund-raising network.” One that maintains operational ties to the Islamic State and al-Qaeda, as well as to India-focused Pakistani militant groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba. One that has developed a knack for hostage-taking in recent years, among them several American citizens. One that honors the families of notorious suicide bombers, doling out cash rewards and promising more attacks to come. One that just assumed key levers of power in a new government and whose ultimate intentions and capabilities are simply unclear at this point.

At the very least, the United States should prepare for the possibility that globally ambitious terrorist groups find either direct support or a more permissive environment in which to operate by an Afghan government heavily influenced by the Haqqani Network. “[The Islamic State in Afghanistan] and al Qaeda have the intent to conduct external operations including against the U.S.,” Under Secretary of Defense Colin Kahl testified in October 2021. “We could see [the Islamic State in Afghanistan] generate that capability in somewhere between six to twelve months … al Qaeda would take a year or two.”

To enhance its counter-terrorism reach into Afghanistan the Biden administration is reportedly exploring options for basing and overflight arrangements with neighboring countries like Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. However, domestic resistance and Russian opposition make these unlikely prospects.

The Biden administration thus confronts the same tragic dilemma that has haunted U.S. policy in Afghanistan for 20 years: Fighting terrorists in the landlocked country requires cooperation with one of its neighbors. Since cooperation with Iran, China, and Russia is impractical, the only alternative is Pakistan, the key patron of the Taliban and the Haqqani Network for decades. In late October, CNN reported the Biden administration was in negotiations with Pakistan to use the country’s airspace for counter-terrorism operations in Afghanistan “in exchange for assistance with [Pakistan’s] own counter-terrorism efforts and help in managing the relationship with India.”

While the Biden administration is unlikely to alter America’s burgeoning strategic partnership with India, it might consider an extension of the same Faustian bargain from the Afghan War: provide aid to Pakistan and tacitly accept its “double game” in exchange for U.S. access to Afghanistan. Such an arrangement risks trading short-term relief for long-term pain. Acceptance of Pakistan’s double game is arguably what got the United States in this position in the first place.

Breaking the cycle won’t be easy. Pakistan has skillfully leveraged Afghanistan’s cruel geography to position itself as indispensable to the United States. But U.S. policymakers have consistently failed to appreciate that Pakistan has far more to lose from an openly adversarial relationship with the United States than vice versa.

Over the past 20 years, Pakistan has squandered the substantial goodwill it once enjoyed in Washington. The frustration on Capitol Hill is palpable. U.S. lawmakers recently introduced a bill in the Senate under which “the US president will have the power to impose sanctions on individuals who provide military, training or logistical support to the Taliban or provide safe haven to their fighters.” It would open the door to a range of targeted sanctions on Pakistani military and civilian officials. Others have called for Pakistan to be listed by the State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism. The U.S. also has substantial means to apply pressure via numerous international fora, including the Financial Action Task Force, an international terrorism financing watchdog.

Pakistan stonewalling the United States on counter-terrorism cooperation in Afghanistan would remove any remaining leverage and any remaining guardrails preventing the relationship from a vicious cycle of hostility and recriminations. By necessity, the Biden administration may seek a new aid-for-access arrangement with Islamabad, but the next chapter in Pakistani-U.S. relations can’t look like the last chapter. The foundations of any new pact should carry both carrots and sticks, including the specter of real, biting sanctions if Pakistan’s military and intelligence agencies continues supporting the region’s most dangerous terrorist groups.


Jeff M. Smith is a research fellow in the Heritage Foundation’s Asian Studies Center.


Friday, November 12, 2021

Rich countries still don’t want to pay their climate change tab

More money is on the table at the Glasgow climate conference, but it’s not enough.

Climate activists protest at the COP26 UN Climate Change Conference on November 8, 2021, in Glasgow, Scotland. 
Alastair Grant/AP

By Umair Irfan Nov 11, 2021,

Climate change has a central injustice: The parts of the world that contribute the least to global warming stand to suffer the most as temperatures climb.

Rising sea levels, hotter heat waves, and more frequent torrential downpours disproportionately hammer low-lying coastal areas, islands, tropics, and deserts that are home to people who historically haven’t burned that much coal, oil, or natural gas. The slow and acute impacts of climate change are already destroying homes, forcing migrations, and taking lives, particularly in countries that have few resources to begin with. According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the most vulnerable countries to climate change include Haiti, Myanmar, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, and the Bahamas.

Meanwhile, major producers and consumers of fossil energy, like the United States, have become the wealthiest countries in the world. That wealth also means more government and private resources to respond to a warming world, whether by building infrastructure to withstand higher tides, managing forests to reduce severe wildfires, or compensating citizens for their flood-ruined homes.

That inequity is the undercurrent of the United Nations’ ongoing COP26 climate negotiations in Glasgow, Scotland. The meeting is an opportunity for major polluters and those suffering from the effects to sit across from one another — and the countries bearing the brunt of global warming say that addressing this central injustice must be at the core of any climate agreement. Otherwise, hopes of reaching concordance on other key climate issues could fall apart.

“The largest share of the historical emissions originated in developed countries,” Diego Pacheco Balanza, head of the Bolivian delegation to COP26, told reporters Thursday. “So there is a historical responsibility of developed countries and [industrialized] countries to deal with the climate crisis.”

The most concrete way to fulfill this responsibility is to pay for it. And some wealthy countries at COP26 have said they will — to an extent, at least, and in principle.

“The countries most responsible for historic[al] and present-day emissions are not yet doing their fair share of the work,” British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said at the start of the summit.

The actions so far, however, are still lacking. “There were a lot of very positive statements,” said Janine Felson, deputy head of the Belize delegation and an adviser to the Alliance of Small Island States, a negotiating bloc of 39 island and low-lying countries. “What we are seeing, though, in the [negotiating] room is very different. It’s more business as usual, so rhetoric and deed are far apart.”

At COP26, several governments — including the US and the UK — have announced additional funding to aid low-income countries in transitioning toward clean energy, as well as more cash to help them cope with the unavoidable losses from climate change.

But the amount of money on the table still doesn’t meet past commitments, and it’s not enough to cover the enormous changes that are needed, negotiators from developing countries say.

Without settling the money issue, COP26 negotiations on other matters — trading carbon credits, phasing out fossil fuels, timelines for reducing greenhouse gas emissions — could stall or fall apart. “Climate finance is the glue that brings a package together at the end of a COP,” Richie Merzian, director of the climate and energy program at the Australia Institute, told reporters Thursday.

With the talks heading into their final day, the pressure is on wealthy governments to contribute more money toward global efforts to lower emissions. “My message to donor countries is very, very clear: Without adequate finance, the task ahead is nigh impossible,” said Alok Sharma, president of COP26.

Rich countries still aren’t meeting their commitments on climate finance

At the 2009 COP15 meeting in Copenhagen, wealthy countries set a target of pooling $100 billion by 2020 to help less wealthy countries adapt to changes in the climate already underway as well as to curb greenhouse gas emissions. The money, from public institutions like governments rather than private banks, would be deployed as a mix of loans, investments, and grants across initiatives from decarbonizing power generation to building seawalls.

The target was missed. The last tally shows that $79.6 billion in international climate financing was awarded in 2019. Now the goal post is 2023 for the $100 billion goal, given the current pace of commitments.

Negotiators in developing countries have been pushing to close that gap even faster and want the final agreement from the COP26 meeting to highlight their “serious concern” that the amount of financing available is not enough to cope with what’s needed to cope with climate change. They also want the text to emphasize that wealthy countries are required to contribute more money to climate financing programs.

“Finance is not the charity of developed countries to the developing world,” Pacheco Balanza said. “Finance is an obligation.”

At the same time, there are immense financial to mitigating climate change. One estimate found that shifting the global economy toward sustainable energy would save the world $26 trillion by 2030. But the costs of mitigating climate change and the benefits often accrue to different people, and it’s proven difficult to leverage that in negotiations.

Now, some developing countries now say they need vastly more money to meet their goals. India, the world’s third-largest greenhouse gas emitter, committed at COP26 to reaching net-zero emissions by 2070. But it says it wants $1 trillion in international climate financing by 2030 to meet its goal. African governments have said that climate finance funding should reach $1.3 trillion per year by 2030.

It’s likely that the $100 billion funding target will be solidified at COP26 with the momentum underway. However, it’s unlikely these far greater demands will be considered, given that parties to the Paris agreement failed to meet a much smaller objective on time.

Who will pay for climate devastation in the most vulnerable and poorest places?

Many of the talks at COP26 focus on climate change mitigation — what countries will do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, what their targets should be, when they should reach them, and what tactics count toward their goals.


But the world has already warmed up by 1.1 degrees Celsius compared to global average temperatures before the industrial revolution, and that warming is already having effects. Global sea levels, for instance, have already risen 8 to 9 inches, leading to more devastating storm surges.

Dealing with the changes in climate already underway is a high priority for countries like island nations seeing their land swallowed up by rising seas and seeing disasters amplified with more rainfall and higher heat.

In COP-speak, this is known as loss and damage. There is a mechanism for dealing with this under the 2015 Paris climate agreement, building on an earlier framework known as the Warsaw International Mechanism. One estimate found that loss and damage from climate change would cost the world between $290 and $580 billion a year by 2030. And losses can go beyond those that are easily priced, like cultural heritage and ecosystems degraded by rising average temperatures.

The trouble is, there isn’t a set goal for how much money should be allocated to loss and damage, who is required to chip in and by when, and how that money should be distributed. And crucially, loss and damage has been largely excluded from discussions around climate finance.

“We heard a lot of about solidarity [from wealthy countries] for the losses and damages in our experiences,” said Felson. “But if, in the finance room, I raise loss and damage, I hear that it’s a red line. We can’t talk about life and damage in finance [discussions].”

For countries like Belize, the goal is to have a system that doesn’t respond to climate-related disasters and damages on a one-off basis like an emergency relief fund. Rather, they want a systematic approach that delivers consistent money not only in wake of hurricanes and wildfires, but for slow-moving problems like the decline of barrier reefs and falling crop yields.

On Thursday, Scotland announce that it would contribute £2 million to a loss and damage fund, making it the first country to chip in.

Money has also been allocated at COP26 to indirect measures that relate to loss and damage. Twelve donor governments pledged $413 million in new funding for the Least Developed Countries Fund, which helps countries like Gambia and Togo cope with the effects of climate change. The UN’s Adaptation Fund also announced it raised $351.6 in new pledges.

One of the big obstacles though is that wealthy countries do not want any language in a loss and damage agreement that hints that they are liable for climate change. Some are already pushing back against the loss and damage language in the draft agreement.

“With wealthy countries, it’s always a fear of some kind of reparations framework coming out which will impose higher and higher costs,” said Rachel Kyte, an advisor to the climate negotiations and dean of the Fletcher School at Tufts University. “They’re prepared to talk about today and tomorrow. They don’t want to talk about yesterday.”

Negotiators for countries facing the brunt of climate impacts now say they at least want to get the ball rolling on paying for current climate destruction. They are calling for language in the COP26 agreement to create a dedicated funding mechanism for loss and damage and give it long-term stability.

But as the negotiations head into their final day with so many outstanding issues, loss and damage may once again end up shelved until the next COP.

  • ruthlesscriticism.com/rosa.htm
      1. The expansion of capital over the globe – because of its growth or its growth difficulties? Rosa …
      2. Capitalism and imperialism – incompatible with the complete world market? For Luxemburg, the not …
      3. The violence of imperialism is not the act of the capitals but of the capitalist state, which forces its …
      4. The separation of business and force gives momentum to both! The organization of inter-state …
  • Rosa Luxemburg – Her analysis of Imperialism and her ...

    https://kapacc.blog.rosalux.de/files/2014/02/Finished-ee-230412-Ros… · PDF file

    (for the latter, see Krätke 2011a). Rosa Luxemburg was a trained economist, very well acquainted with political economy. What is more, she belonged to the relatively small group of people who actually had studied Marx’ Capital, all three volumes of it, and a lot more. Like Gramsci, Rosa Luxemburg did make several contributions to a critical and

  • 2050 is too late, we need to address climate change: Expert

    The frequency and intensity of heavy precipitation events have increased. At the same time, climate change has contributed to an increase in drought in many regions.


    Published: 13th November 2021 


    For representational purposes
    By Express News Service

    According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the scale of recent changes across the climate system as a whole, and present state of many aspects of the climate system, are unprecedented over many centuries.

    The frequency and intensity of heavy precipitation events have increased. At the same time, climate change has contributed to an increase in drought in many regions. IPCC further concluded that more regions will be affected by drought due to global warming, and a larger fraction of land will also be affected by an increase in floods. In India, a large per cent of rural population depends on climate-sensitive sectors such as agriculture, fisheries, animal husbandry and forest biodiversity.


    Mitigation and adaptation are two actions to address climate change. Mitigation involving reducing carbon dioxide emissions and achieving Net Zero emissions by 2050 were debated at COP in Glasgow, to keep global warming within 1.5 deg C by the end of the century, which is agreed under the Paris Agreement. Even if this is achieved, which is highly unlikely, the benefits of stabilising warming below 1.5 deg C will be seen several decades later. But farmers, fishermen, forest dwellers, coastal communities, communities living in flood and drought-prone areas are already facing the adverse impacts.

    The impacts will only intensify in the next 5 to 10 to 20 years, leading to increased loss and damage to food production, water resources and infrastructure, so farmers, fishermen and forest dwellers cannot wait for the world to reach Net Zero by 2050.

    Measures and actions have to be taken now, urgently. We need to develop a good understanding of risks and impacts of projected climate change in the next 10 to 30 years on food production, water availability, forest fire, health, infrastructure, etc. Develop climate resilient agricultural and water management practices, provide early warning systems and weather forecasts on droughts, floods and cyclones at panchayat level, develop disease monitoring and surveillance systems, build climate-resilient and climate-proof infrastructure. The critical aspect of addressing climate change is the speed and urgency of action, and any delay will make it more expensive to address the adverse impacts.

    Prof N H RAVINDRANATH
    Professor (Retd), Centre for Sustainable Technologies (CST), Indian Institute of Science
    Diamond hauled from deep inside Earth holds never-before-seen mineral

    Harry Baker 

    Within a diamond hauled from deep beneath Earth's surface, scientists have discovered the first example of a never-before-seen mineral.

    © Provided by Live Science Researchers discovered the mineral davemaoite 
    inside a diamond that was formed in Earth's mantle.

    Named davemaoite after prominent geophysicist Ho-kwang (Dave) Mao, the mineral is the first example of a high-pressure calcium silicate perovskite (CaSiO3) found on Earth. Another form of CaSiO3, known as wollastonite, is commonly found across the globe, but davemaoite has a crystalline structure that forms only under high pressure and high temperatures in Earth's mantle, the mainly solid layer of Earth trapped between the outer core and the crust.


    Davemaoite has long been expected to be an abundant and geochemically important mineral in Earth's mantle. But scientists have never found any direct evidence of its existence because it breaks down into other minerals when it moves toward the surface and pressure decreases. However, analysis of a diamond from Botswana, which formed in the mantle around 410 miles (660 kilometers) below Earth's surface, has revealed a sample of intact davemaoite trapped inside. As a result, the International Mineralogical Association has now confirmed davemaoite as a new mineral.

    "The discovery of davemaoite came as a surprise," lead author Oliver Tschauner, a mineralogist at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, told Live Science.

    Tschauner and his colleagues uncovered the davemaoite sample with a technique known as synchrotron X-ray diffraction, which focuses a high-energy beam of X-rays on certain spots within the diamond with microscopic precision. By measuring the angle and intensity of the returning light, researchers can decipher what's inside, Tschauner said. The sample of davemaoite within the diamond was just a few micrometers (millionths of a meter) in size, so less-powerful sampling techniques would have missed it, he added.

    Davemaoite is believed to play an important geochemical role in Earth's mantle. Scientists theorize that the mineral may also contain other trace elements, including uranium and thorium, which release heat via radioactive decay. Therefore, davemaoite may help to generate a substantial amount of heat in the mantle, Tschauner said.

    In a 2014 study published in the journal Science, researchers described another theoretical high-pressure mineral from the mantle, known as bridgmanite. However, the sample of bridgmanite did not originate from the mantle but rather inside a meteorite. The discovery of davemaoite shows that diamonds can form farther down in the mantle than previously thought, and it suggests that they might be the best place to look for more new minerals from the mantle, Tschauner said.

    "The work by Tschauner et al. inspires hope in the discovery of other difficult high-pressure phases in nature," Yingwei Fe, a geophysicist at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Washington, D.C., who was not involved in the study, said in a related Science article. "Such direct sampling of the inaccessible lower mantle would fill our knowledge gap in chemical composition of the entire mantle of our planet."

    The study was published online Nov. 11 in the journal Science.

    Originally published on Live Science.

    Introducing Davemaoite: A Groundbreaking Mineral Discovery Named After Trailblazing Carnegie Geophysicist

    Friday, November 12, 2021




    Washington, DC—The first-ever silicate mineral recovered from the Earth’s lower mantle has been named after emeritus Carnegie scientist Ho-kwang “Dave” Mao, an experimental geophysicist whose work redefined our understanding of how materials behave under the extreme pressure and temperature conditions found inside Earth and other planets.

    A team led by the University of Nevada Las Vegas’ Oliver Tschauner reported the discovery in Science this week and Carnegie’s Yingwei Fei wrote an accompanying essay in the same issue, contextualizing the importance of the work and the significance of the chosen name—davemaoite.

    In 1976 Mao and colleagues were the first to bring materials to a million times atmospheric pressure, doubling the previous pressure limit. This momentous breakthrough transformed our understanding of the chemistry of Earth’s interior and behavior of materials under extreme pressure. Over a career spanning five decades he continually redefined the boundaries of pressure at which materials could be probed, and his discoveries had implications for understanding the chemistry and physics occurring deep below Earth’s surface, our planet’s evolutionary history, the interior dynamics of distant worlds, and materials science.

    “This honor is a fitting tribute given the profound impact Dave’s work has had throughout the geosciences,” said Earth and Planets Laboratory Director Richard Carlson. “His contributions have shaped our understanding of our world and now a piece of the world will forever bear his name.”

    Many materials that form under extreme pressures cannot retain their structures when brought to ambient conditions, which is what makes this discovery so exciting. Davemaoite, which was discovered encased inside a super-deep diamond, is only the second high-pressure mantle silicate ever seen on Earth’s surface. The other, named after Nobel laureate Percy Bridgman, was found inside a meteorite.

    “The two form an exclusive club as the only lower-mantle silicate minerals confirmed in nature.” Fei said.

    An illustration of the two pathways for obtaining high-pressure materials in nature—from mantle rocks that rise from the deep interior and as the result of meteorites crashing to Earth at breakneck speeds. Image is courtesy of Yingwei Fei.Together davemaoite and bridgmanite represent two distinct pathways for obtaining high-pressure materials in nature—from mantle rocks that rise from the deep interior and as the result of meteorites violently crashing to Earth at breakneck speeds. Laboratory scientists at Carnegie’s Earth and Planets Laboratory recreate both deep mantle conditions and the shock compression of a meteorite strike using a variety of research techniques that involve presses, anvils, and lasers.

    The International Mineralogical Association’s Commission of New Minerals, Nomenclature, and Classification approved the davemaoite name. Minerals can only be properly named after their discovery in nature—even long-theorized or laboratory produced materials More than 50 minerals have been named in honor of Carnegie scientists, including hazenite, found in California’s Mono Lake, after current faculty member Robert Hazen. Earlier this year, a mineral found in a meteorite that originated on Mars was named feiite in honor of Fei.

    “The discovery of davemaoite inspires hope for finding other difficult high-pressure mineral phases in nature,” Fei said. “Being able to obtain more direct samples from the inaccessible lower mantle would fill in our knowledge gap regarding the chemical composition and variability of our planet’s depths.”


    Scientific Area:
    Earth & Planetary Science
    Reference to Person:
    Yingwei Fei
    Reference to Department:
    Earth and Planets Laboratory
    News Topic:
    Earth/Planetary Science
    Leader of cult-like Jewish sect that fled Canada is convicted of nighttime kidnap of child bride

    They used burner phones, an encrypted phone app, disguises, aliases, false passports, and a secret pact to execute their plan

    Author of the article: Adrian Humphreys
    Publishing date: Nov 12, 2021 
    Mayer Rosner in 2013.
     PHOTO BY DAVE CHIDLEY FOR NATIONAL POST

    Two members of an extremist sect, including the group’s spokesman when they lived in Canada, were convicted in New York of kidnapping and child sexual exploitation.

    Nachman Helbrans and Mayer Rosner were found guilty of masterminding the kidnapping of a 14-year-old girl and her 12-year-old brother from their mother, who had fled the Lev Tahor compound in Guatemala, to return the girl to her adult “husband.”

    Rosner, 45, was the genial but guarded spokesman for the Lev Tahor when 200 members of their sect left their homes in Quebec and settled on the outskirts of Chatham, Ont., east of Windsor.

    “Everything is written upstairs,” Rosner said, pointing skyward, in an exclusive interview with National Post in 2013 , when he was asked about the group’s battles with child protection workers.

    A U.S. jury found this harrowing plot was crafted closer to earth.

    The Lev Tahor were founded in Israel in the 1980s by Helbrans’ father, Shlomo Helbrans, who built a cult-like sect on fringe beliefs and practices with an austere lifestyle and manner of dress, even by the usual standards of ultra-Orthodox Judaism, leading the Israeli media to call them the “Jewish Taliban.”

    The Lev Tahor opposes the existence of the state of Israel, believing Jews must live in exile until the Messiah comes. Rosner said this is why his group is hounded from place to place.

    They have always been trying to destroy our community

    “This is something the Zionist government hates,” Rosner said in 2013. “They have always been trying to destroy our community.”

    After leaving Israel, and later the United States, Shlomo settled with his acolytes in Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts, Que., 100 kilometres northwest of Montreal, in 2001, where he was granted refugee status on the grounds of persecution in Israel.

    The group fled from Canada in 2014 ahead of child welfare investigations and settled in Guatemala. There, Shlomo’s 39-year-old son, Nachman Helbrans, took over as supreme leader after his father drowned in 2017.

    Rosner was described by U.S. authorities as Helbrans’ “top lieutenant” and right-hand man in the Lev Tahor’s authoritarian regime.

    Under the new leadership, the sect’s practices became even more extreme, authorities said, particularly with child marriages. The practice met with resistance by some.


    Controversial sect dismisses child neglect allegations as ultra-orthodox Jews settle into new homes in Ontario


    The two child victims of the kidnappings and their mother are relatives of Helbrans, and he arranged for the young girl to be religiously married at the age of 13 to a 19-year-old member of the sect, who was Rosner’s son.

    They were not legally married, but a sexual relationship started immediately, court heard, as was the directive from Helbrans to start procreating as soon as possible.

    The girl’s mother, a U.S. citizen, fled with her children in October 2018. A Brooklyn court granted her sole custody.

    Shortly after, the Lev Tahor came for the children.

    They were stolen in the night from the mother’s New York State home in 2019 and smuggled across the U.S. border to Mexico.

    Although the group adopts a distinctly traditionalist lifestyle, the kidnapping plot was a modern enterprise.

    They used burner phones, an encrypted phone app, disguises, aliases, false passports, and a secret pact to execute their plan. It fell apart after a three-week international manhunt by police, who found the children in a hotel in Mexico.

    “Nachman Helbrans and Mayer Rosner brazenly kidnapped two children from their mother in the middle of the night to return a 14-year-old girl to an illegal sexual relationship with an adult man,” U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said after the four-week trial ended this week.

    Even after the children were returned to their mother, members of the Lev Tahor tried twice more to kidnap them, authorities said

    .
    Mayer Rosner at his home in Chatham, Ont., 
    after the Lev Tahor group moved from Quebec in 2013.
    PHOTO BY DAVE CHIDLEY FOR NATIONAL POST

    Child kidnapping charges do not make members of the Lev Tahor pariahs in their community. Instead, it is a mark of leadership.

    Shlomo Helbrans himself was convicted in New York in 1994 of kidnapping a 13-year-old boy who he was tutoring for bar mitzvah. Rosner told the Post when he was in Ontario that his rabbi was only protecting the boy, who had run away from his parents, but the court saw it differently.

    It was Shlomo’s conviction that led to his deportation to Israel followed by his move to Canada.

    The community drew little attention in Quebec until 2011 when authorities stopped two teenaged girls arriving from Israel to join them; their uncle in Israel obtained a court order to have the girls returned, over fears they would be forced to marry.

    It raised an alarm for Canadian authorities.

    Quebec’s youth protection services investigated the group and sought to remove 14 children from the community.

    Child welfare workers said the children suffered from poor dental health, skin problems and poor hygiene, and no adherence to the province’s school curriculum. There were rumours of beatings and child marriages.

    Before Quebec authorities could act, the families boarded three buses in the night and headed west, settling in an out-of-the-way complex of identical one-story rental cottages on the outskirts of Chatham, 80 kilometres east of Windsor.

    At that time Rosner denied his community beats their children or forces marriages on young girls.

    “They say we have forced marriage. We don’t. But, like many orthodox religious communities, we have organized marriages,” Rosner said. A marriage broker pitches couples to parents and if both sets of parents approve, the children meet. If either of them objects to the union the marriage is halted, he said.

    “Our boys are not allowed to pick up girls on the street. We allow marriage at the age of 16. Some people object to that; everyone has their own choice.”

    At the time of the Post’s visit with the Lev Tahor, Rosner had nine children of his own, five of them girls. The boys, like all boys in the Lev Tahor, were in school studying religious texts while the girls were cooking, cleaning, listening to their father or quietly playing.

    Rosner and Helbrans were convicted of conspiring to transport a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, conspiring to travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct, international parental kidnapping, and other charges.

    The convictions could lead to a life sentence. There is a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in prison.

    • Email: ahumphreys@postmedia.com | Twitter: AD_Humphreys
    U.S. to open talks with Japan on import steel, aluminum tariffs

    Tokyo wants Trump-era levies abolished

    The U.S. import tariffs on Japanese steel and aluminum products were imposed by then-President Donald Trump. © Reuters

    TOMORROWS NEWS TODAY
    November 13, 2021
     
    WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The United States said on Friday it will open talks with Japan that could lead to an easing of tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, a longstanding irritant in trade relations between the two allies.

    The U.S. Commerce Department and the United States Trade Representative's Office said the talks were aimed at addressing "global steel and aluminum excess capacity", restoring market-oriented conditions and preserving critical industries.

    The discussions with Japan follow an agreement by the United States and the European Union to end a dispute over steel and aluminum tariffs, and hammer out a global arrangement to combat "dirty" production and overcapacity in the industry.

    The future agreement, which is open to other countries, will pose a challenge for China, which produces over half of the world's steel and which the EU and United States accuse of creating overcapacity that harms their own industries.

    Last year, the Global Forum on Steel Excess Capacity estimated the gap between global steelmaking capacity and global demand at an excess of nearly 600 million tons, a sum that will continue to grow given new capacity already planned or under way.

    Japan last week asked the United States to abolish the "Section 232" tariffs imposed by former U.S. President Donald Trump's administration in 2018.

    Friday's announcement comes before separate visits to Japan by Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo and U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai beginning next week.

    The United States said the two countries will seek to address concerns over the Section 232 tariffs "and the sufficiency of actions that address steel and aluminum excess capacity with the aim of taking mutually beneficial and effective actions to restore market-oriented conditions."

    "It's about time," said Myron Brilliant, head of the international affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "The tariff exclusion process needs to take place with Japan and Korea and the UK. We're strongly encouraged by any signals that the administration is pursuing that."

    Tai is also due to visit South Korea this month, but sources said they did not expect a similar announcement there.

    The U.S.-EU deal ended a festering dispute over the Trump-era U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs and averted a spike in EU retaliatory tariffs.

    The agreement maintains Section 232 tariffs of 25% on steel and 10% aluminum, while allowing "limited volumes" of EU-produced metals into the United States duty-free.

    It requires EU steel and aluminum to be entirely produced in the bloc - a standard known as "melted and poured" - to qualify for duty-free status. The provision is aimed at preventing metals from China and non-EU countries from being minimally processed in Europe before export to the United States.

    Under the deal, Europe agreed to drop retaliatory tariffs against U.S. products, a move Raimondo said would reduce costs for steel-consuming U.S. manufacturers.

    The Japanese steel industry is concerned that the U.S.-EU agreement will result in a comprehensive relaxation of measures for certain countries and regions, Eiji Hashimoto, chairman of the Japan Iron and Steel Federation, said last week.
    WHO chief calls booster distribution 'scandal' as poorer countries wait for doses

    BY JUSTINE COLEMAN - 11/12/21 



    The head of the World Health Organization (WHO) called the distribution of booster COVID-19 vaccines a “scandal that must stop now” on Friday as poorer countries continue to wait for initial doses.

    Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus slammed countries with the “highest vaccine coverage” at a WHO briefing for collecting extra vaccine doses and prioritizing giving their citizens third and fourth doses over getting at-risk populations in other nations vaccinated.

    “This is a scandal that must stop now,” he said.

    In fact, he cited data that six times more booster doses are administered globally than initial doses in low-income countries.

    “It makes no sense to give boosters to healthy adults, or to vaccinate children, when health workers, older people and other high-risk groups around the world are still waiting for their first dose,” he added, noting that immunocompromised people are an exception.

    Tedros also pointed out that countries need other coronavirus precautions in addition to vaccines, saying, “No country can simply vaccinate its way out of the pandemic.”

    The WHO has consistently pushed back against the necessity of booster shots as countries like the U.S. have pressed forward and opened third and fourth doses to growing numbers of people.

    In the U.S., certain mRNA vaccine recipients and all Johnson & Johnson recipients have been approved to get boosters at least six months and at least two months after their most recent shot, respectively.

    Children aged 5 to 11 also became eligible for the Pfizer vaccine earlier this month, and the Biden administration has said the U.S. has enough doses for all 28 million in that age group to get vaccinated.

    In the meantime, other countries are struggling to get high-risk populations their first shots. In order to reach the WHO’s goal of vaccinating 40 percent of the population of every country by the end of 2021, the world needs another 550 million doses, Tedros said.

    Progress has been made though the COVAX program, co-led by Gavi, WHO and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation, which has sent nearly 500 million doses to 144 countries and territories.

    As of Thursday, at least 40 percent of the overall global population is considered fully vaccinated — but that number includes only 2.4 percent in low-income countries, according to the ONE campaign.

    Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced on Wednesday that the U.S. is working with COVAX to send out the single-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccines to those living in conflict zones. The U.S. has committed more than 1 billion doses as donations.

    But at the same time, pressure is mounting on the administration to approve booster shots for the remaining American adult population as breakthrough cases have become more prevalent amid the highly transmissible delta variant.

    Still, studies have repeatedly shown the risk of hospitalization and death is much lower among those who received the initial vaccine than among the unvaccinated. Recent research suggests boosters further increase this protection.