CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M
Italy's antitrust authority fines Apple, Amazon $230 million


Apple's new iPhone 13 series are displayed in a store. Apple plans to appeal the Italian Competition Authority's decision to fine the company. File photo | License Photo


Nov. 23 (UPI) -- Italy's antitrust authority fined Apple and Amazon $230 million on Tuesday after finding that Amazon resold Apple and Apple-owned Beats kits and blocked other resellers.

The antitrust authority said that a restrictive agreement in 2018 between the two companies resulted in lower levels of discounts available to consumers buying Apple and Beats products on Amazon's Italian site.

The agreement effectively prohibited official and unofficial resellers of Apple and Beats products from using Amazon.

Amazon was hit with a $151 million fine while Apple has been ordered to pay $77.3 million by the Italian Competition Authority.

"The restrictions of the agreement have affected the level of discounts offered by third parties on Amazon.it, decreasing their size," the authority said, according to TechCrunch.

Competition authorities in Spain and Germany have launched similar proceedings. Spain opened an investigation against Apple and Amazon in the summer, and Germany has opened proceedings examining the market power of tech giants.

Amazon told TechCrunch that it would appeal the decision, stating that it strongly disagreed with the ICA. A statement given to TechCrunch said that Italian customers could benefit from finding the latest Apple and Beats products at better deals with faster shipping. Amazon has argued that the agreement helps consumers and that sellers have other platforms to conduct business both on and offline.

Apple will also appeal, citing the integrity of products provided to its customer.

"Non-genuine products deliver an inferior experience and can often be dangerous," Apple wrote to TechCrunch. "We respect the Italian Competition Authority but believe we have done nothing wrong and plan to appeal."

RELATED EU court rejects Google's appeal, upholds $2.8 billion antitrust fine

Survey: Most Americans say suffering comes from people -- not God


Forty percent of the respondents said the news triggers their desire to help those who are suffering. Photo by kaboompics/Pixabay

Nov. 23 (UPI) -- Most Americans believe that bad things happen because of random chance, people's own actions and the way society is structured -- rather than blaming God for human suffering, according to a survey released Tuesday.

The Pew Research Center said the survey of 6,485 adults gave respondents multiple opportunities to express their views on why bad things happen -- in their own words in response to an open-ended question, and by reading through a list of possible explanations for suffering.

When asked to explain suffering, 66 percent said that the statement "sometimes bad things just happen" described their own views very well (44 percent) or somewhat well (42 percent). Twenty-two percent said the statement "suffering is mostly a consequence of people's own actions" reflected their views very well, while 49 percent said it represented their views somewhat well.

Another choice of answers was "suffering is mostly a result of the way society is structured." For that, 19 percent said it reflected their views very well, while 50 percent said it echoed their views somewhat well.

RELATED Pew survey of 17 nations give U.S. mixed reviews on culture, democracy

Another question asked what Americans feel when they hear about human suffering and respondents were permitted to answer with multiple choices.

There, 71 percent said they were thankful for the good things in their own life, while 62 percent said they felt sadness for those suffering. Forty percent of the respondents said the news triggers their desire to help those who are suffering, and 24 percent said they just need to tune out the bad news because it's too much to take. Twenty percent said they need to make changes in their own lives to avoid ending up in similar situations.

Pew said the survey, conducted Sept. 20-26, was the first of its kind in assessing "philosophical questions" about things like the meaning of life.

RELATED People who don't believe in God may get better sleep, study says

Those questions, Pew said, "take on added significance amid a global pandemic that has killed 5 million people and recent natural disasters including floods, hurricanes and wildfires."

CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M

Jury says CVS, Walgreens, Walmart had role in opioid crisis


A federal judge could order Walgreens, CVS and Walmart each to pay billions.

 File Photo by Billie Jean Shaw/UPI


Nov. 23 (UPI) -- A federal jury on Tuesday said pharmacies at CVS, Walgreens and Walmart contributed to the influx of large quantities of pain pills in two Ohio counties, contributing to the deadly opioid crisis.

The case is considered to be a "bellwether" trial in determining how much of a role pharmacies have played in fueling the crisis. Attorneys representing the plaintiffs -- Lake and Trumbull counties -- said the pharmacies disregarded their legal duties to block suspicious orders of controlled substances such as prescription opioids.

"For decades, pharmacy chains have watched as the pills flowing out of their doors cause harm and failed to take action as required by the law," attorneys for the plaintiffs said in a statement, according to The New York Times.

"The judgment today against Walmart, Walgreens and CVS represents the overdue reckoning for their complicity in creating a public nuisance."

Two other pharmacy chains -- Giant Eagle and Rite-Aid -- settled with the counties ahead of the verdict.

The trial judge is expected to decide on a punishment during a hearing in the spring. He could order the companies to pay billions of dollars to help address the fallout from the opioid crisis. The counties said the hundreds of overdose deaths and other factors have cost each about $1 billion.

Representatives for CVSHealth and Walgreen Co. said they plan to appeal the verdict, according to CNBC.

RELATED Oklahoma Supreme Court overturns judgment against J&J in opioid case

"As plaintiffs' own experts testified, many factors have contributed to the opioid abuse issue, and solving this problem will require involvement from all stakeholders in our healthcare system and all members of our community," CVSHealth spokesman Mike DeAngelis said.

Opioids caused more than 183,000 overdose deaths in the United States between 1999 and 2015. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics released a report last week showing numbers spiked in the 12-month period ending in April 2021, with opioids causing more than 75,600 overdose deaths.

Jury holds pharmacies responsible for role in opioid crisis

CLEVELAND (AP) — CVS, Walgreens and Walmart pharmacies recklessly distributed massive amounts of pain pills in two Ohio counties, a federal jury said Tuesday in a verdict that could set the tone for U.S. city and county governments that want to hold pharmacies accountable for their roles in the opioid crisis.

Lake and Trumbull counties blamed the three chain pharmacies for not stopping the flood of pills that caused hundreds of overdose deaths and cost each of the two counties about $1 billion, said their attorney, who in court compared the pharmacies’ dispensing to a gumball machine.

How much the pharmacies must pay in damages will be decided in the spring by a federal judge.

It’s the first time pharmacy companies completed a trial to defend themselves in a drug crisis that killed a half-million Americans over the past two decades.

The counties convinced the jury that the pharmacies played an outsized role in creating a public nuisance in the way they dispensed pain medication into their communities.

“The law requires pharmacies to be diligent in dealing drugs. This case should be a wake-up call that failure will not be accepted,” said Mark Lanier, an attorney for the counties.

“The jury sounded a bell that should be heard through all pharmacies in America,” Lanier said.

Attorneys for the pharmacy chains maintained they had policies to stem the flow of pills when their pharmacists had concerns and would notify authorities about suspicious orders from doctors. They also said it was doctors who controlled how many pills were prescribed for legitimate medical needs.

CVSHealth, Walgreen Co. and Walmart Inc. said they will appeal.

Walmart said in a statement that the counties’ attorneys sued “in search of deep pockets while ignoring the real causes of the opioid crisis — such as pill mill doctors, illegal drugs, and regulators asleep at the switch — and they wrongly claimed pharmacists must second-guess doctors in a way the law never intended and many federal and state health regulators say interferes with the doctor-patient relationship.”

Walgreen spokesperson Fraser Engerman characterized the case as an unsustainable effort “to resolve the opioid crisis with an unprecedented expansion of public nuisance law.”

The company “never manufactured or marketed opioids nor did we distribute them to the ‘pill mills’ and internet pharmacies that fueled this crisis,” Engerman said in a statement.

A statement from CVS spokesperson Mike DeAngelis noted: “As plaintiffs’ own experts testified, many factors have contributed to the opioid abuse issue, and solving this problem will require involvement from all stakeholders in our health care system and all members of our community.”

Two chains — Rite Aid and Giant Eagle — already had settled lawsuits with the two Ohio counties.

Lanier said during trial that the pharmacies were attempting to blame everyone but themselves.

The opioid crisis has overwhelmed courts, social services agencies and law enforcement in Ohio’s blue-collar corner east of Cleveland, leaving behind heartbroken families and babies born to addicted mothers, Lanier told jurors.

Roughly 80 million prescription painkillers were dispensed in Trumbull County alone between 2012 and 2016 — equivalent to 400 for every resident. In Lake County, some 61 million pills were distributed during that period.

The rise in physicians prescribing pain medications such as oxycodone and hydrocodone came as medical groups began recognizing that patients have the right to be treated for pain, Kaspar Stoffelmayr, an attorney for Walgreens, said at the opening of the trial.

The problem, he said, was “pharmaceutical manufacturers tricked doctors into writing way too many pills.”

The counties said pharmacies should be the last line of defense to prevent the pills from getting into the wrong hands.

They didn’t hire enough pharmacists and technicians or train them to stop that from happening and failed to implement systems that could flag suspicious orders, Lanier said.

The committee of lawyers for the local governments suing the drug industry in federal courts called Tuesday’s verdict “a milestone victory” and “overdue reckoning.”

“For decades, pharmacy chains have watched as the pills flowing out of their doors cause harm and failed to take action as required by law,” the committee said in a statement. “Instead, these companies responded by opening up more locations, flooding communities with pills, and facilitating the flow of opioids into an illegal, secondary market.”

The trial before U.S. District Judge Dan Polster in Cleveland was part of a broader constellation of about 3,000 federal opioid lawsuits consolidated under the judge’s supervision. Other cases are moving ahead in state courts.

Kevin Roy, chief public policy officer at Shatterproof, an organization that advocates for solutions to addiction, said the verdict could lead pharmacies to follow the path of major distribution companies and some drugmakers that have reached nationwide settlements of opioid cases worth billions. So far, no pharmacy has reached a nationwide settlement.

“It’s a signal that the public, at least in select places, feels that there’s been exposure and needs to be remedied,” Roy said.

The government claims against drugmakers, distributors and pharmacies hinge on state and local public nuisance laws.

Roy noted that courts haven’t been consistent on whether those laws apply to such cases. “There’s been a variety of different decisions lately that should give us reason to be cautious about what this really means in the grand scheme,” he said.

Two recent rulings went against the theory. More cases are heading toward rulings.

Trials against drugmakers in New York and distribution companies in Washington state are underway. A trial of claims against distribution companies in West Virginia wrapped up, but the judge hasn’t given a verdict.

Earlier in November, a California judge ruled in favor of top drug manufacturers in a lawsuit with three counties and the city of Oakland. The judge said the governments hadn’t proven that the pharmaceutical companies used deceptive marketing to increase unnecessary opioid prescriptions and create a public nuisance.

Also this month, Oklahoma’s supreme court overturned a 2019 judgment for $465 million in a suit brought by the state against drugmaker Johnson & Johnson.

Other lawsuits have resulted in big settlements or proposed settlements before trials were completed.

The jury’s decision in Cleveland had little effect on the stock of CVS, Walgreens and Walmart, which all closed higher Tuesday on Wall Street.

___

Associated Press writer Geoff Mulvihill in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, contributed to this report.

US jury awards $25m in damages over Unite the Right rally

IMAGE SOURCE,GETTY IMAGES

Image caption,

Richard Spencer, who coined the term "alt-right", was among the defendants

A US jury has awarded $25m (£19m) in damages against the organisers of a deadly far-right rally in August 2017.

The defendants were found liable in four out of six counts over the bloodshed at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.

The civil lawsuit was filed by nine people who suffered physical or emotional injuries in the rally.

A woman was killed and dozens were hurt after an avowed neo-Nazi drove a car into counter-protesters.

In court, the jury awarded $500,000 in punitive damages against 12 defendants, and $1m against five white supremacist organisations. Punitive damages are awarded at a court's discretion to punish a defendant for conduct judged to be especially harmful.

A total of $12m in punitive damages was also imposed against the driver of the car in the fatal incident.

The jury of 11 deliberated for over three days following nearly a month of testimony at the trial in Charlottesville.

The two federal conspiracy charges that jurors could not agree on alleged that the defendants had plotted to commit racially motivated violence.

Roberta Kaplan, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said they plan to refile the lawsuit so a new jury can decide on those two charges.

The legal action alleged that the defendants "brought with them to Charlottesville the imagery of the Holocaust, of slavery, of Jim Crow and of fascism".

"They also brought with them semi-automatic weapons, pistols, mace, rods, armour, shields and torches," the lawsuit said.

The statue of General Robert E Lee was towed away from Market Street Park, Charlottesville

The defendants include several prominent figures in America's white nationalist and far-right sphere.

Among those found liable in the case were Jason Kessler, the rally's main organiser, and Richard Spencer, who came up with the term "alt-right" and spoke at the event.

Another defendant, Christopher Cantwell, became famous as "the crying Nazi" after an emotional YouTube video he posted once the rally went viral.

The lawsuit largely rested on an 1871 law passed after the US Civil War to protect black Americans, following their emancipation from slavery, from the Ku Klux Klan.

• US white supremacists face a legal reckoning

It allows private citizens to sue others believed to have committed civil rights violations - with the condition that the plaintiffs must prove that they conspired to do so.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs also collected more than 5.3 terabytes of data to help them make their case, including social media posts and chat exchanges.

The rally began as a protest against the removal of a Confederate statue.

Then-President Donald Trump came under fire after saying afterwards that there were "very fine people on both sides". In the same speech he also said neo-Nazis and white nationalists "should be condemned totally".

A counter-protester, 32-year-old Heather Heyer, was killed when James Alex Fields drove his car into a crowd. He was sentenced to life in prison in June 2019.

The civil case included testimony from survivors of the incident.

"It was a complete terror scene. It was blood everywhere," one of the plaintiffs, Marissa Blair, testified. "I was terrified."

The defendants sought to distance themselves from the violence and maintained that there was no conspiracy. They said none of them knew Fields and so they could not have predicted he would ram a vehicle into a crowd.

"None of these defendants could have foreseen what James Fields did," Mr Kessler's attorney said.

The defendants argued that their racist views were protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees free speech, and that their rhetoric before the rally was just bluster.

They also said they had acted in self-defence and that the police bore responsibility for failing to keep the two sides from fighting.

Court testimony, however, suggested that some of the organisers could have foreseen the violence.

Former extremist Samantha Froelich, for example, testified that the idea of using vehicles to target counter-protesters was discussed ahead of the event.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs have said they hope the lawsuit acts as a deterrent against further extremist rallies.

Amy Spitalnick, executive director of Integrity First for America, which backed the legal action, told the BBC in October that "a case like this can also have much broader impacts in making clear there will be very real consequences for violence extremism".

Dutch 'Bible Belt' targeted in Covid vaccine drive


Only around one-third of people have been jabbed in Urk as protests against vaccinations have spread across the Netherlands (AFP/Jeroen JUMELET)

Danny KEMP
Tue, November 23, 2021, 9:08 AM·4 min read

From his surgery in the remote Dutch fishing village of Urk, family doctor Wilco Bloed is trying to win over coronavirus vaccine hold-outs who believe that God is on their side.

Only around one-third of people have been jabbed in this community deep in the conservative Protestant "Bible Belt" region, fewer than anywhere else in the Netherlands.

But with Covid-19 cases soaring nationwide, doctors in Urk have started their own vaccination campaign to reach out and convince people to get the shot.


"We started the initiative because Urk is the place in the Netherlands with the lowest vaccination rate, under 30 percent, and because the contaminations were really going up," Bloed told AFP.

"So as family doctors we have decided to offer vaccinations in the practices (instead of vaccination centres)."

It will "offer a possibility to have a conversation (with a trusted person) and remove barriers, and to get the vaccination rate up", he added.

Rates have since risen to 35 percent since the scheme started at the beginning of November, but that is still far below the national adult vaccination rate of 84.7 percent.

"The aversion to vaccination was quite large... it is true that people in Urk can be quite stubborn," said the doctor, who moved to the village 15 years ago.

- 'God's providence' -

Urk was "ground zero" for the Netherlands' worst riots in decades, which erupted in January over a coronavirus curfew.

Since then the village has seen scuffles with journalists outside churches that held services during lockdown, and a small outbreak of unrest on Saturday night as fresh rioting gripped the country.

The village with its picture-postcard harbour and fishermen's cottages was an island until 70 years ago when it was joined to the Dutch mainland by a land reclamation project, and it maintains its isolated mentality.

"If the rest of the Netherlands does one thing, Urk does the other," said Jacob, a 21 year old from Urk fishing on the harbour with his friend, who did not want to give his full name.

Urk has above all retained the strict Calvinist beliefs of the so-called Bible Belt that stretches through the heart of the Netherlands.

The church's beliefs on vaccination too have long been a key factor in low uptake rates for all kinds of jabs, with a measles outbreak in Urk two years ago.

Vaccination is seen by some as intervening in God's will, but the issue is complex, says Reverend Alwin Uitslag, of the Christian Reformed Eben-Haezerkerk church in Urk.

"On the one hand the Bible says that you can take precautions. So you may prepare for certain crisis," such as coronavirus, Uitslag told AFP.

"Another part says vaccinating is not allowed because you intervene in God's providence."

- Not just religion -

He described his church as "strict", with rules that also include two church services on Sundays, on which shops are closed and people may not go to work.

Women are required to wear dresses and to put on headscarves for worship.

But when it comes to Covid vaccines, the final choice was left to people's "individual conscience", said the pastor.

"It is my job to give good information to the church members, it's not my job to give them direction to do it or not to do it," he said, without revealing whether he had been jabbed.

In this village where science and religion collide, doctors and pastors say they have been talking to try to find the best way forward.

Religion was however "actually a very small part" of the problem, said Bloed.

Instead it was "largely fear of side effects", coupled with Urk's isolation from the government in The Hague, disinformation, and a young population that is more likely to be resistant to vaccination.

The results of the campaign, being carried out with the Dutch GGD health authority and local municipality, have so far been encouraging although there is far to go.

"In the first week and a half, the same number of injections was given as the GGD did four weeks before, though we see it slow down a bit," said Bloed.

But the doctor, who is also a member of the village's Reformed churches, said he kept his own religious beliefs out of things.

"Look I'm also Christian. And yes you don't have to agree on everything," he said.

dk-jcp/gw

EU parliament greenlights farm subsidy plan


French farmers are again set to receive the biggest share of EU subsidies 

(AFP/JEAN-FRANCOIS MONIER)

Tue, November 23, 2021, 9:11 AM·2 min read

The European Parliament gave its final green light on Tuesday to the EU's vast farm subsidy programme despite the opposition of environmentalists, who denounced its terms as "greenwashing".

The sums involved are huge. The common agricultural policy, or CAP, runs to 387 billion euros ($472 billion) over seven years -- a third of the EU's total multi-year budget -- with 270 billion euros going in direct aid to Europe's farmers.

The EU's spending bonanza will come into effect in 2023 and France remains the main beneficiary country. MEPs overwhelmingly voted in favour of the three texts that made up the total subsidy package.

The reform, which took months to conclude with EU member states, pays premiums to farmers who partake in greener activities, use more environmentally friendly techniques or help improve animal welfare.

In theory, member states will have to devote an average of 25 percent per year of direct payments to these "eco-regimes" between 2023 and 2027, with the possibility of devoting only 20 percent in the first two years.

"This is a first," said German MEP Peter Jahr, who led on one of the programme's three legislative texts.

"Our task was to have a coherent reform within the time limit and we have succeeded," he said.

Under the law, Brussels will verify that member states comply with the bloc's objectives of reducing greenhouse gases as well as reducing pesticides by half by 2030. A quarter of the land is also to be reserved for organic farming.

But climate campaigner Greta Thunberg said ahead of the vote that the plan was "disastrous to the climate and environment", while Greens MEP Benoit Biteau called it a "gift for the Eurosceptics, agribusiness and climate sceptics who have worked to ensure that this CAP serves the largest farms."

Critics argue that the vast majority of subsidies come without climate-friendly conditions or oversight and that the green aspects have been watered down since the previous multi-year package.

The proposal now goes back to EU member states for a final vote, before it officially goes into effect.

alm/arp/dc/tgb

India announces bill to ban cryptocurrencies

Prime Minister Narendra Modi warned last week that Bitcoin presents a risk to younger generations 

Nivrita GANGULY
Tue, November 23, 2021, 

India's government will introduce a bill to ban private cryptocurrencies and create a framework for a central bank-backed digital money, parliament said in a shock announcement late Tuesday.

The proposed bill "seeks to prohibit all private cryptocurrencies in India", the Lok Sabha said, and comes after Prime Minister Narendra Modi warned last week that Bitcoin presents a risk to younger generations and could "spoil our youth" if it ends up "in the wrong hands".

It is the latest such move by a major emerging economy, after China declared all cryptocurrency transactions illegal in September.

India's crypto market has boomed since the country's Supreme Court overturned a previous ban in April last year, growing more than 600 percent over the past year according to research by Chainalysis.

Between 15 and 100 million people in Asia's third-largest economy are estimated to own cryptocurrencies, with total holdings in the billions of dollars.

Their investments will now face an uncertain future.

India's central bank announced in June that it is working to introduce its own digital currency by the end of the year, while warning it has "serious concerns" about private cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, Ethereum and others.

The bill, to come before the new legislative session, will allow for some exceptions to promote cryptocurrency technology, according to parliament's bulletin of upcoming business, but no further details about the proposed legislation were released.

The market price of Bitcoin appeared unaffected and was up 1.67 percent in Tuesday's trade.

But the phrasing of the proposed bill sent alarm bells ringing among local traders and enthusiasts.

"The wording has created a panic," Kashif Raza, founder of crypto-education platform Bitinning, said, adding that the industry expected the government to take a more favourable view after recent consultations with the industry.

"Obviously there will be a shutter-down on the industry," he added. "The industry will die in its natural way. Intellectual capital will move away, investors will face losses."

- Under scrutiny -

Cryptocurrencies have been under scrutiny by Indian regulators since first entering the local market in 2013.

A surge in fraudulent crypto transactions following the Modi government's demonetisation of nearly all banknotes in 2016 led to the country's central bank banning crypto transactions in April 2018.

The Supreme Court lifted the ban two years later and investments have surged in the time since.

Indians have been bombarded in recent months with advertisements for CoinSwitchKuber, CoinDCX and other home-grown crypto exchanges across television channels, online streaming services and social media.

These platforms spent more than 500 million rupees ($6.7 million) on advertising spots during the recently concluded T20 cricket World Cup, research by TAM Sports showed, with viewers subjected to an average of 51 cryptocurrency advertisements per match.

Analysts say regulation would be central to addressing security risks, with crypto exchanges increasingly targeted by cyber criminals as virtual currency prices soar.

ng/grk/gle/je

French military convoy blocked in Burkina Faso as protests continue

A convoy of French troops in Burkina Faso was stopped en route to Niger on Friday by a human barricade of protesters opposed to France's involvement in a regional conflict with jihadists. Anger is rising in the former French colony over the inability of Burkinabe and international forces to prevent rising violence by Islamist militants as FRANCE 24's Senior Reporter Cyril Payen explains.

State of emergency for Guatemalan town battling nickel mine


Guatemalan troops on patrol in October El Estor, an indigenous municipality in northeastern Guatemala that has been rocked by protests against a nickel mine (AFP/Johan ORDONEZ)

Henry MORALES ARANA
Tue, November 23, 2021

Guatemala has decreed a state of emergency in El Estor, an eastern town of mainly indigenous people in conflict with a Swiss-owned nickel mine they accuse of polluting their lake.

The measure was adopted Monday by the government, which said it aimed to "restore order and public security" threatened by "criminal groups and sectors opposed to mining activities."

Valid for 15 days, the state of emergency restricts gatherings and free movement, replacing a so-called "state of siege" that expired after a month on Monday.


That measure was announced by President Alejandro Giammattei in October after weeks of protests and road blockades by members of the Mayan Q'eqchi' indigenous group.

For a month now, the community of some 100,000 people has been under a night curfew enforced by 1,000 police officers and soldiers, while the "state of siege" also allowed for warrantless arrests and banned protests.

El Estor's subsistence fishermen say the Fenix mine operated by the Guatemalan Nickel Company (CGN), a subsidiary of the Swiss-based Solway Investment Group, is polluting Lake Izabal and diminishing fish stocks.

The mine's owners deny the allegation, saying adequate environmental protections are in place.

Frustrated residents mounted a protest against the mine in October that was put down by security forces using tear gas.

The confrontation left four police officers wounded, and followed on three weeks of blockades of truck traffic to the mine.

The community accuses CGN of continuing to mine at Fenix despite a 2019 Constitutional Court order for it to suspend operations until consultations are held with locals.

The company said the order related only to Fenix's extraction activities, and did not affect a processing plant operated by sister company PRONICO.

CGN president Dmitry Kudryakov recently told AFP the pollution allegations were mere "speculations" by a "small group".

ec-ltl/mlr/jh

NEOLIBERAL  PROTECTIONISM

Mexico president defends move to shield megaprojects


Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has moved to speed up megaprojects in the country that he says are vital to national security (AFP/PEDRO PARDO)


Tue, November 23, 2021

Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador on Tuesday defended his government's move to speed up approval of major infrastructure projects considered vital to national security.

A decree published in the Official Gazette on Monday said that provisional authorization for public works in areas such as energy, tourism and transport must be issued within five business days.

Such infrastructure projects are in the "public interest" and part of "national security," it said.

Lopez Obrador has championed several megaprojects such a new Mexico City airport and his "Maya Train" that will link Caribbean resorts with ancient archaeological sites.

Legal challenges have led to delays, which experts said the decree appeared aimed at preventing in the future.

In the case of the Maya Train, indigenous communities allege that the railway will destroy fragile jungle ecosystems, and argue that prior consultations were insufficient.

Lopez Obrador rejected suggestions that the decree would make it hard to audit his flagship projects.

"It has nothing to do with transparency," he told reporters, saying government ministries were obliged to produce accounts.

"We all have the conviction to act honestly, (with) zero corruption," he added.

nc/dr/jh