Hyundai's self-driving taxis roll out on the streets of South Korea

Automaker Hyundai brought its Level 4 autonomous RoboRide service to the bustling streets of Gangnam in Seoul on Thursday. Photo by Thomas Maresca/UPI

SEOUL, June 9 (UPI) -- Automaker Hyundai and South Korean officials launched a trial service of self-driving taxis in the busy Seoul neighborhood of Gangnam on Thursday, the latest step forward in the country's efforts to make autonomous vehicles an everyday reality.

The new service, called RoboRide, features Hyundai Ioniq 5 electric cars equipped with Level 4 autonomous driving capabilities. The technology allows the taxis to move independently in real-life traffic without the need for human control, although a safety driver will remain in the car

"A RoboRide vehicle will perceive, make decisions and control its own driving status, while its safety driver will only intervene under limited conditions," Hyundai said in a statement. The carmaker developed the Level 4 technology in-house and partnered with local startup Jin Mobility on a ride-hailing app for the service.

Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon and South Korean Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport Won Hee-ryong took the inaugural rides Thursday, driving around 2.1 miles on the streets of the business and commercial hub of Gangnam.

Oh told reporters afterward that the experience was "so natural that it is almost impossible to distinguish the difference between humans driving and self-driving."

He said the trial will provide crucial real-world data for the cutting-edge self-driving technology.

"In complex transportation environments like Gangnam, there are many people who drive unpredictably, such as taxis and delivery motorcycles," Oh said. "After data accumulates about how self-driving cars respond and avoid accidents, we can compare pros and cons accurately and scientifically. So today is the beginning."

RELATED Kia says EVs will make up half of its vehicle sales by start of next decade

Won said Level 4 driving will be fully commercialized in South Korea in 2027 and that autonomous vehicles "will become part of ordinary life everywhere in the country by 2030."

"Gangnam is one of the most congested areas in the world," the minister said during the launch event. "This trial will demonstrate South Korea is on the way to being a leader in autonomous driving."

The RoboRide pilot test will initially run with two cars carrying pre-registered passengers on 30 miles of roads in Gangnam. In August, it will begin full service with four cars, allowing users to hail a ride with a mobile app. Officials said more vehicles will be added to the fleet and the service area will extend to 47 miles of roads over the course of the year.

RELATED Pony.ai's permit to test autonomous vehicles revoked in California

Seoul launched a commercial driverless shuttle service that runs along a designated route in the western part of the city last November, and plans to start rolling out self-driving buses next year.


The government is investing about $875 million to build out smart infrastructure to help support the development of Level 4 autonomous driving, Won said Thursday.

The country's private sector also is spending big on future mobility. Hyundai announced last month it would invest $50 billion domestically by 2025 on a wide range of new technologies and businesses from electric chargers and vehicles to self-driving cars to urban air mobility.

UK
Why single out energy companies for windfall tax?

Energy companies are having to pay a one-off tax on their war-fueled profits in many countries. But what about tech firms like Apple and Amazon that benefited massively from pandemic-induced lockdowns not so long ago?



There is a growing clamor to levy windfall taxes on energy firms that are benefiting from higher oil and gas prices

In May, the United Kingdom announced a windfall tax on energy companies that have been pocketing extraordinary profits as Russia's invasion of Ukraine drives up oil and gas prices.

The decision followed similar moves by countries like Italy and Romania on power generators to ensure the industry shared the moolah it's been raking in as a result of the war. Others like the United States and the European Union are also contemplating a tax on the "war-fueled profits" of major energy firms.

Major oil and gas firms such as BP, Exxon and Shell have found themselves in the dock for reporting massive earnings amid the war that has caused food and energy prices to spiral,compounding consumer misery globally. There is a growing clamor that energy companies part with some of those profits to support efforts by governments, most of them saddled with pandemic-era debt, to help ease the burden on poor consumers.

"This is a very obvious moment for a windfall tax because you have an industry which is making what are clearly supernormal profits at a time when the ordinary people who are the consumers of that industry are facing very high costs," said Alex Cobham, chief executive of the Tax Justice Network. "So, doing a one-off redistribution of some of that excess profit in order to reduce the human costs of the price changes makes absolute sense."

What is windfall tax?

A windfall tax is a one-off tax on companies that have seen their profits surge extraordinarily not because of any clever investment decision they've taken or an increase in efficiency or innovation, but simply because of favorable market conditions.

While an economically efficient way to tax companies that have fortuitously struck gold, windfall taxes are despised by the industry. The one-off taxes, which by definition are imposed retrospectively, are seen as arbitrary, fueling uncertainty among businesses about future taxes.

"I'm not a big fan of windfall taxes. It's better to say in advance how much tax you are going to levy in different circumstances and then do it rather than creating sudden one-off surprises in the tax system," Stuart Adam, senior economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies in London, told DW.

Adam says windfall taxes are 'arguably' unfair to companies that have made investment decisions based on the existing tax system and are then retrospectively told to pay up more, creating an impression of ambiguity and randomness that can discourage investment.

"If you ask people in business or tax professionals what they look for in the tax system, usually at the top of that list is stability and certainty and predictability and windfall taxes move away from that," he said.

"Having said that, I can see the case for doing it. When something like the Russian invasion of Ukraine happens, you can argue that this isn't something we could legislate for in advance. So, it's fair to tax companies retrospectively because they've benefited from a windfall that they did nothing to earn," Adam said.

The German government struggling to wean itself off Russian energy while looking to ease the impact of high energy prices on consumers is also toying with the idea of windfall taxes on energy firms but so far remains split on the issue.

"Such concepts were already being discussed in the 1970s, but have never been implemented," Finance Minister Christian Lindner, who is also the chairman of the pro-business Free Democrats, said in May. "It cannot be clearly identified what an excess profit is and what impact would be associated with it."
Big Tech off the hook

The dash to grab a large pie of the profits of energy firms contrasts with the seeming largesse shown to major technology firms that made a windfall during COVID-19 lockdowns, in other words, they benefited from something they were not responsible for.

E-commerce behemoth Amazon saw its net profit soar more than 80% in 2020 when lockdowns shuttered its small, local brick-and-mortar rivals for months. The iPhone maker Apple benefited from the so-called stay-at-home stocks and posted record sales during the pandemic as people forced indoors used its devices and services to stay connected during the pandemic.

"They [Big Tech companies] have experienced unusual economic success during a period when the state has had to incur large extra costs to support the vulnerable," said Rob Harrison from UK-based Ethical Consumer, which launched a campaign last year calling for a windfall tax on major technology companies.

Cobham from the Tax Justice Network says the failure of governments to tax technology firms' pandemic riches could lead to a public policy headache in the years to come.

"Because we allowed them to capture those huge excess profits and didn't tax them, we've contributed to much less competition in the market. It was pretty hard to challenge Amazon in 2019, in 2022, it's basically impossible," he told DW.

CORONAVIRUS' TOP WINNERS: FROM NETFLIX TO TESLA

In top gear

Tesla has emerged as the most valuable automaker amid the pandemic, eclipsing Toyota and Volkswagen, despite selling only a fraction of cars sold by the traditional behemoths. Tesla shares rose more than 100% in the second quarter during which the carmaker's sales topped estimates thanks to a rapid ramp-up in production at its Shanghai plant, which remained largely unaffected by the pandemic.

12345678910

Big Tech vs. Big Oil

So, how did the technology firms get away without paying any windfall taxes?

Cobham puts it down to effective lobbying by large technology firms as well as different priorities during the pandemic and now. Back then, people were more worried about their safety, vaccines and lockdowns than how much profit tech firms were making, he said.

"The link is genuinely much clearer now. These energy companies are making enormous profits and I can't pay my energy bill to keep my house warm. It's just much more tangible than I am suffering a lockdown and Amazon is making a lot of money. So, the pressure on politicians to act now is just much greater."

Adam from the Institute for Fiscal Studies said levying windfall taxes on technology firms wouldn't have been as simple as it's in the case of energy firms.

"With the oil and gas producers, it's relatively straightforward to identify which companies you're talking about, profits from which activities and associate that with a specific event in the world that's given rise to these windfall profits," he said. "During the pandemic, it's much harder to pin down exactly which profits of which companies you would want to tax for what period and why."

However, Adam stressed it would have been unfair to target only tech firms for their profits during the pandemic as there were plenty of other companies, including vaccine makers like Pfizer and BioNTech and medical equipment producers, that made loads of money.

"I might have just increased the general corporate tax rate on profits made during that period on the basis that profits made during the pandemic were less likely to reflect investment, innovation, or customer service and more likely to reflect brute luck," Adam said.

Edited by: Hardy Graupner

30,000 People Have Died Each Day WTO Dragged Its Feet on Vaccine Patents: Oxfam

"If the world had acted immediately then many of these people could still be alive today."


Patients are seen lying on hospital beds inside a temporary ward dedicated to the treatment of possible Covid-19 patients at Steve Biko Academic Hospital in Pretoria, South Africa on January 11, 2021. (Photo: Phill Magakoe/AFP via Getty Images)

JULIA CONLEY

June 9, 2022

As public health advocates prepared a global day of action to demand an end to Covid-19 vaccine inequity, international campaigners reported that the inaction by the World Trade Organization and several wealthy countries has led to the deaths of nearly 30,000 people per day since talks about widely distributing vaccines began 20 months ago.

"It is incomprehensible that we are still debating whether or not it's a good idea for poorer countries to be able to produce their own vaccines, tests, and treatments for this and any future pandemics."

Since Indian and South African officials first proposed a waiver of intellectual property rights for Covid-19 vaccines, tests, and treatments in October 2020, Oxfam International and the People's Vaccine Alliance reported, 17.5 million people worldwide have died of the disease. The groups based the calculation on The Economist's excess deaths model.

"If the world had acted immediately then many of these people could still be alive today," said Anna Marriott, health policy manager for Oxfam. "Yet, the U.K. and E.U. countries have continually sought to delay and dilute any meaningful outcome at the WTO and have refused to listen to the concerns of poorer countries."

The U.K., E.U., Canada, and Switzerland have refused to back a patent waiver for vaccines, treatments, and tests, blocking low- and middle-income countries from developing their own generic versions of products that are widely available in the U.S. and other wealthy countries.

Oxfam and the People's Vaccine Alliance released their report three days before the WTO Ministerial is set to begin, with global leaders reviewing the functioning of the multilateral trading system.

Officials at the WTO have in recent weeks been discussing an alternative to a patent waiver which would cover vaccines but not tests or treatments, impose new conditions limiting WTO rules that now allow countries to produce medications without patent-holder permission, and exclude entire countries.

The "dangerous and limited alternative" plan being considered, said Oxfam, "will not help producers in lower-income countries as it adds more hurdles preventing poorer countries from producing vaccines."

Allowing tens of thousands of people to die each day represents "outrageous hypocrisy from leaders who said vaccines should be a global public good," said Marriott.

"With the world facing multiple crises on top of Covid, it is incomprehensible that we are still debating whether or not it's a good idea for poorer countries to be able to produce their own vaccines, tests, and treatments for this and any future pandemics," she added.

The People's Vaccine Alliance, which includes Oxfam as a member, is leading several public health and social justice advocacy groups Friday in a global day of action ahead of the ministerial, with the protests titled "Earth to Europe and U.S.: End Covid Monopolies Now!"

While the Biden administration has expressed support for a narrow patent waiver, it has also requested more than $800 billion in Pentagon funding this year, a small percentage of which—just $25 billion—could enable the world to produce eight billion Covid-19 vaccine doses at regional manufacturing hubs in less than a year, according to government watchdog group Public Citizen.

In a letter sent Wednesday to WTO delegates, the People's Vaccine Alliance pointed out that the global trade body drafted the Doha Declaration at the height of the HIV crisis, stating that the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) "does not and should not prevent members from taking measures to protect public health."

"Without amendments, the current text under negotiation at the WTO is a reversal of the Doha declaration," the coalition wrote.

"We don't want charity; we want solidarity."

Public health officials warn that the failure of wealthy countries to ensure that vaccines are available to all will allow new variants to continue cropping up and causing outbreaks.

"Why should people in lower-income countries be forced to face today's Covid variants with yesterday's vaccines, while rich countries once again monopolize the supply of new vaccines made to protect against new variants?" said Julia Kosgei, policy advisor for the People's Vaccine Alliance.

"We don't want charity; we want solidarity, and we want our rights!" she added. "We call on all governments to finally do the right thing and back the waiving of IP for Covid vaccines, tests, and treatments, for this and any future pandemics."

The deadlock at the WTO has left African officials able to fully vaccinate less than a fifth of the continent's population and has "undermined the trust between the E.U. and countries in Africa," the groups said.

It also "undermines the credibility of the organization," they added, "especially as the global economy is facing the prospect of a recession coupled with rising food and fuel prices."

IMPERIALI$M

Why more European firms are choosing Vietnam over China

A combination of geopolitical tensions and higher costs are pushing large firms to look for alternative production sites. Vietnam's strong economic performance in recent years has drawn the attention of European firms.


While China will remain an essential production site, Vietnam offers an attractive alternative

Vietnam was one of the few Asian countries that did not experience an economic contraction during the coronavirus pandemic in 2020 and 2021. This year,Vietnam's GDP is expected to grow by around 5.5%, according to the World Bank.

Vietnam's economic performance during and after the pandemic has captured the attention of some major European firms.

German automotive supplier Brose, which has 11 factories in China, is currently deciding between Thailand and Vietnam for a new production location.

In December, Denmark's Lego announced it will build a $1 billion (€935 million) factory near the southern business hub Ho Chi Minh City, one of the largest European investment projects in Vietnam to date.

"It currently looks as if, in particular, medium-sized companies are increasingly striving to enter the Vietnam market or are putting their activities out of China on a broader basis," said Daniel Müller, manager at the German Asia-Pacific Business Association.
Why are companies leaving?

European firms are looking for alternatives to China for several reasons. In recent years, Chinese wages have risen, making China less attractive to low-cost manufacturers.

Average annual wages in China rose from around €5,120 ($5,400) in 2010 to €13,670 in 2020, according to Moody's Analytics.

On the geopolitical front, China's relationship with European governments deteriorated in 2021 when the EU imposed sanctions against China for its treatment of the Uyghur Muslim minority in the Xinjiang region.

Beijing then issued its own sanctions on EU officials and a previously agreed investment pact was put on ice.

In 2022, Beijing's ongoing "zero-COVID" policy has thrown global supply chains into disarray as production sits still in locked-down cities. This has also shaken the confidence of EU firms in China as a reliable production site.

Shanghai has only just recently re-opened after months of intense lockdowns, while parts of Beijing, the capital, have also been closed for months.

All of this has dented the economy and warnings have been raised that China could fall well below its GDP growth targets this year.

In the first three months of 2022, China"s GDP grew by 4.8%, below the official annual target of 5.5%, according to the World Bank.

"Even prior to the pandemic, we have already seen businesses, particularly those in the labor-intensive manufacturing segment, starting to relocate out of mainland China to other lower-cost countries in the region, including Vietnam," Raphael Mok, head of Asia Country Risk at Fitch Solutions, told DW.

At the same time, Vietnam has become a more attractive destination for investors, he added.

Salaries are lower than in China and Vietnam has a fast-growing middle class. The Communist government is also investing heavily in infrastructure.

The EU and Vietnam ratified a free-trade agreement in 2020, which included an investment pact, the EU-Vietnam Investment Protection Agreement (EVIPA). Bilateral trade rose to €49 billion in 2021, up from €20.8 billion in 2012, the year talks began over the EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement (EVFTA).

A report by Germany Trade & Invest, a research and advisory platform, points out that these pacts also give European firms easier access to public procurements in Vietnam. This includes public-private partnership projects, a favorite of the local authorities. Under the EVIPA, maximum foreign shareholding in commercial banks increased from 30% to 49%.
Why China is still essential

"Whether Vietnam will 'replace' China as a manufacturing option remains to be seen," said Matthijs van den Broek, of the Dutch Business Association Vietnam (DBAV). "But as an extended or additional investment location, in addition to China, or as part of a wider China-plus-One strategy, is definitely gaining ground," he told DW.

"China is too big and too advanced to not make any part of an Asian strategy," van den Broek added. "Vietnam is not yet on par with China as far as education level, skilled labor and infrastructure, and logistics are concerned."

Muller, of the German Asia-Pacific Business Association, noted that European decoupling from China depends largely on where the business is located.

German companies, for instance, are much more reliant on the Chinese market than most other European countries. German exports to China were worth €99 billion in 2020, compared with €19 billion for France, according to OEC data.

"It is still unclear whether German companies, especially the large corporations, will significantly reduce their activities in China," Muller said. "This would be a prerequisite for countries like Vietnam to be able to count on large-scale new investments."

It will also be dependent on the types of industry in question. In the long-term, businesses in higher value-add manufacturing, such as advanced engineering and smart appliances, will still consider mainland China as a production hub due to its supply chains, said Mok.

But lower-margin manufacturing, which requires a low-cost and less sophisticated ecosystem, "will likely continue to shift out of the country to keep production costs low," he added.

According to Muller, if there is a further intensification of geopolitical tensions in the future, "companies will not be able to avoid looking for alternatives to China. Vietnam, he added, "will play a key role in this."

Edited by: Wesley Rahn

China, U.S. winning in global arms industry shakeup spurred by Ukraine war

By Terrence Guay, Penn State

THE CONVERSATION

Ukrainian soldiers take pictures with destroyed Russian tanks

 and armored vehicles in Borodianka, Ukraine. 

Vladyslav Musienko/UPI | License Photo

June 9 (UPI) -- Russia's war in Ukraine is upending the global arms industry.

As the United States and its allies pour significant sums of money into arming Ukraine and Russia bleeds tanks and personnel, countries across the world are rethinking defense budgets, materiel needs and military relationships. Countries that historically have had low levels of defense spending such as Japan and Germany are bulking up, while nations that purchase most of their weapons from Russia are questioning their reliability and future delivery.

My research in this area suggests that, however this war eventually ends, the repercussions for the global defense industry, and for the countries whose companies dominate this sector, will be enormous. Here are four takeaways.

Russia will be the biggest loser

Russia's general sales pitch for its weapons has been they're "cheaper and easier to maintain than Western alternatives." This is why Russia accounted for 19% of the world's arms exports from 2017 to 2021, second only to the United States, which had 39% of the market.

However, this pitch may no longer be effective for many countries that have seen Russian equipment losses and failures in Ukraine.

To date, the U.S. estimates Russia has lost almost a thousand tanks, at least 50 helicopters, 36 fighter-bombers and 350 artillery pieces, according to Business Insider. Thousands of Russian soldiers have been killed, with estimates ranging from about 15,000 to as high as 30,000, and Russia is still unable to control Ukraine's airspace.

The situation has become so dire that there are reports that commanders are trying to preserve equipment by forbidding troops from using them to evacuate wounded soldiers or to support units that have advanced too far.

Russia's offensive weapons have also proved disappointing. Its missile failure rate -- the share that either failed to launch, malfunctioned midflight or missed their target -- may be as high as 50% to 60% due to design flaws and outdated or inferior equipment.

These problems, along with the Russian military's slow progress achieving any of President Vladimir Putin's stated objectives, have raised serious doubts among the country's traditional customers for weapons exports. Russia sells almost 90% of its weapons to just 10 countries, including India, Egypt and China.

What's more, Russia's ability to replace these equipment losses has been hampered by economic sanctions, which bars key foreign components like circuit boards. And Russia will likely need to replace its own military hardware before it exports anything abroad.

That means that even countries that want to keep buying Russian tanks and fighter jets will have to wait in line or turn elsewhere to fulfill their defense needs.

Russia's loss is China's gain

The country that will likely see the greatest gains from Russia's displacement as a major arms supplier is China.

In recent years, the country has taken a 4.6% share of the global arms trade, putting it in fourth place behind France's 11%. At the same time, seven of the top 20 global defense companies in terms of revenues earned from defense sales are Chinese, signaling the sector's big ambitions.

The Chinese government buys most of its weapons and vehicles from these domestic arms makers, but China has the capacity to export more military products abroad.

For example, China is the world's largest shipbuilder, so exporting more naval ships is a natural next step. The country is expanding its niche role in drone technology and attempting to leverage modernizing its air force with domestically built aircraft to increase exports.

At the moment, only three of the world's 40 biggest arms importers -- Pakistan, Bangladesh and Myanmar -- buy a majority of their weapons from China. That could change if China takes advantage of Russian weakness to position itself as a reliable national security, economic and political partner -- a core feature of its Belt and Road Initiative.

China is not capable of supplanting U.S. and European weapons, which are considered "top shelf" because of their high quality and price. But China may well fill the market niche that Russian arms makers dominated, thereby increasing Beijing's role as a major weapons exporter -- and gaining the political and economic benefits that accompany that.

One of China's biggest challenges will involve proving that its weapons work well in live combat situations.

U.S. weapons manufactures dominate the global arms industry. The Ukraine war will likely ensure this stays that way for some time.

The world's five largest arms companies are all American: Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics. In fact, half of the top 100 producers of arms are based in the United States. Twenty are European. Only two are Russian -- despite the country being the world's second-largest source of arms.

The massive amounts of weapons being transferred from the United States to Ukraine will keep American arms makers busy for some time to come. For example, the United States has transferred about one-third of its stock of Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine, and it will take three to four years for the Raytheon-Lockheed Martin joint venture to replace them. The $40 billion aid package recently signed by President Joe Biden includes $8.7 billion to replenish U.S. weapons stocks.

The companies' soaring stock prices are a sign investors believe profitable days are ahead. Lockheed Martin's stock price is up over 12% since the invasion began -- with most of the gains occurring in its immediate aftermath. Northrop Grumman has jumped 20%. At the same time, the broader stock market as measured by the S&P 500 has slumped about 4%.

More countries will become arms makers

The flipside to this is that some countries that relied on others for their defense needs may seek to become more self-sufficient.

India, which relied on Russia for almost half of its weapons imports in recent years, is realizing that Russia will need most or all of its production capacity to replace tanks, missiles, aircraft and other weapons used or lost in Ukraine, with less leftover for export.

That means India will need to either source spare parts for vehicles and weapons from other former Russia arms customers such as Bulgaria, Georgia and Poland, or build up its own defense industry. In April, India announced it would ramp up production of helicopters, tank engines, missiles and early airborne warning systems to offset any potential reduction in Russian exports.

Concerns about Russian reliability are also growing. In May, India canceled a $520 million helicopter deal with Russia. While there are reports U.S. pressure played a role, it also seems to be part of the government's strategy over the past few years to build its own domestic defense industrial base.

Brazil, Turkey and other emerging market countries have also been developing their own defense industries over the past two decades to reduce their reliance on arms imports. The Ukraine war will accelerate this process.

Putin likely didn't expect to shake up the global arms market with his effort to annex Ukraine -- or cause the decline of his country's weapons sector. But that's just one more way his war is causing a geopolitical earthquake.

Terrence Guay is a clinical professor of international business and director of the Center for Global Business Studies at Penn State.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

SEE LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for PERMANENT ARMS ECONOMY 

Brazil leader complains to Biden about pressure over Amazon

Thu, June 9, 2022


Brazil's right-wing leader on Thursday complained to US President Joe Biden about international pressure over the Amazon amid calls for more action on climate change.

"We have a wealth in the heart of Brazil -- our Amazon, which is bigger than Western Europe, with incalculable riches, biodiversity, mineral wealth, drinking water and oxygen sources," Bolsonaro said, as he met Biden on the sidelines of an Americas summit in Los Angeles.

"Sometimes we feel that our sovereignty is threatened in that area but Brazil preserves its territory well," he said.

"On the environmental issue we have our difficulties but we do our best to defend our interests."

Bolsonaro, a champion of agribusiness, has angered environmentalists with his attitude over the Amazon, a crucial "sink" for the planet's carbon emissions.

Biden kept a positive tone in his public remarks, saying that Brazil has made "real sacrifices" to protect the Amazon.

"I think the rest of the world should be able to help you preserve as much as you can," Biden said.

It was the first meeting between Biden and Bolsonaro, an ally of former US president Donald Trump, who has questioned the legitimacy both of US and Brazilian elections.

Speaking to reporters afterward, Bolsonaro said that he was pleasantly surprised by Biden.

"I think we'll have more meetings soon," he said.

During the meeting, Bolsonaro told Biden that Brazil wants "clean, auditable elections" in October.

Biden did not address the elections with reporters present but his national security advisor, Jake Sullivan, earlier said that the US leader would not shy away from pressing on the need for free elections.

Bolsonaro is trailing in polls to former president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, a leftist icon who was jailed on controversial corruption charges.

pr-aue-sct/st

Biden sidelines Venezuela’s pro-democracy CAPITALI$M leader from summit

By CHRIS MEGERIAN and JOSHUA GOODMAN

June 8, 2022

FILE - Opposition leader Juan Guaido speaks during an interview with the Associated Press in Caracas, Venezuela, Thursday, Feb. 10, 2022. A little more than two years ago Guaido was showered with bipartisan applause during President Donald Trump´s state of the union speech, but now he has not been invited to the Summit of the Americas that is taking place on the second week of June in the United States. (AP Photo/Ariana Cubillos, File)

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A little more than two years ago, Juan Guaidó was showered with bipartisan applause when President Donald Trump during his State of the Union speech praised the Venezuelan opposition leader as a “very brave man” who carries on his shoulders the democratic hopes of an entire nation.

But in a sign of how far his political fate has fallen, and how quickly U.S. geopolitical calculations can shift, the 38-year-old wasn’t even invited to this week’s Summit of the Americas — despite the Biden administration’s persistent promotion of democracy and insistence it recognizes Guaidó as Venezuela’s interim president.

Meanwhile, the man Guaidó has been trying to unseat, Nicolás Maduro, is taking something of a victory lap. On a rare foreign trip to Turkey this week, Maduro, who is the target of U.S. sanctions and a federal narcotics indictment, denounced the decision to exclude him and leftist allies from Cuba and Nicaragua from the gathering as a “stab” in the back of regional cooperation.

“This is a clear win for Maduro,” Eric Farnsworth, vice president of the Council of Americas, said from Los Angeles, where he was attending the summit. “He’s seen allies take up his cause at the summit while preventing his primary rival, whom Washington recognizes as president, from attending.”

In what may be an attempt at damage control, Biden on Wednesday spoke with Guaidó. It was the first time the two leaders have spoken and during the call, which lasted around 17 minutes, Biden reiterated his support for Guaidó, whose claim to the presidency stems from his role as head of the National Assembly elected in 2015.

“President Biden expressed his support for Venezuelan-led negotiations as the best path toward a peaceful restoration of democratic institutions, free and fair elections, and respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all Venezuelans,” according to a White House readout of the call. “They discussed the role the United States and other international partners can play to support a negotiated solution to Venezuela’s crisis. President Biden reaffirmed the United States is willing to calibrate sanctions policy as informed by the outcomes of negotiations that empower the Venezuelan people to determine the future of their country.”

But coming on the heels of weeks of silence from the White House about whether Guaidó would be invited or not, the call provided little comfort to Venezuela’s pro-democracy movement.

“We don’t want to be seen as party crashers going where we aren’t wanted,” said one Guaidó envoy on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic dealings.

National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan downplayed suggestions the U.S. was snubbing a staunch ally.

Speaking aboard Air Force One on its way to Los Angeles, Sullivan insisted the decision to not invite anyone from the Guaidó camp, and instead involve civil society activists from Venezuela, was a tactical one to encourage negotiations between Maduro and his opponents that leads to “ultimately a better future for the Venezuelan people.”

Guaido’s possible presence at the summit also appears to have irritated many of the Venezuelan government’s allies, including Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who decided to skip the summit over the exclusion of Maduro and the leaders of Cuba and Nicaragua.

A Mexican official confirmed that his government asked the U.S. to exclude Guaidó as part of its back-and-forth with the Biden administration on the guest list, an effort that ultimately failed to persuade López Obrador to partake in the summit. The official, who requested anonymity to discuss diplomatic dealings, said that other countries had done the same.

Joining the Mexican leader’s boycott were fellow leftist leaders of Bolivia, Grenada, Honduras, St. Kitts & Nevis, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Also staying home in protest, although not in solidarity with Maduro, were the leaders of El Salvador and Guatemala, as well as the president Uruguay, who was exposed to COVID.

But it’s not just foreign pressure that has Biden wary of inviting Guaidó.

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine triggered a spike in energy prices, the U.S. has started to re-evaluate its policy on Venezuela, a country that sits atop the world’s largest petroleum reserves but whose decades-long decline in oil production has been made worse by U.S. sanctions.

In March, U.S. officials led by Juan Gonzalez, the National Security Council’s senior director for the western hemisphere, traveled to Caracas to meet with Maduro. Then, as now, Guaidó was kept on the sidelines, with U.S. officials not meeting with him during the several day trip. The goal of the talks was to dangle before Maduro the possibility of sanctions relief in exchange for a return to negotiations in Mexico with his opponents, something that so far hasn’t happened.

Meanwhile, Guaidó continues to fight for change, although his street appearances are less frequent, and crowds greatly diminished from when he launched his challenge to Maduro in 2019.

On Saturday, his supporters were met in the western city of Maracaibo, a short distance from Colombia and a flight onward to the U.S., with a barrage of flying plastic chairs and fisticuffs from allies of Maduro.

“The violent ones were left empty handed,” Guaidó told a small group of supporters to shouts of “Freedom, Freedom, Freedom” after the raucous brawl. “Let’s be clear: we are not going to take a single step backward.”

— Goodman reported from Miami. AP Writer Claudia Torrens from New York and Jorge Rueda in Caracas, Venezuela contributed to this report.

Lebanon's Hezbollah can stop Israeli
gas extraction from disputed field, chief says

This file photo taken on June 3, 2022 and obtained from Egypt's Suez Canal Authority shows a tugboat pulling an Energean floating production storage and offloading ship along the Suez Canal - SUEZ CANAL AUTHORITY/AFP/File

Thu, June 9, 2022

(Reuters) - The head of Lebanon's Hezbollah said on Thursday that his group could stop Israel from extracting gas from a maritime field that Beirut says lies in disputed waters, adding Hezbollah is "not afraid of war."

Lebanon warned Israel on Sunday against any "aggressive action" in disputed waters where both states hope to develop offshore energy, after a vessel operated by London-based Energean arrived off the coast to produce gas for Israel.

Hezbollah "has the capacity to prevent the enemy from beginning to extract from Karish, and all the enemy's actions will not be able to protect this ship," Hezbollah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said in a televised speech.

Nasrallah said that "the Greek company," referring to Energean, "is a partner in this attack on Lebanon," for which it will face "consequences."

Energean was not immediately available for comment.

 Vehicles drive past billboards depicting Lebanon's 

Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah

Energean has said that its floating production storage and offloading vessel is due to start production at Karish in the third quarter.

Israel says that the field in question, which is about 80 km (50 miles) west of the city of Haifa, is within its exclusive economic zone, not in disputed waters.

The United States began mediating indirect talks between the sides in 2000 to settle a long-running dispute that has obstructed energy exploration in the eastern Mediterranean.

Lebanon has yet to respond to an undisclosed proposal a U.S. envoy made early this year to revive the stalled talks.

Lebanese parliament speaker Nabih Berri said on Tuesday that U.S. mediator Amos Hochstein will visit Beirut early next week but Washington has said there are no travel plans to announce yet.

(Reporting by Laila Bassam; Writing by Maya Gebeily and Lina Najem; Editing by Chris Reese and Grant McCool)

Lebanon should block Israel gas extraction move: Hezbollah chief


AFP , Thursday 9 Jun 2022

Lebanon should block Israel from extracting gas from a disputed offshore field, Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah said Thursday, warning a hydrocarbon exploration company hired by Israel against proceeding with its activities.

Lawmakers from the Hezbollah parliamentary block headed by Mohammed Raad, right, arrive to attend the election of the house speaker, at the parliament building, in Beirut, Lebanon, Tuesday, May 31, 2022. AP

"The immediate objective should be to prevent the enemy from extracting oil and gas from the Karish gas field," part of which is claimed by Lebanon, Nasrallah said in a televised speech.

Hezbollah will not "stand by and do nothing in the face of (Israel's) looting of Lebanon's natural wealth... which is the only hope for the salvation of the Lebanese people", he warned.

Nasrallah's remarks are his first since a gas production vessel operated by London-listed Energean Plc arrived in the Karish gas field on Sunday.

He said extraction should halt pending the completion of maritime border negotiations between Lebanon and Israel, and warned Energean against proceeding.

The company "should pull out its ship immediately and avoid getting involved in this aggression and provocation against Lebanon", the head of the powerful Iran-backed Shiite movement said, adding that Energean must assume "full responsibility" for its involvement.

Following the ship's arrival, Lebanese authorities on Monday called for US envoy Amos Hochstein to visit Beirut to relaunch maritime border negotiations.

Parliamentary speaker Nabih Berri said Hochstein was due to arrive in the coming days but there has been no official confirmation from Washington.

On Thursday, President Michel Aoun said that Lebanon would ask Hochstein to "resume efforts to relaunch indirect negotiations" with Israel.

Lebanon wants a deal that would allow it to "invest in its offshore oil and gas resources and safeguard security and stability in the border area," Aoun said in a statement.

His comments came a day after Israel restated its view that Karish "is a strategic asset of the state of Israel" and stressed it was "prepared to defend" the site.

Lebanon and Israel last fought a war in 2006, have no diplomatic relations and are separated by a UN-patrolled border.

They had resumed negotiations over their maritime frontier in 2020 but the process was stalled by Beirut's claim that the map used by the United Nations in the talks needed modifying.

Lebanon initially demanded 860 square kilometres (330 square miles) of territory in the disputed maritime area but then asked for an additional 1,430 square kilometres, including part of Karish.

Vaccine skepticism and conspiracy theories drive up Pakistan's polio rates

Polio cases are on the rise in Pakistan although it's an illness eradicated almost everywhere else in the world. Part of the problem is widespread vaccine skepticism and outlandish conspiracy theories.



Experts say fake markings are behind a new wave of polio cases

Pakistan's polio eradication campaign is in disarray, as a high number of cases emerge in the northwestern tribal district of North Waziristan.

A total of eight polio cases were recorded in the span of just one month, raising concerns that the disease could be on the rise again in the South Asian country of 220 million. The most recent case of child paralysis as a result of polio in Pakistan was reported in January 2021.

Experts say that vaccine skepticism is one of the biggest contributors to the spread of the illness, as people increasingly use fake vaccination markings.

"The outbreak in North Waziristan appears to be following the same pattern as that witnessed in 2014 and 2019, when there was a surge in cases in the same area. We are working tirelessly to ensure that we break this pattern," Federal Health Minister Abdul Qadir Patel told DW.

"Over 99% of the world is now polio-free. Our children also deserve a life free from this incurable disease," Patel added.

The disease, which mainly affects children under the age of five, can infect the spinal cord, causing paralysis.

Widespread vaccine skepticism

"Fake markings and refusals absolutely are two factors in the recent jump in the cases. The polio inoculation teams conspire with parents to miss the vaccination of the children," an official with the Pakistan Polio Eradication Program told DW, on the condition of anonymity.

When polio vaccine administrators go through communities vaccinating children, they mark a finger of children to show they've been vaccinated. However, parents who are opposed to the vaccine have been falsely marking their children's fingers to skip the jab.

The government has launched an investigation into the recent outbreak in North Waziristan — formerly a stronghold of the Taliban in the country's northwest, bordering Afghanistan.

"The new cases are really dangerous, primarily when we were heading towards a polio-free country. I fear more cases will emerge in the future," Dr. Qaiser Sajjad, secretary-general of the Pakistan Medical Association, told DW.

"The program will terminate the staff involved in producing the fake markings," said Sajjad.

Conspiracy theories are also a problem. Some skeptics, like Hajira Wazir, for instance wrongly believe the polio vaccine is a practice used by Western countries to sterilize Muslim children. "The West is using the vaccine as a cover … and our government is supporting their agenda," the 27-year-old mother of three from North Waziristan told DW.

Calls to prosecute false data

It is also illegal to provide fake information and data to government vaccination teams.

"People involved in fake information are never prosecuted or fined. That is why many vaccine skeptics feel they can get away with not vaccinating their toddlers," Osama Malik, a senior legal expert, told DW.

"If the government is serious about making Pakistan a polio-free country, then they should hunt down and introduce strict punishments for those faking data ," said Malik.

Polio still remains an imminent global threat as long as a single case exists, as the virus can spread into polio-free countries and affect the population.

A significant portion of the Pakistani population opposed the polio vaccination drives and polio workers teams often came under attack across Pakistan, where vaccinations are widely seen with suspicion.

Some Islamists claim that the polio vaccination is being used by the West as a cover for spying on Muslims and allege these drives are suspicious, referring to the imprisoned Pakistani doctor Shakeel Afridi who allegedly helped Americans in their hunt of Al Qaeda's chief Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden was killed in an operation by the US special forces at his hideout in Abbottabad in May, 2011.

"The anti-vax myths should be broken by convincing masses through targeted campaigns about the seriousness of this disease through media awareness, clerics and impact of polio via real life story telling," said Sajjad.

For the past 25 years, Pakistan has carried out a countrywide polio vaccination drive through door-to-door campaigns to inoculate children. The teams are mostly made up of women health workers escorted by security guards.

Pakistan has carried out three nationwide polio vaccination campaigns in January, March and May of this year. During the March campaign in northwestern Pakistan, gunmen shot and killed a female polio worker. In January, also in the northwest, gunmen shot and killed a police official providing security to the polio workers.

In total, Islamist militant groups in Pakistan have killed more than 100 health care workers and their security guards since 2012.

Legal expert Malik added that "federal and provincial governments have made very little attempt to apprehend and convict the killers."

One of two countries to carry the disease

For decades polio remained the most feared disease in the world and was leading to millions of disabilities. According to the WHO, Pakistan is among one of the only two countries, along with neighboring Afghanistan, still suffering from the crippling polio virus.

Anti-vaccination beliefs in Pakistan are so widespread that a husband divorced his wife for vaccinating their children against polio. In April 2019, more than 25,000 children were rushed to the hospital as a result of panic after the spread of unfounded rumors that a polio vaccine was leading to fainting and vomiting.

"These cases are happening in the same part of the country but parents and caregivers around Pakistan must remain extremely vigilant and give their children repeated doses of the polio vaccine," said Patel.

Edited by: Leah Carter

THIRD WORLD USA

4 in 10 American adults in need of mental health services lack access

By Cara Murez, HealthDay News

Respondents to a recent survey said barriers to mental health services 

included cost, availability, wait times, lack of diversity and proximity to care. 

Photo by tiyowprasetyo/Pixabay

There is a "staggering" gap between the number of Americans who need care for anxiety, depression and other mental health conditions and those who can actually get it, a new survey shows.

In all, 42% of U.S. adults who needed care in the previous 12 months did not get it because of costs and other barriers, according to the online survey from the National Council for Mental Wellbeing. Nearly one-quarter said they needed help for substance use.

"Unfortunately, I think the data around the challenges to accessing care are not surprising," said CEO Chuck Ingoglia. "We're in an environment where there is increased attention to these issues at the federal level and state level, there have been efforts to require insurance companies to provide adequate coverage for behavioral health conditions, and yet it still is a challenge for individuals, and that's a real shame."

The nationwide Access to Care Survey, conducted by The Harris Poll in May, included 2,053 U.S. adults. Respondents said barriers included cost, availability, wait times, lack of diversity and proximity to care. The U.S. Surgeon General sounded a similar warning late last year for younger Americans.

RELATED Many communities aren't ready to handle 988 mental health hotline

In the new survey, about 21% said they had trouble accessing primary healthcare when they needed it, but more than twice as many had difficulty getting needed mental health or substance use treatment.

Ingoglia warned that the problem would worsen without intervention.

About 37% of respondents who said they needed mental healthcare in the survey said the expense had prevented them from getting it - be it out-of-pocket costs or lack of insurance. That was also true of 31% of those needing substance use care.

Twenty-eight percent of respondents said they were unable to find a conveniently located provider, as did 22% of those needing substance use care, the survey found.

Respondents also struggled to find a provider who offered care in a way they were comfortable with - be it in person or virtually.

"What we are seeing consistently in many surveys, our own surveys, and what we're hearing is that Americans are concerned about their mental health and are struggling to get access to high-quality mental health treatment," said Dr. Rebecca Brendel, president of American Psychiatric Association (APA), which was not involved in the survey.

She noted that even before the COVID-19 pandemic upended "all the stabilizing institutions, connections and things that we all depend on for our wellness," there was a shortage of providers. The mental health needs facing Americans with long COVID have only added to the issue.

"We know that Americans are struggling," Brendel said. "We saw an unprecedented number of opiate overdoses last year, in excess of a hundred thousand, higher rates of suicide, kids reporting distress, parents concerned about their kids and Americans in general reporting distress."

It's something, she said, that "we need to act on and we need to act on quickly."

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently reported that deaths from drug overdoses set a new record last year.

In ways large and small, the fallout from the lack of mental healthcare reverberates throughout people's lives, the experts noted.

About 50% of respondents said the lack of care had led to personal relationship issues. About 45% reported work issues and 44% noted a decline in their mental well-being.

For those who needed but were unable to get substance use care, 49% reported work issues as a result, 43% cited relationship issues and 37% a decline in their mental well-being.

"As the survey showed, people then report challenges in significant areas of their life, whether that's related to their relationships or their work, their general functioning," Ingoglia said. "These are illnesses that end up causing disruption in many areas of a person's life."

Men were more likely than women to need substance use care, the survey found. People between 18 and 41 years of age were more likely than older people to need both mental health and substance use care.

Cultural issues were a key concern. Roughly six in 10 adults agreed that there are too few mental health providers trained to address issues specific to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or economic status.

"An ongoing question that our country needs to think about is how do we not just increase the number of behavioral health professionals, but to continue to ensure that the people who are entering the field look like and can relate to the people who need treatment?" Ingoglia said.

Even respondents who said they did access care had trouble getting what they needed, including 67% of those who received mental healthcare and 81% of those treated for substance use, the survey found.

Citing insurance-related issues, about three in five said they thought it would be easier and faster to get help if they paid for mental healthcare out-of-pocket.

Brendel, the APA leader, said it's important that people know what resources are available to them. For those who are employed, resources may be available in the workplace, for example.

She said many insurers are not complying with mental health parity legislation passed a decade ago.

"The cost of mental health and substance use care should not be any higher or less affordable to access than general medical care," Brendel said. "We have had nationwide parity legislation for over a decade, and the biggest problem is that we're struggling on enforcement."

Certified community behavioral health clinics could be a solution, according to Ingoglia. They're required to offer appointments rapidly and serve everyone regardless of their ability to pay.

But there's a catch: These are only available through a federally mandated Medicaid demonstration in 10 states. Another 30 states have grant-funded programs but those will only become sustainable if they become part of Medicaid, Ingoglia said.

"There is some hope that Congress this year will expand this program and make it available in every state in the country," he said.

More information

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has more on mental health.

Copyright © 2022 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

RIGHT WING WHINING WORKED
Research shows local GOP content was amplified after Facebook algorithm change


Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg is seen testifying remotely during a U.S. Senate hearing into how Facebook and Twitter moderated content during the 2020 presidential election, in Washington, D.C., on November 17, 2020. Research published Wednesday showed local Republican Party posts were amplified after a Facebook algorithm change in 2018. 

Pool Photo by Hannah McKay/UPI | License Photo

June 9 (UPI) -- After a Facebook algorithm change, local Republican Party posts in 2019 were shared twice as much as local Democratic posts, according to new research published Wednesday. That happened even though local Democratic parties posted more often on Facebook.

The research paper was published in the journal Research & Politics.

"Regardless of Facebook's motivations, their decision to change the algorithm might have given local Republican parties greater reach to connect with citizens and shape political realities for Americans," the research paper said. "The fact that private companies can so easily control the political information flow for millions of Americans raises clear questions for the state of democracy."

The research showed that from Jan. 1 to June 30, 2019, posts by local Republican parties were shared 1,684,586 times. Content from local Democratic parties was shared 800,659 times.

Over the same six months in 2018, content from local Democratic parties was shared nearly 50% more than that of Republican parties.

The report said, "We conclude that it seems possible that changes in how Facebook rated content led to a doubling of the total shares of local Republican party posts compared to local Democratic party posts in the first half of 2019 even though Democratic parties posted more often during this period."

Researchers wrote that if changes in Facebook's algorithm fundamentally change the reach of political parties on Facebook there is the potential for Facebook to accidentally, or purposefully, shape political realities for Americans.

The report said this increase in engagement for Republican parties was unique to Facebook and happened across over a thousand local parties.

Using an original data set of Facebook and Twitter posts from local Republican and Democratic parties, researchers found that local GOP Facebook content started getting higher engagement in the fall of 2018 when the algorithm was changed.