Wednesday, April 06, 2022

Malian forces, suspected Russian fighters killed 300 civilians: HRW

Members of the military junta arrive at the Malian Ministry of Defense in Bamako, Mali, on August 19, 2020, a day after the military arrested Malian President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita and he officially resigned. (AFP)


AFP, Dakar
Published: 05 April ,2022

Malian forces and suspected Russian fighters killed about 300 civilians in late March in the center of the conflict-torn Sahel nation, Human Rights Watch said on Tuesday.

In a report, the rights group suggested the alleged massacre perpetrated over four days, in the town of Moura in volatile central Mali, was a war crime.

Malian soldiers and white foreign fighters arrived in the town by helicopter on March 27 and exchanged fire with about 30 extremist fighters, several witnesses told Human Rights Watch (HRW). Some extremists then attempted to blend in with the local population.

Over the ensuing days, Malian and foreign fighters allegedly rounded people up and executed them in small groups.

HRW estimated that about 300 people were killed in total, with the vast majority of the victims being ethnic Fulanis.

“The incident is the worst single atrocity reported in Mali’s decade-long armed conflict,” the report said.

Mali’s army said on Friday that it killed 203 militants in Moura. However, that announcement followed widely shared social media reports of a civilian massacre in the area.

The United States, European Union, United Nations and Mali’s former colonial power France have all raised concerns about the possible killing of civilians in Moura.

AFP was unable to independently confirm the Malian armed forces’ account or the social media reports.

HRW’s recent report attests to fears of a mass civilian killing in Moura, however.

The study was based on interviews with 27 people, including witnesses from the Moura area, foreign diplomats and security analysts, the rights group said.

“The Malian government is responsible for this atrocity, the worst in Mali in a decade, whether carried about by Malian forces or associated foreign soldiers,” said HRW Sahel Director Corinne Dufka, who urged an investigation.

Several witnesses and other sources identified the foreign soldiers as Russians to HRW.

Russia has supplied what are officially described as military instructors to Mali, an impoverished country that has been battling a brutal extremist conflict since 2012.

However, the United States, France, and others, say the instructors are operatives from the Russian private-security firm Wagner.

Mali’s ruling military, which seized power in a coup in August 2020, denies the allegation. It also routinely defends the rights record of the armed forces.

Israel is stoking a Civil War Against its Palestinian Citizens

Occupation and oppression are the real causes behind three attacks within days inside Israel. So why is Israel’s only response more oppression?

Three separate, deadly Palestinian attacks in Israeli cities in a week have elicited a predictable response. The Israeli army has drafted large numbers of extra soldiers into the West Bank and around Gaza, Palestinian territories already under decades of brutal military occupation.

But the fact that, unusually, two of the attacks were carried out by Israeli citizens – members of a large Palestinian minority whose rights are severely circumscribed and inferior to those of the Jewish majority – has raised the stakes considerably for the Israeli right.

A total of 11 Israelis died in the attacks a few days apart in the cities of BeershebaHadera and Bnei Brak, a suburb of Tel Aviv. Trigger-happy Israeli forces killed three Palestinians in separate incidents on Thursday, in the immediate wake of the attacks.

The lethal attacks were an opportunity for Naftali Bennett, the far-right leader who snatched the Israeli premiership from Benjamin Netanyahu last summer, to prove his credentials to his party’s main constituency: Jewish settlers determined to drive Palestinians off their lands and reclaim a supposed biblical birthright.

In a video statement, Bennett told “whoever has a gun licence” – meaning overwhelmingly Jewish citizens – “this is the time to carry a gun”. And if that wasn’t enough, he went on to announce that the government was considering “a larger framework to involve civilian volunteers who want to help and be of assistance”.

Street violence

What that means in practice is not hard to decipher. Nearly a year ago, the intensification of long-running moves to ethnically cleanse the Palestinian neighbourhood of Sheikh Jarrah in occupied East Jerusalem became one of the triggers for the worst inter-communal violence in Israel in at least a generation.

Palestinian citizens who staged angry demonstrations found themselves not just facing the expected crackdown from Israel’s paramilitary police, but street violence from far-right Jewish mobs that appeared to be operating in tandem with Israeli security forces.

For the first time it looked as though the Israeli leadership was moving a key feature of the occupation inside the Green Line.

In the occupied territories, armed settlers operate effectively as militiasterrorising nearby Palestinian communities, watched impassively, or sometimes assisted, by the Israeli army. They act as the long arm of the Israeli state – offering plausible deniability for Israeli officials as they exploit the settlers’ violence.

The aim of both the settlers and the Israeli state is the same: to drive Palestinians from their homes so Jewish settlers can take over the vacated land.

Last spring, the use of that same model inside Israel became harder to disguise. The Israeli government appeared to be contracting out parts of its domestic security to the same fanatical and violent settlers, allowing them to be bussed into Palestinian communities inside Israel unhindered. There they acted as vigilantes.

They smashed Palestinian shops, chanted “Death to the Arabs“, and beat up Palestinian citizens who crossed their path. At the same time, Israeli politicians from across the spectrum incited against the Palestinian minority.

Now Bennett gives every appearance of hoping to exploit the three attacks to put this earlier arrangement on a more formal footing.

Notably, a “Barel Rangers” militia has already been formed in the Negev region, in Israel’s south, where one of the attacks occurred. The founder, a former police officer, set out its purpose in a social media post: “When your life is under threat, it’s only you and the terrorist. You are the policeman, the judge and the executioner.”

Another militia has recently been established in Lod, a city near Tel Aviv, that saw the worst violence last May.

Playing with fire

Bennett’s call for “civilian volunteers” to defend the Jewish state was presumably intended to echo Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, who has urged Ukrainian civilians to fight the invading Russian army. Bennett may hope that in the current international climate there will be little criticism of Jewish militias acting similarly.

But whereas Zelensky has called on Ukrainians to fight foreign invaders, Bennett is rallying militias to attack his country’s own citizens, based on their ethnicity. He is playing with fire, stoking a mood of civil war in which one side, Jewish Israelis, have the weapons and state resources, while the other – the Palestinian minority – is largely defenceless.

Notably, after the second recent attack in the Jewish city of Hadera on Tuesday – by two Palestinian citizens – a mob formed chanting “Death to the Arabs”.

Where this might lead was underscored by a retired army general, Uzi Dayan, now a member of the Israeli parliament for Netanyahu’s Likud party. He warned all of Israel’s 1.8 million Palestinian citizens to “be careful”. They faced, he said, another Nakba, or Catastrophe – the mass ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their homeland by Israeli militias and the army in 1948.

“If we reach a civil war situation, things will end in one word and a situation you know, which is Nakba,” he said. “This is what will happen in the end.” He added: “We are stronger. We are holding back on a lot of things.” The ethnic cleansing associated with the Nakba “was not completed”, he noted.

That is not a situation Palestinian citizens will be able to avoid if Israeli leaders will it. Many in the minority have been afraid to leave their homes, go to work or venture into Jewish areas – which is most of the country – for fear of reprisals.  And that is precisely because Bennett and Dayan represent a vast swathe of opinion in Israel that views Palestinians – even Palestinian citizens – as the enemy.

The measures being “held back”, as Dayan phrased it, could include not only more state-backed violence but efforts to strip the Palestinian minority of even their degraded citizenship status.

For nearly two decades, leaders of the far-right such as Avigdor Lieberman have been calling for loyalty pledges and transfer policies to undermine the rights of Palestinian citizens. The controversial nation-state law of 2018 chipped away further at those rights. The stage has already been set for a renewed assault on citizenship.

Racist laws

Lethal attacks carried out by members of Israel’s Palestinian minority, like the two that occurred in quick succession, are rare. They are invariably carried out by what Israel terms “lone wolves”, deeply disillusioned and alienated individuals, rather than organised by Palestinian movements inside Israel.

The Palestinian minority has preferred to deal with the systematic discrimination and oppression of living as a non-Jewish population in a self-declared Jewish state using the limited legal and political tools at its disposal.

Dozens of explicitly racist laws have been challenged in the courts, even if with minimal success. The minority has increasingly lobbied the international community for help, calls that have embarrassed Israel.

Over the past year, more and more human rights and legal groups have come forward declaring that Israel is an apartheid state, both in the occupied territories and inside Israel itself. The structural discrimination exposed by the Palestinian minority has played a crucial part in helping these organisations reach such a severe conclusion.

Leaders like Bennett, therefore, have every reason to try to exaggerate the significance posed by these attacks, suggesting as he did this week that they are part of a new “terror wave“. He has vowed to expand the scope of draconian administration detention orders – imprisonment without charge or evidence made public – to deal with this supposed wave.

Making the case more plausible for him, the three Palestinian citizens involved in the two attacks – in Beersheba and Hadera – had loose affiliations with the Islamic State (IS) group.

Grain of salt

But in reality, while the three perpetrators appear to have had ideological sympathy with IS – one even tried unsuccessfully to reach a training camp in Syria in 2016 – the group has no meaningful presence in the Palestinian population, either in the occupied territories or in Israel.

Identification with IS among a tiny section of the Palestinian public peaked five years ago, when the group looked like it might be offering a successful model for unseating the region’s corrupt and sclerotic Arab tyrants. IS’s failures and its brutality soon eroded even that small pool of support.

Assessments are that, despite its intensive spying and surveillance of Palestinians on social media, Israel has been able to identify only a few dozen IS supporters, who are in its prisons. Even in those cases, most have been detained because of ideological sympathy with the group, not because of tangible ties.

And in any case, IS has never expressed any pressing interest in attacks on Israel. A statement in 2016 made clear that the group prioritised struggle against Muslim governments that had, in its view, broken with the central tenets of Islam.

By contrast, Islamist Palestinian factions are committed to liberating the Palestinian homeland, not trying to reinvent a mythic golden era of unified Islamic rule across the Middle East. They are Palestinian national liberation movements, not jihadists.

For that reason alone, the claim by IS of responsibility for the two attacks needs to be taken with a large grain of salt. The group has an incentive to suggest involvement in the attacks because they coincided with the arrival in Israel last week of leaders of four Arab states – EgyptBahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Morocco – for a summit.

These Arab states – and others waiting in the wings – wish to make Israel the linchpin of a new shared regional security and intelligence pact designed to prevent threats to their rule, including a revival of the Arab Spring.

For IS supporters, the move is yet another humiliation, and proof of the illegitimacy of the region’s Arab autocracies.

Double whammy

These attacks were carried out by lone wolves – and in one case, a pair of lone wolves – who have become increasingly desperate, angry and vengeful after decades of Israel’s oppression of Palestinians, and the complicity and betrayal by western and Arab governments.

The attackers’ surge of rage coincided with one part of the agenda of IS. But in their case, the roots penetrate much deeper.

The Palestinian perpetrators from Israel did not need indoctrination by the foreign leadership of IS to carry out their attacks. They had plenty of homegrown reasons to want to strike out – no different from the “lone-wolf” Palestinian from the West Bank who carried out a third attack near Tel Aviv but had no ties to IS.

Decades of brutal military rule in the occupied territories and systematic discrimination and oppression inside Israel were the real causes.

One cannot overlook either the double whammy from Israel against the more devout section of Israel’s Palestinian minority.

First, the best organised and most politically astute religious party in Israel, the Northern Islamic Movement under Sheikh Raed Salah, was outlawed in 2015. Israeli critics, even within the security establishment, warned at the time that the move would drive some Islamic protest underground and encourage greater extremism.

And second, the rival Southern Islamic Movement, under Mansour Abbasthrew its hand in with Bennett last summer to oust Netanyahu from power. Abbas’s party became the first to join an Israeli government, in return for a few crumbs from the far right.

Both developments have left devout Muslims who oppose Israel’s occupation and the crushing of Palestinian rights with no serious, legitimate channel for protest. They have been disempowered and humiliated – ready conditions to provoke a fringe into staging violent attacks of the kind seen in the past few days.

And to add insult to injury, Abbas’ party is supporting a government that this week allowed a virulently anti-Palestinian legislator, Itamar Ben Gvir, to tour the sacred Muslim holy site of al-Aqsa in Jerusalem under heavily armed protection. Ben Gvir wants the mosque plaza under Jewish sovereignty.

Wrong lesson

There is a lesson here that Israel willfully ignores, just as the western states who serve as its patron do too.

If you treat populations with structural violence, if you strip them of rights, if you demean and humiliate them, and if you deny them a voice in their future, you cannot be surprised – even less maintain a self-righteousness – when some lash out with their own forms of violence against you.

The wrong, self-serving lesson Israel will learn – as it has for decades – is that the correct response must be greater violence, greater humiliation, and an intensified demand for submission. The oppression will continue, as will the resistance.

The West’s unlimited support for Israel, and the Arab autocracies that are now openly cosying up to Israel, has a cost. Dismissing it as simply the savagery of IS may offer reassurance. But it will not stop the pressure from building – or the explosion to come.

• First published in Middle East EyeFacebooTwitter

Jonathan Cook, based in Nazareth, Israel is a winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East (Pluto Press) and Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair (Zed Books). Read other articles by Jonathan, or visit Jonathan's website.
PRISON NATION TOO
Turkey had 2nd highest incarceration rate in Europe in 2021: CoE annual report

By Turkish Minute
- April 5, 2022

Turkey had the second-highest prison population rate of the 47 Council of Europe (CoE) member states as of January 2021, with 325 prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants, the ANKA news agency reported on Tuesday, citing a recent report released by the CoE.

According to the 2021 Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics on Prison Populations, better known by the acronym SPACE I, there were 1,414,172 inmates in the penal institutions of the CoE member states for which data are available on Jan. 31, 2021, corresponding to a European prison population rate of 102 inmates per 100,000 inhabitants.

Based on that European median value, the report categorized Turkey as among the countries with “very high” incarceration rates, over 25 percent higher than the European average.

In addition to Turkey, the category also included Russia, the country with the highest prison population rate of 328 prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants, Georgia (231), Azerbaijan (215), Slovak Republic (192), Lithuania (190), Czech Republic (180), Hungary (180), Poland (179), Estonia (176), Albania (162), Latvia (160), Moldova (160), Serbia (153), Scotland (135), Montenegro (135) and UK: England & Wales (131).


The CoE report also revealed that Turkey had the sixth most crowded prisons in Europe with 108 inmates per 100 available places on Jan. 31, 2021, with the ratio of inmates per one prison staff member being 3.9, the highest figure among the 47 countries.


The report further showed that Turkey had 272,115 inmates in 2021, with 12.5 percent of them aged 50 or over and 1.7 percent aged 65 or over. The percentage of foreign inmates was 3.8 and female inmates were 4, the report said, adding that 15.3 percent of the inmates in Turkey were not serving a final sentence last year.

Turkey, which allows children 6 years old or younger to stay with their mothers inside penal institutions, had 397 children living behind bars in 2021, the report said.

According to the report,17.2 percent of the inmates in Turkey were sentenced for drug offenses in 2021, while others were sentenced for homicide (13.8), theft (12.3), robbery (9), assault and battery (6.2), rape (3.8), other types of sexual offenses (3.8), economic/ financial offenses (3.5), road traffic offenses (2. 7) and other offenses (21.1).

Turkey’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) government has allocated 8.7 billion lira for the construction of 36 new prisons in the next four years, which will significantly increase Turkey’s already high incarceration rate. The number of Turkish penal institutions will increase to 419 in 2025. There are currently 383 prisons in the country.

Mass detentions and arrests have been taking place in Turkey since a coup attempt in July 2016. The AKP government accuses the faith-based Gülen movement of masterminding the failed coup, although the movement strongly denies any involvement in the abortive putsch.

Critics accuse President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who embarked on a massive crackdown on the opposition after the coup attempt, of using the incident as a pretext to quash dissent.

Human Rights Watch says people alleged to have links to the Gülen movement, inspired by the US-based Muslim preacher Fethullah Gülen, are the largest group targeted by Erdoğan.

A total of 319,587 people have been detained and 99,962 arrested in operations against supporters of the Gülen movement since the coup attempt, Turkey’s Interior Minister Süleyman Soylu said on Nov. 22.

A TRUE FALSE FLAG/REICHSTAG FIRE OPERATION TO GRANT ERDOGAN MORE POWER BY DECLARING A MARTIAL LAW PRESIDENCY

U.S. Coal Miners Surge as Europe Proposes Ban on Russian Imports


(Bloomberg) -- U.S. coal miners including Peabody Energy Corp. and Arch Resources Inc. surged as the European Union is proposing banning imports of the fuel from Russia.  

Peabody, the biggest U.S. coal producer, jumped as much as 7.1% before the start of regular trading in New York. Arch, the second-biggest miner climbed as much as 6.3%, while Consol Energy Inc. gained as much as 8.6% as prices spiked in Europe.

Russia supplied about 18% of global coal exports in 2020, with Europe as the largest buyer. The prospect of restrictions on Russian coal has already upended international energy markets, driving prices to record highs, though in recent weeks they have erased some of those gains. 

However, it may be hard for U.S. suppliers to take advantage of surging international prices, said Ernie Thrasher, chief executive officer of Xcoal Energy & Resources LLC., the biggest U.S. exporter. Miners have already sold most of their output under long-term contracts and have few spare tons to deliver to Europe. Increasing production will be difficult because the long-term prospects for the dirtiest fossil fuel are grim, and producers have had little incentive to invest in new capacity. 

Those issues have been exacerbated by tight labor markets, while supply-chain bottlenecks would make it difficult to deliver additional tons to export terminals, Thrasher said. 

“I don’t see any ability for the industry to expand production,” he said. “It’s like looking at a sweet dessert that you just can’t reach.”

Prices in the U.S. have also been surging, surpassing $100 a ton last week for the first time in 13 years.

©2022 Bloomberg L.P.

FROM THE RIGHT 

AEI Op-Ed

How Republicans really feel about Russia and Ukraine

Vladimir Putin’s war against Ukraine has triggered sweeping reassessments of conservative foreign policy opinion within the United States. Leading authorities have argued this represents the death of supposedly pro-Russian GOP “isolationism,” in favor of a liberal internationalist approach. Both halves of that argument reveal a misunderstanding of Republican foreign policy views, past and present.

It would be more accurate to say there’s been strong majority Republican support for some hardline measures against Putin’s Russia, and broad sympathy for Ukraine, alongside continuing discomfort over how far this crisis may escalate. GOP voters, while backing core U.S. alliances, remain ambivalent over many aspects of U.S. activism overseas. That is true of Republican voters as well as Democrats and independents. Whatever burst of support there has been for Ukraine should not be interpreted as a more sweeping conversion to liberal internationalist precepts where such conversion does not exist. Moreover, Republican voters were never pro-Putin or pro-Russia in the first place. A liberal-leaning press has tended to misrepresent conservative GOP foreign policy views for many years now.

Let’s start with some recent polls. According to the numbers, GOP voter opinion on foreign policy remains divided. This includes responses specifically about Ukraine. A significant minority of Republicans lean toward a non-intervention stance on this issue. According to a Yahoo/YouGov poll conducted mid-March, GOP voters are less likely than Democrats to support President Joe Biden’s existing measures against Russia. Most Republicans, like other Americans, are opposed to placing U.S. ground troops in Ukraine. William Saletan, writing at The Bulwark, frames this in ways I would dispute, but one central point of his is correct: a good many grassroots Republicans believe we should pay more attention to problems at home, rather than problems overseas. This was also the finding of some leading polls from last fall, including the October 2021 Chicago Council Survey.

Here, it’s worth noting that a certain ambivalence regarding U.S. intervention abroad is the norm in American opinion, not the exception. The same is true of Democrats and independents. There are limits on what the public will tolerate. Opposition to U.S. ground troops fighting in Ukraine, for example, is a point of bipartisan agreement. That is not “isolationism”; it is simply good sense.

Where Saletan is mistaken, judging from a fuller range of polling results he does not mention, is in the predominant direction of Republican dissatisfaction with the president’s approach to Ukraine. It is abundantly clear that the overwhelming number of Republicans do not approve of Biden’s handling of this crisis. When pressed, however, most GOP voters say they disapprove of Biden’s Ukraine policy in that he has not done enough to push back against Russian aggression. According to a Pew Research Center poll released on March 15, 54 percent of conservative Republicans say exactly that. Another 21 percent say the president has it about right. Only 9 percent of conservative Republicans say that Biden has done too much to stop Russia.

A whole host of polls from the past month back up this central finding. The same Pew survey mentioned above found that 73 percent of Republicans favor working with U.S. allies to respond to the Russian invasion. According to an early March survey conducted by Reuters, an overwhelming majority of GOP voters support a robust set of U.S. measures against Putin’s Russia. Some three-quarters of Republicans support U.S. arms shipments to Ukraine, rigorous economic sanctions, a ban on the import of Russian oil, and the seizure of assets from Russian oligarchs. And according to a Gallup poll released March 14, only 15 percent of Americans view Putin’s Russia favorably. Democrats and Republicans both respond in the same way. There is no real partisan difference on this issue.

At the same time, in cases where Biden has gone overboard—for example by saying that Putin “cannot remain in power,” and thereby implying a U.S. policy of regime change—a significant number of GOP national security hawks have joined with GOP non-interventionists in noting the president’s potentially dangerous rhetorical overkill.

Part of the problem with current reporting, I think, is that a wildly partisan press never really cared to understand Republican foreign policy opinion in the first place. During the Trump presidency, it was almost obligatory for a certain type of journalist to refer to GOP voters as “pro-Putin” or “pro-Russian.” As I pointed out in my 2019 book, Age of Iron: On Conservative Nationalism, based on a close look at polling from the time, the great majority of Republican voters were neither pro-Putin nor pro-Russian, and never had been. Most GOP voters, and for that matter most core Trump supporters, said quite consistently throughout those four years that they supported NATO—and that they had no warm feelings toward Putin’s Russia. But you would never have known this from mainstream reporting during those years. The facts simply didn’t fit the required liberal narrative. And so, they were not reported.

This goes to a broader problem with mainstream liberal academic, think-tank, and journalistic analyses of the Republican Party on foreign policy issues. Most liberals take it for granted that there is one benign tradition of U.S. foreign policy, namely the liberal internationalist approach. Liberals will certainly permit debate between hawks and doves within that one tradition: namely, how, why, and whether to use force overseas for liberal purposes. Liberal hawks (i.e., globalists) debate liberal doves. But honest disagreement from outside the liberal internationalist tradition altogether is treated as a religious heresy, or a kind of emanating darkness, rather than a serious alternative.

The challenge liberals face, though, is that most of the American foreign policy tradition, measured by timespan and long-term impact, is not liberal internationalist. And neither are most Republicans. Liberals appear to have no way of mentally processing this reality without slotting people into one of a few officially approved pejorative categories. As a contemporary conservative, either you are an isolationist or a warmonger. Or better still, an isolationist warmonger. We are already witnessing this type of recurrent, biased reporting in response to the range of GOP foreign policy opinions over the last month.

And yet most GOP voters who disagree with Biden’s foreign policy, like most GOP elected officials past and present, are neither warmongers nor isolationists. Rather, at the beating heart of the Republican Party, going back to its founding, is an intense sense of American nationalism. This has foreign policy consequences as well. Depending on international events, political leadership, and domestic political constraints, Republicans—like most Americans—have cycled back and forth between international activism and non-intervention. One GOP constant, however, has been a jealous regard for U.S. national sovereignty, and for preserving America’s freedom of action in world affairs. As I have tried to suggest in a series of books going back to Barack Obama’s first term, this is what sets conservative Republicans apart from their modern liberal counterparts. Our starting point is not rules-based multilateral world order. Our starting point is America.

Given the stubborn conservative affection for the notion that this is still an independent country, regardless of cosmopolitan dreams for global governance, then your typical GOP voter and your typical GOP leader are not going to sign up for the full menu of internationalist policy proposals as defined by liberals, whether over Ukraine or anywhere else. For example, conservative Republicans are going to continue to view the utterly dysfunctional condition of America’s southern border as a legitimate national security issue. And they are right to do so. This doesn’t mean Republicans won’t also support robust, sensible measures against authoritarian aggression overseas. In fact, we are seeing strong indications of that support right now.

Still, some observers seem baffled by GOP voters’ reaction to the Russian war in Ukraine. This isn’t rocket science: when a smaller, free country is viciously attacked by a much larger authoritarian power, most Americans—including most Republicans—tend to sympathize with the little guy. They look to help if they can, understanding that broader interests may be at stake. At the same time, most Americans—including most Republicans—look to avoid full-blown hostilities with one of the world’s leading nuclear weapons states. That is not an unreasonable mix of concerns. In fact, it sounds about right to me. The whole task of any U.S. president, in such a crisis, is to strike a healthy balance between competing priorities.

The problem with Biden’s approach to Ukraine is not that Republicans have failed to support the right balance on this issue, but that he himself has not struck the right balance.

The American public seems to be unimpressed by the president’s handling of this crisis. Looking at the polling numbers, we find that Biden’s foreign policy approval rating is low, just as it has been for months. According to RealClearPolitics, as of April 3, his rolling average of support on foreign policy issues stood at just under 41 percent. This is no great strength. Democratic Party strategists let it be known to Politico after the start of the war in Ukraine that they hoped this crisis could be used to rescue their party’s fortunes in the upcoming midterm elections. They must be disappointed.

ECOCIDE
Navy captain fired after another Hawaii fuel leak

By Diana Stancy Correll
Apr 5, 08:23 AM

Capt. Albert Hornyak is piped ashore assuming command of Naval Supply Systems Command Fleet Logistics Center Pearl Harbor during a change of command ceremony. (Shannon R. Haney/Navy)


The Navy relieved the commanding officer of the Naval Supply Systems Command Fleet Logistics Center on Monday due to a loss of confidence “following a series of leadership and oversight failures at the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility,” the service said.

Capt. Albert Lee Hornyak has served as the commanding officer since August 2021, and Red Hill has historically suffered fuel leaks in the past. But his ouster comes days after the Navy kicked off another investigation into another fuel release at the Red Hill facility on Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii.

According to the service, that fuel release consisted of no more than 30 gallons of a mixture of water and fuel near tanks 13 and 14 at the storage facility.

Rear Adm. Kristin Acquavella, special assistant to the commander at NAVSUP, will serve as the commanding officer in the interim until a permanent replacement is identified, the Navy said.

NAVSUP commanding officer Rear Adm. Peter Stamatopoulos will also designate additional senior fuel subject matter experts to help Acquavella.

In November 2021, a fuel leak from the same storage facility contaminated roughly 9,000 military families’ drinking water, and prompted thousands to seek treatment for nausea, headaches, rashes and other conditions.

The Red Hill well was initially shut down following reports that the water smelled like fuel, but officials originally claimed it was still safe to drink. Testing days later revealed petroleum products were present in the water.

Following an effort to flush the Navy’s water distribution system, the Hawaii Department of Health declared that the water in the final four of all 19 zones within the Navy water system was safe for drinking, bathing, cooking and cleaning on March 18.

The facility has previously experienced fuel leaks, including in 2014 when one of the tanks leaked 27,000 gallons.

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin ordered the closure of the Red Hill facility last month, and the Navy and Defense Logistics Agency leadership have until the end of May to create a plan for “safe and expeditious defueling” of Red Hill.

EU Targets Man-Made Greenhouse Gases in Climate Neutrality Push

(Bloomberg) -- The European Union will ramp up curbs on man-made gases found in refrigerators, building materials and electrical equipment in a bid to slash emissions that have a greater warming effect on the planet than carbon dioxide.

The Commission proposed on Tuesday to speed up the reduction of fluorinated greenhouse gases and ozone depleting substances, in measures designed to slash emissions equivalent to an additional 490 million tons of CO2 by the middle of the century. That’s roughly the same as France’s total annual greenhouse gas output. 

It marks the latest effort by the EU to cut greenhouse gases other than CO2, as it attempts to reach climate neutrality over the coming three decades. In December, the bloc proposed measures to curb methane, which is one of the most potent greenhouse gases.

The bloc aims to accelerate the reduction of new hydrofluorocarbons -- which have a global warming potential thousands of times stronger than CO2 -- and introduce new prohibitions on their use, with the aim of reducing their heating impact by 98% by 2050. Globally, a phase-down of HFCs is seen as avoiding around 0.4 degrees Celsius of temperature rises by the end of the century.

“Making climate-friendly technologies more widely available will help us reach the EU’s long-term climate goals,” said Frans Timmermans, the EU’s climate chief. “Science urges us to go further and faster now.”

Cutting hydroflurocarbons is a quick-fire way to reduce global warming given its potency, yet relatively short lifespan. Others like perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride though, can remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years. So-called F-gas emissions in the EU have declined since 2014.

Read more: Earth Is on Track to Warm to Twice Paris Accord’s Target Level

Under a separate measure Tuesday, the Commission proposed to tighten regulation on emissions and pollution that are not covered by the bloc’s carbon trading system and produced by big factories, power plants and livestock farms. Member states will need to set stricter criteria for the technologies used to reduce emissions like methane and refrigerants, while operators will have to show how they plan to meet the EU’s pollution goals after 2030, it said.

The Industrial Emissions Directive will also be expanded to cover cattle farms, targeting methane and ammonia emissions in particular. Around 850 mining sites may now be covered by the rules, as well as almost 100 battery factories. Citizens meanwhile will have more scope to seek compensation if their health is affected by unlawful pollution.

“If operators fail to meet their obligations, citizens get better access to legal redress and compensation,” said Virginijus Sinkevicius, Commissioner for the Environment. “These rules are designed to make our economy more efficient and more sustainable.”

©2022 Bloomberg L.P.

New Yorkers Are Split by Race and Income on How to Reduce City Crime

(Bloomberg) -- New Yorkers are divided along racial lines over the best strategies to improve public safety citywide, according to the results of a survey of more than 60,000 people conducted by a coalition of nonprofits run by allies of Mayor Eric Adams. 

Asian American and Pacific Islander New Yorkers ranked “more police presence” as the top priority in improving neighborhood safety amid an uptick in anti-Asian American hate crimes, including multiple high-profile violent assaults and deaths. 

By contrast, Black and White New Yorkers ranked housing and mental health first responders as more pressing fixes to the city’s spike in violent crime compared to adding more police officers.

The survey comes as major cities allocate more resources to police forces, even though money alone doesn’t seem to lead to a reduction in crime. Called “NYCSpeaks,” the $2.1 million survey initiative was backed by boldface philanthropic organizations including crypto billionaire Mike Novogratz’s Galaxy Gives, the Robin Hood Foundation and the Ford Foundation. 

The group sent more than 150 canvassers into 33 different neighborhoods earlier this year, with the aim of soliciting a large number of New Yorkers’ views on more than two dozen different policy questions, with the intention of using the results to help Mayor Adams craft his policy agenda.

Overall, New Yorkers who responded to the survey ranked “housing” as their top priority in making neighborhoods safer. But the results also varied by income level: Respondents earning less than $35,000 a year were likelier to rank “more police presence” as their second priority, while those earning more than $35,000 a year were likelier to call for more “mental health first responders,” as their second priority.

A third of New Yorkers said safety was a top concern when riding public transit, trumping other priorities including better maintained trains, buses and stations, as well as shorter transit wait times and less expensive fares.

The survey also found that one in four New Yorkers want to increase accountability for police misconduct as a way to “improve trust in the criminal legal system” among people of color and that nearly 60% of adults “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that the city should provide reparations to New Yorkers who are descendants of Africans enslaved in the U.S. 

In terms of workplace protections that Adams should prioritize, a third asked to expand $15 minimum wage and paid sick leave to all gig workers.

©2022 Bloomberg L.P.

Buyers Turn Down Moderna’s Covid Vaccine as Pandemic Demand Wanes


A healthcare worker prepares a dose of the Moderna Inc. Covid-19 vaccine booster shot for a Rakuten Group Inc. employee at the company's head office in Tokyo, Japan, on Friday, Feb. 18, 2022. About 11% of the Japanese population had received a third dose of the vaccine as of Tuesday, according to Bloomberg data. Photographer: Toru Hanai/Bloomberg

(Bloomberg) -- Two buyers of Covid-19 vaccines for low- and middle-income countries have declined options to purchase hundreds of millions of additional doses from Moderna Inc., a sign of waning demand as the pandemic eases. 

The African Union and Covax, the World Health Organization-backed group, decided not to obtain more of the vaccine as developing nations struggle to turn supplies into inoculations. Lower-income countries left behind in the global rollout are now grappling with a lack of funds, hesitancy, supply-chain obstacles and other factors that are hampering distribution.

For months, Moderna’s highly effective messenger RNA vaccine was out of reach for large parts of the world, and the company faced growing pressure to expand access. Now the tables have turned, even as health officials push to boost vaccination rates amid the risk of new variants.

“The vaccine landscape has changed drastically in recent months,” said Safura Abdool Karim, a public-health lawyer and researcher in Johannesburg who’s focused on equity in the pandemic. “We went from really needing vaccines super urgently to now having them.”

While the African Union agreed to purchase 50 million doses for delivery in the first quarter, the body of 55 member states opted not to acquire another 60 million doses in the second quarter, a Moderna spokesperson said in an email.

Covax, meanwhile, turned down two purchase options, one for 166 million doses in the third quarter and a second for 166 million doses in the fourth quarter, Moderna said. Covax remains in discussions with Moderna, according to a spokesperson for one of its key partners, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance.

Short Shelf Life

The groups decided not to secure the doses despite Africa’s low immunization rate. Only 15% of the continent’s population is fully vaccinated, compared with a global average of 57%, the WHO said last month. About 400 million of the more than 700 million doses Africa has received have been administered. 

Enthusiasm turned to hesitancy in some African countries after months of delays, according to Edward Kelley, a former director of health services for the WHO. Donated vaccines arriving with little notice and short shelf lives have made it even harder. The problem highlights how the global effort failed to sufficiently address the delivery challenge, he said.

“The focus was almost exclusively on vaccines, and not on vaccinations,” said Kelley, who is now global health lead at ApiJect Systems Corp., a medical technology company. 

With new Covid cases dropping, many African countries are scaling back surveillance and quarantine measures. The WHO is calling for caution, urging countries not to lose sight of the risks of variants and pushing to expand vaccination coverage.

Future Sales

Covid vaccine sales remain relatively brisk. Moderna said it has signed deals for $21 billion in 2022 vaccine sales, up from $19 billion announced in February. But the company’s shares have fallen by about two-thirds from their August peak amid concerns about future sales and ability to develop new products. Moderna fell 0.9% as of 9:48 a.m. in New York. 

Lower demand is also expected to hit sales for companies including Pfizer Inc. and AstraZeneca Plc, as well as new entrants like Novavax Inc., and put pressure on manufacturers in countries such as India and Indonesia that invested in vaccine capacity. While more than 9 billion doses could be produced in 2022, demand may decline to a rate of about 2.2 billion to 4.4 billion doses a year in 2023 and beyond, according to London-based analytics firm Airfinity Ltd. 

With supplies now outpacing demand and more shots available, governments are taking a stronger stance against the terms that vaccine manufacturers are offering, Abdool Karim said. They’ve also turned increasingly to bilateral deals rather than relying on Covax, she added.

Covax has picked up the pace of deliveries after struggling to get access to shots last year, with shipments rising to more than 1.4 billion doses to 145 countries. In recent months, its focus has shifted to distribution challenges.

“Flexibility is crucial when it comes to options in our portfolio,” Gavi wrote. “We are in conversations with manufacturers as part of our active portfolio management strategy to align with magnitude and timing of country needs.”

Moderna in October announced a deal to make up to 110 million doses of its vaccine available to the African Union, which didn’t respond to a request for comment. Moderna agreed in May to supply Covax with 34 million doses in 2021 and as many as 466 million doses in 2022, then in December said it would make up to 150 million additional doses available. 

(Updates with shares in second section)

©2022 Bloomberg L.P.