Thursday, June 23, 2022

World's biggest bacterium found in Caribbean mangrove swamp

This photo provided by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in June 2022 shows mangroves in the Guadeloupe archipelago in the French Caribbean where the Thiomargarita magnifica bacteria were discovered. A team of researchers at the Department of Energy (DOE) Joint Genome Institute (JGI), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), the Laboratory for Research in Complex Systems (LRC), and the Université des Antilles, characterized the bacterium composed of a single cell that is 5,000 times larger than other bacteria.

(Pierre Yves Pascal/Université des Antilles via AP)

CHRISTINA LARSON
Thu, June 23, 2022, 1

WASHINGTON (AP) — Scientists have discovered the world's largest bacterium in a Caribbean mangrove swamp.

Most bacteria are microscopic, but this one is so big it can be seen with the naked eye.

The thin white filament, approximately the size of a human eyelash, is “by far the largest bacterium known to date,” said Jean-Marie Volland, a marine biologist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and co-author of a paper announcing the discovery Thursday in the journal Science.

Olivier Gros, a co-author and biologist at the University of the French West Indies and Guiana, found the first example of this bacterium — named Thiomargarita magnifica, or “magnificent sulfur pearl” — clinging to sunken mangrove leaves in the archipelago of Guadeloupe in 2009.

But he didn’t immediately know it was a bacterium because of its surprisingly large size — these bacteria, on average, reach a length of a third of an inch (0.9 centimeters). Only later genetic analysis revealed the organism to be a single bacterial cell.

“It's an amazing discovery,” said Petra Levin, a microbiologist at Washington University in St Louis, who was not involved in the study. “It opens up the question of how many of these giant bacteria are out there — and reminds us we should never, ever underestimate bacteria.”

Gros also found the bacterium attached to oyster shells, rocks and glass bottles in the swamp.

Scientists have not yet been able to grow it in lab culture, but the researchers' say the cell has a structure that's unusual for bacteria. One key difference: It has a large central compartment, or vacuole, that allows some cell functions to happen in that controlled environment instead of throughout the cell.

“The acquisition of this large central vacuole definitely helps a cell to bypass physical limitations ... on how big a cell can be,” said Manuel Campos, a biologist at the French National Center for Scientific Research, who was not involved in the study.

The researchers said they aren't certain why the bacterium is so large, but co-author Volland hypothesized it may be an adaptation to help it avoid being eaten by smaller organisms.

___

The Associated Press Health & Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

World's biggest bacterium found in Caribbean mangrove swamp
This microscope photo provided by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in June 2022 shows thin strands of Thiomargarita magnifica bacteria cells next to a U.S. dime coin. The species was discovered among the mangroves of Guadeloupe archipelago in the French Caribbean. A team of researchers at the Department of Energy (DOE) Joint Genome Institute (JGI), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), the Laboratory for Research in Complex Systems (LRC), and the Université des Antilles, characterized the bacterium composed of a single cell that is 5,000 times larger than other bacteria.

(Tomas Tyml/Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory via AP)

This microscope photo provided by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in June 2022 shows part of a Thiomargarita magnifica bacteria cell. The species was discovered among the mangroves of Guadeloupe archipelago in the French Caribbean. A team of researchers at the Department of Energy (DOE) Joint Genome Institute (JGI), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), the Laboratory for Research in Complex Systems (LRC), and the Université des Antilles, characterized the bacterium composed of a single cell that is 5,000 times larger than other bacteria.

(Olivier Gros/Université des Antilles via AP)

(Olivier Gros/Université des Antilles via AP)

This microscope photo provided by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in June 2022 shows filaments of a Thiomargarita magnifica bacteria cell. The species was discovered among the mangroves of Guadeloupe archipelago in the French Caribbean. A team of researchers at the Department of Energy (DOE) Joint Genome Institute (JGI), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), the Laboratory for Research in Complex Systems (LRC), and the Université des Antilles, characterized the bacterium composed of a single cell that is 5,000 times larger than other bacteria.

(Jean-Marie Volland/Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory via AP)

This microscope photo provided by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in June 2022 shows a filament of a Thiomargarita magnifica bacteria cell. The species was discovered among the mangroves of Guadeloupe archipelago in the French Caribbean. A team of researchers at the Department of Energy (DOE) Joint Genome Institute (JGI), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), the Laboratory for Research in Complex Systems (LRC), and the Université des Antilles, characterized the bacterium composed of a single cell that is 5,000 times larger than other bacteria.

(Jean-Marie Volland/Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory via AP)

This photo provided by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in June 2022 shows mangroves in the Guadeloupe archipelago in the French Caribbean where the Thiomargarita magnifica bacteria was discovered. A team of researchers at the Department of Energy (DOE) Joint Genome Institute (JGI), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), the Laboratory for Research in Complex Systems (LRC), and the Université des Antilles, characterized the bacterium composed of a single cell that is 5,000 times larger than other bacteria

(Hugo Bret/Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory via AP)

An Open Letter to Biden on Assange’s Extradition

BY MICHELLE RENEE MATISONSFacebook

JUNE 23, 2022

Dear President Biden:

The recent news that British courts approved Julian Assange’s U.S. extradition is the occasion for this letter. Mr. Assange is one of the most astute publishers, activists, and intellectuals of my generation; I write imploring you to drop all charges against him and other Wikileaks affiliated individuals– past, present, and future.

I was born in 1970. Easy access to my parents’ Time Life photo book series had me opposing the Vietnam War by elementary school. The pictures said it all. I pursued anti-war activism in college during the Persian Gulf War, and as a CSU Sacramento junior faculty member in the early 2000’s, I lectured on the failed foreign policy leading to Afghanistan and Iraq invasions. All of this work relied on excellent journalism pursued outside official U.S. media channels.

In 2006, Wikileaks made perfect sense because we need truthful war journalism outside Pentagon control. Brave Wikileaks warriors have risked their lives to shed light on wartime’s truths beyond corporate media propaganda. Your pursuit of Mr. Assange reveals wartime journalism’s threat to the Biden White House. Current U.S. military failures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, and elsewhere fuel the need for independent journalism more than ever.

Not only do I support Wikileaks, I laud it as an activist journalism model, mobilized by its international influences. Charging and incarcerating non-U.S. citizens is one of the most ludicrous and devastating examples of U.S. judicial overreach in my generation.

Judicial overreach is another hallmark of my generation. In addition to my extensive anti-war activism, I pursued prison abolitionist work as a California professor. As Black Lives Matter and anti-prison activism impact police and prisons, U.S. incarceration is more commonly considered a form of cruel and unusual punishment. Mr. Assange undergoes extensive persecution in isolation from loved ones, and his health is failing because of it. His ongoing incarceration and upcoming U.S. extradition is tantamount to a death penalty sentence.

Not only do I implore you to drop charges against all Wikileaks affiliated individuals, please champion new legislation protecting journalists’ rights. While The Espionage Act protects military actions, its employment here violates The First Amendment. As a President, classified information allows you to make educated decisions. How do you think valuable information is attained? You daily benefit from the very information accrual you punish Wikileaks for pursuing in the name of an informed global citizenry.

If any lesson can be learned from the longstanding attack on Wikileaks, it’s that freedom of speech is not a democratic guarantee. As you know, The Espionage Act emerged in 1917, the year of the Bolshevik Revolution. The attack on Wikileaks is nothing short of a new McCarthy Era style ideological attack. President Biden, for your brand of liberalism to have any distinction from Trump’s authoritarianism, you must uphold the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment–lest you reward and reinforce prevailing Fascist forces.

If you pursue Mr. Assange’s charges, your administration sets a Fascist legal precedent using the violence of extradition, courts, and prisons to violate press freedom and enforce cruel and unusual punishment. This at a time when more people consider demilitarization and decarceration as viable political strategies.

If you drop Mr. Assange’s charges, your administration is supporting press freedom and denouncing mass-scale war– even encouraging Middle East decolonization (read more here .) Peaceful diplomacy in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, not simply throwing around money, is what’s urgently needed. Pursuing Mr. Assange for Espionage is a step backwards from demilitarization, reinforcing a reactionary status quo foreign policy buttressed by media censorship and intimidation of the global citizenry.

The choice is yours.

With Deep Concern,

Michelle Renée Matisons, Ph.D.

Michelle Renee Matisons, Ph.D. can be reached at michrenee@gmail.com.

Free Assange?

Yes, But That’s Not Nearly Enough

BY THOMAS KNAPPFacebook

Photograph Source: thierry ehrmann – CC BY 2.0

On June 17, UK Home Secretary Priti Patel approved the extradition of Julian Assange to the United States to face 18 criminal charges: One count of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, and 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act of 1917. If convicted on all charges, Assange faces up to 175 years in prison.

His final recourse is an appeal to the High Court of Justice where, if the history of his case is any indication, he’ll be told that they’re all out of justice and have none for him.

If justice had anything to do with it, previous courts would have thrown out the US extradition request on grounds of both jurisdiction and treaty language. The “crimes” of which Assange is accused were not committed on US soil. And Article 4 of the US-UK extradition treaty forbids extradition for political offenses.

Be clear on this: Assange is a political prisoner, held for and charged with committing … journalism.

He exposed war crimes committed by US government forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as other illegal schemes such as then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s attempts to have UN diplomats’ offices bugged.

The US government hates having its crimes exposed and, First Amendment be damned, tries to make examples out of those who dare display its dirty laundry.

While Assange obviously has more skin in the game than anyone else in this particular case, he’s not the real target. The real target is the NEXT journalist who catches the US government acting illegally. The goal is to make that journalist think twice before telling you about it.

For that reason, stopping the extradition of Julian Assange isn’t enough. Nor should we settle for an acquittal in court or a presidential pardon.

Crimes HAVE been committed, and examples DO need to made of the criminals who committed them.

The US Attorneys who filed the indictment — Tracy Dogerty-McCormick, Kellen S. Dwyer, and Thomas W. Traxler — must be charged with violating 18 US Code Titles 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights) and 242 (Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law). In addition to any prison sentences, they must permanently lose their licenses to practice law and be disqualified for life from further employment by the US government.

The same goes for their assorted co-conspirators, up to and including sitting and former presidents of the United States.

The US Department of Justice must dismiss the indictment, withdraw the extradition request, publicly apologize for its crimes against Assange, and compensate him richly for years of confinement and torture at its behest.

That’s the absolute bare minimum. Just as Assange was not their real target, they’re not ours. Our target is all the government officials who might, in the future, consider committing this kind of crime again.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

On The Fate Of Julian Assange

Tuesday, 21 June 2022
Article: Gordon Campbell

Has swapping Scott Morrison for Anthony Albanese made any discernible difference to Australia’s relations with the US, China, the Pacific and New Zealand ? Not so far. For example: Albanese has asked for more time to “consider” his response to New Zealand’s long running complaints about the so called “501” deportations back to this country. Really? He needs more time to figure out a response? OK, but the clock is ticking.

The Julian Assange situation is a lot more urgent. Assange’s deportation to the United States has now been okayed by the British courts and also - crucially – by its government. At any moment, Assange could be on a plane and headed for a US prison. He is facing the prospect of 175 years in jail.

And what is Albanese doing to stop an Australian citizen from being railroaded for life into a foreign jail - as his punishment for alerting the world to US war crimes? Pathetically, Albanese has been saying that he won’t be rushed into carrying out “megaphone” diplomacy when it comes to interceding with the US on behalf of Assange. A megaphone? Hardly. Over the past ten years successive Australian governments haven’t said a critical word in public about the persecution of Assange, or pressed his case in Washington, or argued that he shouldn’t be being prosecuted at all, and certainly not by a US kangaroo court.

At this late hour, surely the time for “quiet diplomacy” is over. Albanese should be banging the table, and protesting the injustice of treating an Aussie citizen so outrageously – as he would be doing if anyone else but the US was the jailer.

After all, it would be uncontroversial for Albanese to be pointing out that Chelsea Manning (who forwarded the sensitive material at issue to Wikileaks) received a presidential pardon in 2015 from an Obama administration in which Joseph Biden was then serving as vice-President. The obvious double standard would suggest that the real motive behind the treatment of Assange is to intimidate the media into silence.

At the time though, the Obama administration was savvy enough to realise that charging Assange would re-open the can of worms about what the US had been up to around the world. Potentially, it could also mean prosecuting major US news organizations for publishing similar material and – if so - their constitutionally protected free speech rights would almost certainly torpedo any such cases brought to trial.

This fear of setting some kind of precedent about media censorship is still Assange’s best hope of freedom. If Albanese could ever pluck up enough courage to ask, Biden could package any release deal for Assange – who has already been severely punished - as a gesture of gratitude to Australia, for its years of dutiful service to the United States.

Maybe that’s how things will eventually pan out. Yet currently, the risk remains too great. All along, complacency has been allowed to prevail. For years, it was blithely assumed that Assange was exaggerating the risk of him being extradited to the United States. Yet now, that’s where we are.

If ever there was a time for megaphone diplomacy (and for the belated display of a backbone by Australia) then this is it. No doubt, Albanese should be using whatever diplomatic back channels are available to him. Yet that shouldn’t be stopping him from going public and defending the principles (press freedom, public interest journalism etc etc) that are at stake here.

Boris Johnson also used to claim that his ‘softly softly’ approach was the best way to handle the case of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, the British citizen left to rot for years in an Iranian prison. But all that the alleged quiet diplomacy did was to prolong her imprisonment, while concealing the failings of previous British governments that had contributed to her incarceration. Once it becomes inaudible, quiet diplomacy looks more like a signal that don’t worry, we won’t be rocking the boat.

Assange and the public interest

Assange’s alleged “crime” was to publish on Wikileaks a trove of documents and cables obtained by Chelsea Manning, a US soldier stationed in Iraq. The material included evidence of war crimes committed by US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The diplomatic cables contained hundreds of examples of US diplomats being engaged in clandestine activities without the knowledge or consent of the public at home, or in the countries affected. The public interest served by revealing such activities should be obvious. Revealing the atrocities, lies and deceptions of the powerful is what journalism exists to do, in a free society.

Uniquely though, Assange has been prosecuted for doing so, as the American Civil Liberties Union pointed out in 2019:

For the first time in the history of our country, the government has brought criminal charges under the Espionage Act against a publisher for the publication of truthful information. This is a direct assault on the First Amendment.

The Columbia Journalism Review made the same point more than a year ago:

…This case is nothing less than the first time in American history that the US government has sought to prosecute the act of publishing state secrets, something that national security reporters do with some regularity. While many of the charges [contained in the Assange indictment] involve conspiracy or aiding and abetting, three counts are based on “pure publication”—the argument that Assange broke the law just by posting classified documents on the Internet.

And furthermore:

Read literally, the Espionage Act criminalizes the solicitation, receipt, and publication of any government secret, not just the names of informants. The Justice Department has long taken the position that it can prosecute the act of publishing classified information. But it has not done so, until now, because of concerns that it would open a Pandora’s box of media censorship.

With Assange, Pandora's box has now been opened. If he can be prosecuted for publishing leaked information – on the grounds it was “stolen” and because the disclosures (in the state’s opinion) damaged “national security” then any other journalist is at risk of the same fate for doing their job.

Now that the British government and courts have cleared a path for Assange to be extradited, the precedent cannot avoid having a chilling effect on any media investigations into government wrong-doing, given that the documents proving it will almost certainly belong to the state. The evidence will always have been “stolen” and “national security” is a conveniently elastic term.

Governments, of course, can always claim that what the public may be interested in isn’t always in their best interest to know. That’s why the Assanges of the world are so valuable, because they’re willing to take the risks involved in challenging the presumptions of the powerful. One doesn’t have to like Assange personally, to see the value of his work, and the injustice of his treatment.

Footnote One: One of the repeated red herrings in the Assange case is that he allegedly published unredacted data that put peoples’ lives at risk. As Jennifer Robinson, Assange’s legal adviser pointed out on RNZ years ago, no one has ever been able to point to anyone who has suffered harm from what Wikileaks published. Moreover:

“That material had already been published online by other publications as a result of a security breach by the Guardian newspaper. The decision by WikiLeaks to publish that material unredacted was because it was already circulating online.” Robinson [said]people need to be reminded of the importance of what WikiLeaks revealed, including the war crimes of US military shooting down journalists and civilians in Iraq – which had been covered up. The Iraq and Afghanistan war logs also showed civilian deaths far higher than originally thought and included evidence of torture and war crimes.

Carole Cadwalladr and the public interest

And now for the good news. In a different corner of the British justice system, the values of public interest journalism have recently been upheld in a crucial test case. Earlier this month, the British journalist Carole Cadwalladr won the libel case brought against her by British businessman Arron Banks.

Banks, a key funder of the Brexit Leave campaign, had sued Cadwalladr for claiming – both in a TED talk and in a tweet – that Banks had been lying about the extent of his dealings with the Russian state. The whole judgement is well worth reading – but its core conclusions are that (a) at the time of the TED talk, Cadwalladr had solid public interest grounds for what she said, and (b) once the public interest defence “fell away” in April 2020 (after the UK Electoral Commission found no campaign fundings laws had been broken) there was no evidence that Banks’ reputation had suffered subsequent harm.

Banks’ initial claim had been that his “sole” contact with the Russians had been “a boozy six-hour lunch.” This claim had been challenged by Cadwalladr, and the ruling by Justice Steyn painstakingly dissected the evidence that there were at least four such meetings. There could possibly have been more. The possibility of a quid pro quo from the Russians in terms of favourable business deals for Banks was also argued before the court.

Based on her investigation, Ms Cadwalladr had reasonable grounds to believe that (i) Mr Banks had been offered ‘sweetheart’ deals by the Russian government in the period running up to the EU referendum, although she had seen no evidence he had entered into any such deals; and (ii) Mr Banks’s financial affairs, and the source of his ability to make the biggest political donations in UK history, were opaque.”

[Justice] Steyn said Cadwalladr’s belief at the time of the Ted talk was bolstered by the fact that the Electoral Commission had announced it had reasonable grounds to suspect that Banks was not the true source of the £8m loans/donations to Leave.EU and that the National Crime Agency was investigating the matter.

Cadwalladr’s expressions of relief and her thoughts on the significance of her victory are available here. Others have weighed in on the importance of her triumph:

The Observer editor, Paul Webster, and the Guardian News & Media editor-in-chief, Katharine Viner, welcomed the verdict as “an important victory for free speech and public-interest reporting”, highlighting the online trolling, abuse and harassment Cadwalladr had faced. “We believe this case was an example of a powerful wealthy person targeting an individual journalist for their work,” they said. “Carole Cadwalladr’s victory in this case is an important step in defending the rights of journalists to report in the public interest.”

Fine. Now let's apply the same beliefs about the crucial importance of public interest journalism - and the same compassion – to the case of Julian Assange.

Footnote Two: This year has been a deadly one for journalism globally. Those killed while doing their work have included the leading Palestinian journalist Shireen Abu Akleh (murdered by the Israeli forces in occupied Palestine ) and the British journalist Dom Philips.

Philips, along with his expert adviser on indigenous affairs were murdered in a remote part of Brazil while he was investigating the extent of illegal fishing by poor fishermen (paid by international firms) within an Amazonian reserve supposedly set aside for indigenous tribes.

At last count, 22 other journalists have been killed in the course of their work since the beginning of January. Ten reporters have died while covering the war in Ukraine, and the rest were killed in countries ranging from Haiti, to Chad, Mexico, India, Myanmar and Chile.

CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M

Glencore unit pleads guilty to bribery in Africa

Cecilia Jamasmie | June 21, 2022

Glencore pleaded guilty to seven counts of bribery in connection with oil operations in five African countries. (Image courtesy of Glencore.)

A British subsidiary of Glencore (LON: GLEN) formally pleaded guilty on Tuesday to the seven charges of bribery brought against the mining and commodities trader by the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO), which relate to the firm’s oil operations in Africa.

Glencore Energy confessed to paying $28 million in bribes to secure preferential access to oil, including increased cargoes, valuable grades of oil and preferable dates of delivery in Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Ivory Coast, Nigeria and South Sudan.

The company, which also admitted to generating illicit profits between 2011 and 2016, will be sentenced on November 2 and 3, the SFO said.

The successful prosecution is the SFO’s third corporate conviction under the 2010 Bribery Act and makes Glencore the first company to admit to paying off an institution or person under those rules.

The anti-corruption office is still mulling prosecutions against individuals as it, so far, has not targeted any people at the company, triggering criticism.

Glencore has been the subject of multiple investigations in the UK, the United States and Brazil over the past four years for alleged money laundering and corruption.

The company announced in February it had set aside $1.5 billion to cover the costs of settlements it hoped to reach this year.

The Swiss firm in May tackled international bribery charges in the US, pleading guilty to violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Glencore agreed to pay $1.1 billion to resolve the case spanning seven countries. It also accepted separate fines for manipulating oil prices at US shipping ports.

It further agreed to pay more than $39.5 million under a resolution signed with the Brazilian Federal Prosecutor’s Office (MPF) in connection with its bribery investigation.

Glencore, which is also subject to investigations from Swiss and Dutch authorities, has said the timing of those probes remains uncertain but would expect any possible resolution to avoid duplicate penalties for the same conduct.

Residents end blockade of Las Bambas mine road, agree to dialogue

Reuters | June 22, 2022 |

Las Bambas is one of Peru’s largest copper producers, accounting for around 2% of global supply. (Image courtesy of MMG Instagram.)

A community in Peru’s Andes mountains on Wednesday suspended their blockade of a highway used by MMG Ltd’s Las Bambas copper mine, agreeing to negotiate with the government and the company over the road’s use, one of the community’s leaders said.

“It is a truce that will last until Wednesday of next week. If a solution is not found, we will restart the protest,” Efrain Mercado, president of the Mara district defense front, told Reuters by telephone.

Residents in the Mara district of the Apurimac region had blocked the highway with sticks and rubber tires, according to photos published on Twitter and confirmed to Reuters by a community leader.

The blockade signaled a new conflict just two weeks after the mining firm resumed operations following another protest that forced Las Bambas to shut down for more than 50 days, the longest in the mine’s history.

A source close to Las Bambas said earlier on Wednesday it was not immediately clear if the protest had affected transportation of copper concentrate from the mine.

Protesters on Wednesday morning had been demanding payment for use of the road, according to a source close to the company and a protest leader.

“We are blocking (the road) because the government is delaying land appraisals on properties through which the road passes. It is an indefinite protest,” Alex Roque, one of the Mara district’s leaders, told Reuters before the blockade was suspended.

Peru is the world’s No. 2 copper producer and Chinese-owned Las Bambas is one of the world’s largest producers of the red metal.

The protest and shutdown have caused a major problem for the leftist administration of President Pedro Castillo, who came to office last year pledging to redistribute mining wealth but who is also under pressure to grow the economy.

Las Bambas alone accounts for 1% of Peru’s gross domestic product.

(By Marco Aquino, Anthony Esposito and Brendan O’Boyle; Editing by Sandra Maler)

Road to Las Bambas mine blocked again by residents

Reuters | June 22, 2022

Credit: Presidencia Perú

A community in Peru’s Andes mountains on Wednesday blocked a highway used by MMG Ltd’s Las Bambas copper mine, demanding payment for use of the road, according to a source close to the company and a protest leader.

The new conflict comes just two weeks after the mining firm resumed operations following another protest that forced Las Bambas to shut down for more than 50 days, the longest in the mine’s history.

Residents in the Mara district of the Apurimac region blocked the highway with sticks and rubber tires, according to photos published on Twitter and confirmed to Reuters by a community leader.

“We are blocking (the road) because the government is delaying land appraisals on properties through which the road passes. It is an indefinite protest,” Alex Roque, one of the Mara district’s leaders, told Reuters.

A source close to Las Bambas also confirmed the blockade, but said it was not immediately clear if the protest was affecting transportation of copper concentrate from the mine.

Following the previous hiatus in operations, MMG said it expected production at the site and material transportation to resume on June 11.

Peru is the world’s No. 2 copper producer and Chinese-owned Las Bambas is one of the world’s largest producers of the red metal.

The protest and shutdown have caused a major problem for the leftist administration of President Pedro Castillo, who came to office last year pledging to redistribute mining wealth but who is also under pressure to grow the economy.

Las Bambas alone accounts for 1% of Peru’s gross domestic product.

(By Marco Aquino and Anthony Esposito; Editing by Sandra Maler)

SEE

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for BAMBAS

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for LOS BAMBAS

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for PERU

Chile workers end strike at world's largest copper producer

PUBLISHED : 24 JUN 2022
WRITER: AFP

Workers described the announced closure of the Ventanas plant as 'arbitrary'

SANTIAGO - Workers at Chile's state mining company Codelco, the world's largest copper producer, called off an open-ended strike Thursday after reaching agreement with the government.

The strike by some 40,000 mine workers to protest the closure of a foundry in one of Chile's most polluted regions, was ended after one day, the FTC labor federation announced.

The FTC had agreed with the company to work jointly towards closing the Ventanas foundry, over a period of time, in an area dubbed "Chile's Chernobyl."

Codelco announced it would close the Ventanas foundry after an incident on June 9 when 115 people, mostly school children, suffered sulfur dioxide poisoning released by heavy industry in the area around Quintero and Puchuncavi, home to some 50,000 people.

It was the second such incident in just three days.

Greenpeace described the area around the Ventanas plant as "Chile's Chernobyl" following a serious incident in 2018 when around 600 people received medical treatment for symptoms such as vomiting blood, headaches, dizziness and paralysis of the extremities.

Unions, however, described the announced closure as "arbitrary" and demanded the government spend money instead on bringing the plant up to environmental standards.

Pollution accumulated in the area of Quintero and Puchuncavi after the government decided in 1958 to convert it into an industrial center that now hosts four coal-fired power stations and oil and copper refineries.

Codelco reaches agreement with workers to end strike
Reuters | June 23, 2022 |

Salvador copper mine. (Image courtesy of Codelco.)

Chile’s state-owned Codelco, the world’s largest copper producer, reached an agreement with workers on Thursday to end a nationwide strike over the closure of a troubled smelter in a highly polluted region of central Chile.

The Federation of Copper Workers (FTC) started the strike early Wednesday morning and claimed to have all divisions stopped, while the government maintained that impacts were minimal after preparing for the announced strike.

“We’ve determined as a council to inform the presidents of unions to lift the strike,” Amador Pantoja, president of the FTC, told reporters outside Codelco’s office, citing progress made during talks with Codelco’s management.

(By Natalia Ramos and Alexander Villegas; Editing by Jonathan Oatis)

Chile copper workers begin nationwide strike over smelter closure

Cecilia Jamasmie | June 22, 2022

About 50,000 workers are said to have joined the strike.

(Image courtesy of Federation of Copper Workers — FTC.)

Chilean state-owned copper producer Codelco, the world’s largest, was hit on Wednesday by a nationwide strike against the miner’s decision to close permanently an allegedly polluting smelter in the country’s central zone.

Unions demand that, instead of shutting down Ventanas, the company upgrades it. Codelco’s decision followed an environmental incident that saw dozens of people fall ill, the miner said June 17. The move was later backed by Chilean President Gabriel Boric and several of his ministers.

About 50,000 copper workers, including Codelco’s employees as well as contractors, joined on Wednesday the indefinite strike, the Federation of Copper Workers, an umbrella group of copper worker unions, said in a statement.

The unionized workers insist the facility needs $53 million for capsules that retain gases and allows the smelter to operate under environmental compliance, but this was dismissed by the government.

Click here for an interactive chart of copper prices

“Our action will continue as long as the government and the Codelco board of directors insist on the closure of Ventanas and do not greenlight the resources to allow the Codelco smelters to continue as competitive and sustainable units,” FTC president Amador Pantoja said, adding the company’s decision was rushed.

Responding to the Pantoja, Codelco’s chairman of the board, Máximo Pacheco, said the closing of the Ventanas was 30 years in the making.

“We have been discussing environmental issues related to Ventanas for decades. Does anyone believe that after 30 years this was a hasty decision?,” he told CNN Chile.

Chilean President Gabriel Boric, who has been in power for a little over three months, has said he doesn’t want “more environmental sacrifice zones” in the country.

“Today there are hundreds of thousands of people living in our country who are exposed to severe environmental deterioration that we have caused or allowed, and that, as Chilean, makes me ashamed,” Boric said on Friday.
Historic reinvestment plan

Chile’s Finance Minister Mario Marcel said on Wednesday that Codelco operations have not been affected by the strike as the company had taken measures to mitigate potential negative effects.

The minister also announced an historic $583 million reinvestment plan for the copper miner this year, which includes 30% designated to 2021 utilities. There will be a similar reinvestment of utilities from 2021 through 2024, Marcel said.

Until now, Codelco has given most of its earnings to the state.

Ventana’s closure will require the modification of a law that requires the Chilean copper miner to smelt minerals from the also state-owned Enami, coming from small and medium-sized companies, exclusively in the facility.

Codelco said that Ventanas’s refinery will not be affected by the measure.

Codelco’s board of directors approved the closure of the Ventanas smelter on June 17. (Image courtesy of Codelco | Flickr.)

Deconstructing Brexit discourses: A critical logics approach to understanding the 2016 referendum result

It is now six years since Britain voted for Brexit. Drawing on a recent book, Benjamin Hawkins employs post-structuralist discourse theory to understand the form, content, and political dynamics of the Brexit referendum debates.

The Brexit referendum in 2016 has given rise to a now significant volume of scholarship attempting to explain the outcome. Much of this has focused on the characteristics of leave and remain voters – particularly age, education level and political identity – and how these underpinned voting behaviour. However, attention must also be paid to the long-term and contextual factors, which provided the conditions for the leave campaign’s narrow victory.

Prior to the referendum campaign, European integration had been a low salience issue for most voters. Opinion poll data had consistently identified low levels of support for European integration and low levels of knowledge about the EU as a political entity. Though UK citizens may not have been particularly focused on ‘Europe’ as an issue, when asked to think about the EU and to express an opinion their responses tended to be negative.

It is possible, therefore, to characterise the British (and particularly English) electorates as a population of ‘latent Eurosceptics.’ Similarly, in the decades preceding the Brexit vote, UK media coverage of the EU, especially in the print sector, was dominated by a deeply Eurosceptic discourse, which set the terms of debate on European integration. This framed the UK and the EU in deeply antithetical terms, with the EU functioning as the hostile ‘other’ against which the UK was defined and which posed an existential threat to the UK’s interests.

While the latent Euroscepticism of British voters, and the embedded Euroscepticism of public discourse, were key contributory factors, they do not provide a sufficient explanation for the referendum outcome. In order to create an electoral majority for leave, it was necessary to connect the issue of EU membership with higher salience issues, most notably immigration and the decline of public services, in the context of austerity.

In addition, the leave campaign had to ensure that people actually went out to vote. Studies have indicated that turnout was a key factor in deciding the referendum result with leave voting areas seeing higher levels of voter participation than remain areas. This is partly attributable to the age profile of the core vote on each side, with generally older leave voters being more likely to be registered to vote, and to actually do so, than younger remainers (but abstainers). However, the relatively low turnout speaks also to a wider motivational deficit on the remain side. This was reflected in the downbeat nature of the remain campaign – dubbed ‘project fear’ by its critics – versus the boosterish tone of the leave campaign.

Critical logics

Through the application of post-structuralist discourse theory, and the critical logics approach, we are able to generate new insights about the structure and the affective appeal of the ‘leave’ discourses. In a new book, I have analysed the interventions of leading figures in both the Vote Leave and Leave.EU campaigns in the UK media, and identified how they drew heavily on embedded Eurosceptic discourse and their key tropes of separation and threat. However, pro-Brexit discourses included important new elements, which widened their appeal to additional sectors of the electorate.

Firstly, pro-Brexit discourses were structured around an overtly populist narrative of an allegedly corrupt ‘remain elite’ exploiting the (ordinary, leave-voting) people. This remain elite were depicted as being in cahoots with the European political class and big business. Their interests are served by the UK’s subsumption within the EU, but this runs counter to those of ordinary citizens. As Boris Johnson argues:

If we vote to stay then I am afraid the whole EU caravan carries blithely on; and when I think of the champagne-guzzling orgy of backslapping in Brussels that would follow a Remain vote on Friday, I want to weep. We must not let it happen… People can sense the true motives behind Project Fear… It’s a cushy elite of politicians and lobbyists and bureaucrats, circling the wagons and protecting their vested interests.

The ‘leave people’ are depicted as quietly, yet heroically resisting this tyranny through their stoic determination to leave the EU in the face of remainer bullying. Despite their own impeccable establishment credentials, the leaders of the leave campaigns were able to position themselves as anti-elitist, political outsiders standing up for the interests of the people against the EU machine.

The issue of immigration was frequently invoked to highlight the diametrically opposed interests of the metropolitan elites – who apparently benefit from the availability of migrant labour and affordable nannies – and ordinary people whose wages are undercut and whose access to schools, housing and hospitals is precluded by free movement of people to the UK.

Secondly, leave campaigners presented the prospect of remaining in the EU as the risky alternative. As well as unlimited migration to the UK following the apparently inevitable enlargement of the EU to include Turkey and Balkan states, they claimed that a remain vote would be followed by deepening integration, including the creation of a European army and the requirement to join the euro. Boris Johnson captured the sentiment:

[I]t is an illusion to think that if we vote to Remain, we are somehow opting for the status quo. The status quo is not on offer. If we stay in, we will be engaged willy-nilly in the desperate attempt to keep the euro together, by building an economic government of Europe.

By contrast, a vote to leave the EU was presented not just as the safe option, but as a moment of national economic, political and even moral renewal. It would free the UK to rediscover its energy and begin to perform its unique mission in the world again in ways precluded by the constraints of EU membership. Again it was Boris Johnson who articulated this point most clearly:

My view is that Britain is poised for a new age of confidence… The fundamental choice in this referendum is between people who believe our country is capable of running itself and people who want to outsource our future to unelected Brussels bureaucrats… The Remain camp will not get away with running Britain down by saying we can’t manage our own country. I believe Britain will have the confidence to take back control and Vote Leave tomorrow.

Underlying these discourses was a sense that EU membership represented a form of humiliation for a once great country, infantilising the UK and its people. Leave campaigners such as Nigel Farage created direct parallels between the sense of indignity and powerlessness experienced by many of their target voters in their own lives and that allegedly wrought upon their country by the EU and the same elites who look down on them.

Post-structuralist discourse theory allows us to understand both the form and content of pro-Brexit discourses through the concept of social logics. Through the concept of political logics, it enables us also to understand the equivalences created between EU membership and a range of disparate, contradictory, and often false, assertions about the consequences of leaving the EU.

Finally, and perhaps most crucially, the concept of ‘fantasmatic logics’ enables us to understand the emotive appeal of these discourses to voters through the juxtaposition of the horrific scenario of remaining in the EU and the promise of a glorious future awaiting the UK once this impediment had been cast off.

In a public vote in which turnout was key and the margin of victory so small, understanding the ability of these discourses to grip their subjects is a crucial part of understanding how and why the electorate chose to take such a step into the unknown.

For more information, see the author’s new book, Deconstructing Brexit Discourses: Embedded Euroscepticism, Fantasy Objects and the United Kingdom’s Vote to Leave the European Union (Routledge, 2022)

Note: This article gives the views of the author, not the position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy or the London School of Economics. Featured image credit: ©No10 Crown Copyright / Andrew Parsons / No10 Downing Street

About the author

Benjamin Hawkins s is a Senior Research Associate in the MRC Epi

NZ Minister To Attend Second United Nations Ocean Conference In Portugal

Thursday, 23 June 2022
Press Release: New Zealand Government

Oceans and Fisheries Minister David Parker will represent Aotearoa New Zealand at the second United Nations (UN) Ocean Conference in Lisbon, Portugal, which runs from 27 June to 1 July.

The Conference will take stock of progress and aims to galvanise further action towards Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 14, to “conserve and sustainably use oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development”.

“We were a strong supporter of the adoption of SDG 14. This conference is an important opportunity to renew our commitment to all parts of SDG 14, and our commitment to act together,” David Parker said.

“At the conference I will deliver a statement highlighting New Zealand’s action and partnerships to protect the health and resilience of the ocean.”

David Parker will co-chair a discussion on addressing marine pollution.

“2022 is a vital year for action. We have at long last just seen the conclusion of an important new agreement at the World Trade Organisation on fisheries subsidies, an initiative begun by New Zealand and others over 20 years ago. New frameworks to protect biodiversity are being negotiated, and discussions will be launched on a new treaty to end plastic pollution,” David Parker said.

“I look forward to meeting my counterparts to discuss these important issues, and how we can best work together to ensure the conservation and sustainable use of the ocean.”

After the Lisbon conference, David Parker will travel to Iceland to see the high levels of innovation and automation in its seafood sector and gain insights that could benefit New Zealand’s seafood sector.Iceland is a world leader in the automation of fisheries processing and maximising the use of fish during processing.

David Parker will tour a range of industry sites during his visit, which has been facilitated by the Iceland Oceans Cluster, an entrepreneurial organisation dedicated to innovation in the seafood industry.

Iceland and New Zealand’s fisheries management systems share many similarities and the visit will build on our existing cooperation in International Fisheries negotiations.

David Parker will also meet Iceland’s Minister for Social Affairs and Labour, Guðmundur Ingi Guðbrandsson, and the CEO of the Icelandic Fisheries Directorate, Ögmundur Knútsson, to discuss labour market issues in fisheries, automation and challenges caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.

News Analysis: What House committee hearing about Commanders harassment allegations means to NFL

Sam Farmer

Thu, June 23, 2022

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell testifies virtually during a House Oversight Committee hearing on the Washington Commanders' workplace conduct. (Jacquelyn Martin / Associated Press)

What does the future hold for Washington Commanders owner Daniel Snyder?

He handed control of the team to his wife, Tanya, last year — his hiatus is indefinite — and was fined $10 million in the wake of an NFL investigation that found a pattern of sexual harassment in the organization spanning from 2006 to 2019. The league inquiry stemmed from a Washington Post investigation of the franchise.

Snyder was invited to testify before the House Committee on Oversight and Reform but declined, saying he had business out of the country. The committee chairperson, Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-NY, said she planned to issue a subpoena to compel a deposition from Snyder next week.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell testified virtually before Congress on Wednesday, telling the committee that he has “not seen a workplace in the NFL that is anywhere near what we saw in the context of that period of time for the Washington Commanders.”

Goodell also said Snyder has been held accountable and that he, as commissioner, doesn’t have the authority to remove Snyder as an owner. The only way an owner can be removed is by a three-quarters majority vote by fellow owners.

In the wake of the hearing Wednesday, let's explore some of the issues surrounding the situation:

Is it likely that Snyder loses his team over this?

That would be a surprise. There’s a lot of trepidation among owners because it sets a precedent that could ultimately boomerang to one of them. Surely, there are a lot of owners with dirty laundry they wouldn’t want aired, and if the prospect of losing their team is on the table, well … But it’s also a slippery slope. What rises to the level of losing your team? What if people simply want you out and can convince enough of your fellow owners that you need to go? It might be that Snyder deserves to get the boot, but other owners are going to be circumspect about that.

How is this different than what happened with Jerry Richardson and the Carolina Panthers?

A 2017 investigation of the Panthers revealed findings of confidential payouts, including sexual harassment, involving then-owner Richardson. He sold the team shortly after those came to light. It’s unclear exactly how much pressure the NFL exerted on him, but what we do know is Richardson was 80 and in poor health, and there was no indication he planned to keep the franchise in his family. His role in the league had been greatly diminished, especially throwing all his weight behind the wrong horse — the Carson project — in the Los Angeles stadium derby. Clearly, he wasn’t going to put up the kind of fight that Snyder has and will.

Is this similar to the Donald Sterling situation?

The NBA forced Sterling to sell the Clippers in 2014 and banned him for life following an investigation into racist comments he made over the phone to his ex-girlfriend. Those comments were repugnant, as is the Washington situation. Different leagues, different set of facts, similarly shameful behavior. There were reports at the time that Clippers players were considering to refuse to play for Sterling, and they staged a team protest before a playoff game. Bad as the Washington situation is, it hasn’t reached that point.

What should we make of Snyder’s alleged “shadow investigation” targeting former team employees, journalists and others?

Is it improper and embarrassing? Yes. Surprising? No. Those are the findings of Congress, and Snyder wouldn’t be the first billionaire under the microscope to fund a parallel investigation to find out what evidence is out there. Politicians have done it too but it seems as if that would be an obvious attempt to intimidate and bully people into silence.

What about the allegations of the Commanders cheating other owners out of money?

In a letter to the Federal Trade Commission in March, Congress said the franchise for years had been masking revenue — money that should have been shared among the teams — to give Washington a higher profit. A whistleblower alleged the club might have retained upward of $5 million in unshared funds. True, owners don’t like people messing with their money.

First, in NFL terms, you’d find that amount of money in the couch cushions. That’s not to excuse it, but $5 million divided 32 ways doesn’t constitute a Brinks truck for any of the other owners. Also, it’s not uncommon for the NFL to correct a team for improperly sheltering money, whether the club is doing so knowingly or unwittingly. It does happen.

But what if that were the final straw for Snyder? Say it was football’s answer to Al Capone getting popped for tax evasion. Not a great look that the owners would look the other way on the toxic-workplace stuff and only lose their minds when they lost some money. It's difficult to imagine a worse PR move for the league.

What makes this even worse for the NFL?

Two of the biggest NFL stories people are following right now are what’s happening with the Snyder investigation, and what’s going to happen to Cleveland Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson, accused by 24 massage therapists of harassing or assaulting them during appointments. Both are centered on the mistreatment of women. Both are nightmares.

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.