Ilhan Omar’s ‘Pathway to Peace’ Would Revolutionize US Foreign Policy
February 20, 2020
The seven bills would steer US foreign policy towards international norms and remove support for human rights violators. While the chances are slim that these bills will pass, they outline a progressive foreign policy.
Story Transcript
GREG WILPERT: It’s The Real News Network. I’m Greg Wilpert in Arlington, Virginia.
Congresswoman Ilhan Omar of Minnesota introduced a package of seven bills last week, which she calls the Pathway to Peace. This legislation, if it were passed, would mean nothing short of a revolution in the way that U.S. foreign policy is conducted. Last year, Omar already said that she plans to make U.S. foreign policy more ethical.
ILHAN OMAR: I want to make sure that here in the United States we understand that there are other countries who take in so many people of the world’s most pained people, and in the United States we could do better.
GREG WILPERT: The package of seven bills would end arm sales to countries that violate human rights, provide foreign aid to youth in developing countries, shift $5 billion from the Pentagon to the state department for a global peace building fund and grant Congress oversight over U.S. economic sanctions. Also, the bills would have the U.S. sign the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, a global migration agreement, and the Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court.
Joining me now to analyze Representative Ilhan Omar’s proposal is Kate Kizer. She’s the Policy Director at Win Without War, a national grassroots advocacy organization that works to help establish a more progressive foreign policy for the United States. Thanks for joining us today, Kate.
KATE KIZER: Thanks for having me.
GREG WILPERT: The chances that this package of bills would be approved by congress, particularly by the Republican controlled senate, and then not be vetoed by the president, is pretty slim. So what’s the significance of Representative Omar’s Pathway to Peace?
KATE KIZER: It’s a really important marker of what Progressive’s want to see on foreign policy. For a long time there’s been little to no debate within the Democratic Party of how we would actually reform U.S. foreign policy to meet the values that the U.S. says it stands for. So it’s very exciting to see Representative Omar lay down such bold markers of how we would change U.S. engagement with the world, and not only to socialize these ideas amongst her peers in Congress, even if they won’t end up becoming law this year, but also to signal what we would expect to see from a progressive White House in the future.
GREG WILPERT: Now, in an article that you wrote for The American Prospect about the Pathway to Peace, you point out that the United States has historically pushed for a rules-based international system, but you also point out that the U.S. has at the same time considered itself to be an exception to these rules and not bound by them. For example, the U.S. is the only country in the world not to have signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and one of the few that hasn’t supported the International Criminal Court or the UN compact on migration.
Now, getting the U.S. to abide by these UN conventions would imply a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy. Is there support among the Democratic Party and presidential candidates for such a shift, and if not, how might such support be built?
KATE KIZER: In rhetoric, I think there absolutely is support for these ideas of being an internationalist, of being a multilateralist in foreign policy. The U.S. government says it supports the multilateral system, but as you just mentioned, it’s my analysis that we actually act to undermine it, which weakens that system, and prevents us from actually positively reforming the system to meet the needs of the 21st century.
So it’s been very exciting to see Senator Warren and Senator Sanders on the campaign trail really stake out an internationalist position that supports multilateralism, and it would absolutely require the U.S. to not only join these international conventions that set out the rule of the road, but also to establish more norms and standards that it not only holds itself accountable to but other countries. Without holding ourselves accountable to these standards, we can’t then act for accountability for other countries. Ultimately, that undermines any U.S. power to implement these rules of the road.
GREG WILPERT: Now currently, not only hasn’t the U.S. signed these conventions that we mentioned, but it also flaunts international law when it imposes unilateral economic sanctions on countries such as on Venezuela, Russia, or Iran. That is, according to the UN charter it is illegal for countries to engage in collective punishment. Now, the Pathway to Peace includes a bill that would require Congress to approve of economic sanctions, but it would still mean that sanctions could violate international law actually. I mean wouldn’t a bill that would outlaw all non-UN-approved sanctions be better?
KATE KIZER: I think that the fact that U.S. sanctions has really become a reflexive tool in the toolkit that many policymakers don’t see as a form of warfare, is very problematic. I think Congresswoman Omar recognized this. She’s obviously been an advocate for an end to U.S. blanket sanction regimes that violate international law and cause undue hardship to regular people in sanctioned countries. But I think she’s strategic in that she recognizes that many members of Congress in particular are not ready to just do away with all U.S. sanctions power.
So what she is doing is really staking out what a first step in sanctions reform look like. First Congress must A, have to affirmatively vote to approve any sanctions. In doing so it would force Congress with having to reckon with whether or not sanctions actually can achieve the policy goals that they say they want to achieve, which the academic literature indicates they can’t and don’t. And they would also have to reckon with the humanitarian impact of sanctions, which Congress largely ignores at this point, and it has led to some of the world’s worst humanitarian crises as we’re seeing in Venezuela, and North Korea, and Iran.
GREG WILPERT: Now, while the U.S. sanctions governments it does not like, it actually arms governments that it does like such as Saudi Arabia, and it arms them to the teeth even when they violate human rights or wage war. Now, one of these bills in Omar’s package, the Stop Arming Human Rights Abusers Act, would dramatically change this practice, and require the president to certify whether countries engage in human rights abuses lest they be cut off from U.S. arms.
Now, if this bill were to become law, we can though be fairly certain I would say that a president such as Trump would not rule a country such as Israel or Saudi Arabia to be a violator of human rights. Wouldn’t it be better to have an independent commission make such a judgment on human rights abuses?
KATE KIZER: Actually, the Stop Arming Human Rights Abusers Act would establish an independent human rights commission that’s been modeled off of the international commission for religious freedom. How that works in practice is, there is independent commissioners who evaluate the human rights records and evidence of human rights abuses of a subject country, and they would essentially tier them on whether or not they meet the threshold for a cutoff of assistance.
The nice thing about this bill is, despite the fact that there are human rights protections in current U.S. foreign assistance and arm sales laws, they’re not regularly enforced because they’re so broadly and generally written that they’re difficult to enforce, and the incentive at the state department and the department of defense is to continue sending out weapons and other assistance to countries versus trying to halt assistance.
So this would take those decisions out of the hands of those bureaucracies and instead provide independent analysis to determine whether or not countries are violating the thresholds that Miss Omar’s bill identifies. So, again, it would be a really strong step in the right direction in that it would essentially provide a huge way for civil society to influence whether or not the U.S. is providing security assistance, police officer training, or weapons to a subject country, and create a much more transparent process.
GREG WILPERT: Okay. Well, we’re going to leave it there for now, but we’ll continue to see how this bill fares in Congress. I was speaking to Kate Kizer, Policy Director at Win Without War. Thanks for joining us today Kate.
KATE KIZER: Thanks for having me Greg.
GREG WILPERT: Thank you for joining The Real News Network.
Sunday, March 01, 2020
Trump’s War Budget Slashes Support for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid
February 13, 2020
Trump promised he would not touch Social Security and Medicare. He lied. Now we have deficit spending with no social benefits and Democrats fooled into a compromise that allowed the military budget to soar.
Story Transcript
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Marc Steiner: Welcome to The Real News. I’m Marc Steiner. Good to have you all with us. Trump announced a $4.8 trillion budget for the fiscal year starting October the 1st. It is a budget that only marginally increases spending for the military because they don’t have to, by a lot, because he and Congress did that last July. But it does increase Homeland Security and gets his wal, while slashing programs like children’s health insurance, Medicaid. Even though he promised otherwise in his State of the Union speech, his budget attacks and cuts Medicare and Social Security.
Donald Trump: We will always protect your Medicare, and we will always protect your Social Security, always.
Marc Steiner: On top of that, deficit spending despite his promises, soars adding $1.9 trillion to our deficits over 10 years. Deficits not only because of increased spending, but because he slashed taxes for the wealthy, and in a bone to the voters, the middle-class. Less revenue or military spending equals deficits without lifting the lives of our fellow citizens. We’re joined by Alex Lawson, Executive Director of Social Security Works. Alex, welcome. Good to have you with us.
Alex Lawson: Thanks for having me.
Marc Steiner: And of course, Bill Black is an associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. He’s a white-collar criminologist, former financial regulator, and author of one of my favorite titles, law books of all time, The Best Way To Rob A Bank Is To Own One, and of course, a regular contributor here at Real News. Bill, welcome back.
Bill Black: Thank you.
Marc Steiner: Let’s just begin to talk a bit and throw this to you first Bill. It’s just, I really want to explain something here. You and I in the past have talked about deficits, right?
Bill Black: Right.
Marc Steiner: Let’s listen to, to your friend Donald Trump for just a moment and talk about deficits and debt and what they really mean.
Donald Trump: You know, I’m the King of debt. I understand debt better than probably anybody on the … It’s literally first grade business. It’s so simple. Hundreds of billions of dollars of money, and let’s call it tax money could come from other countries when we stop them from ripping us off. So, you wouldn’t have to play around with Medicaid and Medicare and things that really are dear to people’s hearts. If you look at some of these agencies, how big and fat they are, you can cut and have them run better than they’re running right now. When I heard we were going to Iraq, somebody said, “Oh, we’re going to the oil.” I said, “Huh, that makes sense.” That’s smart. $15 trillion. That does a lot to solve our deficit problem, doesn’t it? I’d like to pay off debt. I’d like to-
Speaker 5: We got a lot of it.
Donald Trump: Look at a lot of this and pay interest.
Speaker 5: Well, we got a lot of it.
Donald Trump: We dim and we’re going to start reducing costs now that we took care of our military.
Marc Steiner: That’s Donald Trump trying to explain deficits and debts over the last nine years, Bill. Talk a bit about, I mean one of the things we’ve talked about over the time together is that you don’t necessarily see deficits as a bad thing, but talk about the comparison between which you’re talking about were deficits and what he’s doing.
Bill Black: All right. The thing that’s consistent in all of those vignettes is that Trump knows absolutely nothing about business, absolutely nothing about economics, absolutely nothing about deficits. He was mushing together a whole bunch of different things. He knows a little bit about owing money to people because he owes tremendous amounts of money and he stiffs them. He stiffs the banks. He stiffs the workers, et cetera, et cetera. He files for bankruptcy, and eventually the bankers cut you off in those circumstances if you don’t pay your debt, and that’s why we’ve done series in the past that the only entity that will loan to him still is arguably the most corrupt bank in the world, Deutsche Bank. That’s his aspect of finances. Then he goes through a bunch of things, including trade that have nothing to do with the deficits, in terms of budget. Then he goes through this idea, hey, if we just stole other people’s property, right, then we’d have a lot more property and we’d be richer.
We steal their oil, except that A, violates all the rules of war and B, people tend to fight back and you end up spending billions, indeed trillions of dollars and losing hundreds of thousands of lives. This is just all the stupidity, the lack of care about humans, unwillingness to read a briefing paper if it’s longer than literally one paragraph. What is different is federal deficits. When you have a sovereign currency like the United States, have with a broad range, not very much to do with producing inflation. We’ve seen that of course. Trump has run very, very large deficits. Unemployment has been, in fact, at historically low levels and inflation hasn’t even reached the tiny amount that the Federal Reserve Watts says makes the economy work better. So, the inflation isn’t the problem. The deficit per se isn’t the problem.
The problem is twofold. One, Trump doesn’t spend things where we should be spending things, like on helping poor people, like on building infrastructure, like on dealing with climate disruption and such. He does spend money stupidly, on things like his wall and such. That isn’t a deficit question. That is a stupidity question. We can’t afford to do dumb things with real resources. When we create his wall, we absolutely waste resources and that’s a dumb thing that we should stop.
Marc Steiner: When you look at this, and Alex let me bring you in here. I mean when you look at this, what he just did here, increasing military spending by just 0.3% to $740.5 billion, while lowering the non-defense budget by 5% to $590 billion. The interesting part here to me is that when he does this and makes this horrible slashing of things, is that, and we’ll get into that in a moment, is that what we forget about, is that last July we increased the military budget more than it has been since the Vietnam and Korean war. The Democrats signed on to that because they said he wasn’t going to cut social services. He wasn’t going to cut these programs and it wasn’t going to cut social security. But in fact that’s what he’s done. They got hoodwinked into an old budget to increase military spending. Now they’re stuck with this new budget. I mean, there’s a history of why this is happening this way as well, that I think is important to remember. Give us your perception of this.
Alex Lawson: I think that the president’s budget, which is a statement of his values, is really clear. It’s pandering to defense contractors and Wall Street billionaires. It has, it basically decimates Medicaid, almost $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid, the largest provider of longterm care in this country. It cuts tens of billions of dollars out of Social Security, around three quarters of $1 trillion out of Medicare. The list of programs that have cuts that would be existential, goes on and on. Those are all aimed at satisfying his two criteria or two-pronged criteria. They have to be both stupid and cruel. Though, it has to be cruel in that it really hurts people.
Marc Steiner: Right.
Alex Lawson: But it has to be stupid because supposedly it has something to do with the deficit. But all of these cuts are penny wise, pound foolish. They would actually cost way more money in the long run or in social securities case, have absolutely nothing to do with the deficit. What we’re looking at is why the congressional Democrats ever bargain in good faith with the congressional Republicans is beyond me. But I wouldn’t say that the president’s budget is separate from that conversation in many respects. But it definitely shows you exactly where the Republican Party’s vision is. It’s why Donald Trump goes out of his way to lie about what he actually proposes. In the days before releasing it, he says he’s not going to cut Social Security and Medicare as you noted. But he does exactly that.
Marc Steiner: This is what he had to say at Davos.
Speaker 7: Entitlements ever be on your plate?
Donald Trump: At some point they will be. It’ll be toward the end of the year. The growth is going to be incredible, and at the right time we will take a look at that. You know that’s actually the easiest of all things, if you look because it’s such a [crosstalk 00:08:53].
Speaker 7: But you’re willing to do some of the things that you said you wouldn’t do in the past though in terms of Medicare.
Donald Trump: We’re got to look. We also have assets that we never had. I mean we never had growth like-
Marc Steiner: Such a disingenuous human being at best. I mean, when we say that the … That just cues me, ask you both this question is what you just said Alex, but when we say that what happened last July, I mean it seems to me in many ways the Democrats were, some of them, a lot of most progressive Democrats were complicit in this because they thought they had a deal, that will give you all this money for the military, which they shouldn’t have done the first place, many people would argue, as long as you don’t cut this. I mean, they were set up and now we are facing, this battle is going to take place in the midst of an election, where I could see them shutting down government, other things happening to battle over this budget. I mean this budget is going to play out in 2020, which is going to be a very tense and tight election. Who wants to go? Bill, you want to jump in this first and go to Alex?
Bill Black: Okay, so first it’s of course a reminder of why appeasement strategies when you’re dealing with dishonest, awful, evil people never work. As Churchill said, “The idea is you feed the crocodile other people, hoping that you know that he’ll get too full and won’t eat you at the end of the process.” Well guess what? He’ll get around to you eventually in these circumstances. So yes, the whole Biden thing about I can work with people is just a soccer strategy in these circumstances when people aren’t honest that you’re bargaining with. Then they take what you give the first time and they take the second time. They do. From their view, you’re not reasonable. You’re a chump, and they love to take advantage of chumps. Second point, this is a political gift to Democrats if they take it.
Marc Steiner: If they take it.
Bill Black: If they take it, right, and then run with it because this is horrific stuff, absolutely indefensible. The Democrats need to be talking about this every day. But the third thing is it really displays Trump’s true base, right? The base that the people usually talk about are the faces at his MAGA rallies, right? They’re the faces of people who are typically don’t have all that much money, all that much education, and they’re screaming, ranting and raving. That is a base and it’s critical to his ability to win elections. But the real base of Donald Trump is the absolute sleaziest CEOs in the world, primarily Americans, but not exclusively Americans. That’s why the tax cut was his top priority, and why the tax cut was unbelievably weighted towards the wealthiest people. There’s an interesting Pew study of the really, really rich people, and they’re different than normal people. The deficits really, supposedly drive them crazy.
But what really, really drive them crazy is the idea of anybody poor getting money, right? They hate the entitlement programs and such. They in particular, they hate Medicaid because that goes to poorer people and food stamps because that goes to poorer people and such. Therefore, it is no coincidence they, after first doing the massive payoff to that base, the kleptocratic wealthy, Trump is then following through with their greatest desires, which is a combination of screwing the poor but also taking all the protections away, like the EPA. So, it’s no surprise that he’s absolutely destroying the ability of the EPA, not just now, but for all time, is his goal, to protect the public.
Marc Steiner: When you saw that the EPA and Alex, when you talked about the EPA, they cut the EPA by 26.5%, Health and Human Services by 9%, education 8%, interior 13.4%, so he can drill more oil wherever he wants to. House and Urban Development goes down by 15.2%. State Department and AID gets slashed to the bone with 22%. What’s the response to this and what happens to Social Security, which you spend your life working on, your work working on? What is the political response?
Alex Lawson: I think that there is a key player in this who is incredibly important and also incredibly dishonest. That’s the corporate media. I actually will say that many Democrats take the fact that Donald Trump is targeting Social Security and Medicare so squarely, and he needs seniors to win elections. Republicans need seniors to win elections, and his policies are disastrous for seniors. But if the media is just telling, repeating Donald Trump’s lies, then the people will not know actually what he’s doing. This is not theoretical. Donald Trump tweeted, my budget is not going to cut Social Security and Medicare, basically. He just stated that, and he released a budget that decimates those programs and the AP reported it in the headline and in the tweet as his budget basically left Social Security and Medicare alone. In the story it details the cuts, but you do a quick new search right now, and guess what they actually copied as it went around the country? The headline.
It seems like the media is reporting basically, press releases, except now Donald Trump just tweets them directly to them. Instead of taking five minutes to look at the tables in the back and actually tell the American people what Donald Trump is actually doing. So, without independent media voices getting the truth out there, unfortunately too many of the American people don’t actually know that Donald Trump is literally right now, in implementing a Social Security rule alongside his budget, alongside the Medicaid block granting, reaching his hand into our pockets and stealing our earned benefits, all for the benefit of his billionaire paymasters on Wall Street, who want the money. They’re greedy. They want the money. But I also agree with Bill that there is a bit of a sadism and it as well. They actually want these policies to be cruel. The cruelty is part of the point of them.
Marc Steiner: So just quickly, Alex talk a bit about exactly what he’s done to Social Security and Medicare.
Alex Lawson: In the assault on both Social Security and Medicare is actually on multiple fronts and Medicaid as well. Medicaid is the largest provider of longterm care in this country. For millions of Americans it actually doesn’t matter. For a senior in a nursing home, they don’t care if it’s Medicaid paying for it or if it’s Medicare or which piece the different program covers. Medicaid covers this. Medicare covers that. If you cut $1 trillion out of Medicaid and then you, a senior gets thrown out of their nursing home, they don’t care if it’s one program or the other. It’s the totality of the attacks on the entire system. With Social Security, you’re seeing a bunch of different ways of going at it.
The union-busting inside to decimate the workforce, at the same time as continually slashing the budget, which is what we see in the budget, as well as restricting … They actually put in new rules, which we know exactly what they do because Ronald Reagan also put them in, and it’s to create a bureaucracy that’s so complex that people can’t access their benefits and they lose them. People who are currently have the benefits lose those. It’s a full-fledged assault on our Social Security system. Medicaid, it’s just a total destruction of it. Medicare, they’re trying to cut it to the bone and actually transfer people from the traditional Medicare side over to what are called Medicare Advantage, which are just private insurance companies. So, across the entire system, what you see is a push to move people from systems that work, into systems that profit a tiny sliver of billionaires on Wall Street.
If they can’t prioritize something like Social Security, if they don’t think that’s politically feasible, they just try to destroy the system, so that people lose faith in it, and actually will allow a political change that cuts benefits or decimates the system even further.
Marc Steiner: I’m going to conclude with this. I mean, it’s when you even look at the Wall Street Journal, they wrote about this today saying that the proposals cut $4.4 Trillion over a decade. $2 trillion come from mandatory spending programs, but they can ramp up the money, almost $1.5 trillion over the next two years to push up the Pentagon and build the wall and do the rest. In those customers, people forget is also Veterans Administration’s inside those cuts. What is the political response? Let’s talk a bit about that just before we have to close. Bill, I’ll let you start. I mean because this is, the Democrats seem to me often stumble over themselves, at least the establishment does to respond and not respond, a lot of these things just to go when they’ve been given a golden age to talk to the American people with.
Bill Black: Right, Right now there is no real democratic leader. You could see during some of the impeachment stuff, when you actually had someone who had a leadership position and an opportunity to think strategically and think about how to make a presentation to the public. They’re actually not as horrific as they usually are when you see them in these five minute increments at hearings, where it’s often farcical. This is something that the billionaires and millionaires, instead of the ads that they’re doing can really hammer on if they want to be useful. They can go through and present those tables that he was just talking about and show, Hey, he said, there are no cuts here. This is where the cuts actually are, and here’s what Medicaid is and this is what it’s going to be your life. But not just tables. Do what Trump did with that ad in the Superbowl. One black woman-
Marc Steiner: Oh yes, that ad.
Bill Black: [crosstalk 00:19:57] type of thing. We as human beings, we respond to narrative, to stories, to empathy about individuals. Think of it that way. Think of the, there are literally millions of people, actually there are literally tens of millions of people that will suffer really severe harm. Tell the stories.
Marc Steiner: Bill, that is so critical what you just said to learn that lesson. Alex, a very quick thought before we finish.
Alex Lawson: I just would say that if you want to see, I think really perfect messaging on this, if you look at the ads that Bernie Sanders was running in Iowa, right at the end of Iowa, that we’re teeing up Trump on Social Security and Medicare, and counter posing Bernie Sanders, decades-long championing of these programs, not just defending from cuts but working to expand the programs against Donald Trump’s attacks on these programs. That is a political message that wins and is breaking through, and is easy for the American people to see whose side, which politician is on. Donald Trump wants to cut your Social Security. Bernie Sanders wants to expand your social security. That kind of messaging breaks through.
Bill Black: I also want to see ads with US soldiers, and the aid that is critical to them as well, a counterpunch to their gut.
Marc Steiner: Absolutely. Well, let’s say that they listened to us. Alex Lawson, Bill Black. Thank you both so much. We’ll pick up on this together again soon. Appreciate your time.
Bill Black: Thank you.
Alex Lawson: Thanks.
Marc Steiner: Folks, we will stay on this. Our future’s at stake. I’m Marc Steiner for the Real News Network. Thank you for joining us. Take care.
February 13, 2020
Trump promised he would not touch Social Security and Medicare. He lied. Now we have deficit spending with no social benefits and Democrats fooled into a compromise that allowed the military budget to soar.
Story Transcript
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Marc Steiner: Welcome to The Real News. I’m Marc Steiner. Good to have you all with us. Trump announced a $4.8 trillion budget for the fiscal year starting October the 1st. It is a budget that only marginally increases spending for the military because they don’t have to, by a lot, because he and Congress did that last July. But it does increase Homeland Security and gets his wal, while slashing programs like children’s health insurance, Medicaid. Even though he promised otherwise in his State of the Union speech, his budget attacks and cuts Medicare and Social Security.
Donald Trump: We will always protect your Medicare, and we will always protect your Social Security, always.
Marc Steiner: On top of that, deficit spending despite his promises, soars adding $1.9 trillion to our deficits over 10 years. Deficits not only because of increased spending, but because he slashed taxes for the wealthy, and in a bone to the voters, the middle-class. Less revenue or military spending equals deficits without lifting the lives of our fellow citizens. We’re joined by Alex Lawson, Executive Director of Social Security Works. Alex, welcome. Good to have you with us.
Alex Lawson: Thanks for having me.
Marc Steiner: And of course, Bill Black is an associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. He’s a white-collar criminologist, former financial regulator, and author of one of my favorite titles, law books of all time, The Best Way To Rob A Bank Is To Own One, and of course, a regular contributor here at Real News. Bill, welcome back.
Bill Black: Thank you.
Marc Steiner: Let’s just begin to talk a bit and throw this to you first Bill. It’s just, I really want to explain something here. You and I in the past have talked about deficits, right?
Bill Black: Right.
Marc Steiner: Let’s listen to, to your friend Donald Trump for just a moment and talk about deficits and debt and what they really mean.
Donald Trump: You know, I’m the King of debt. I understand debt better than probably anybody on the … It’s literally first grade business. It’s so simple. Hundreds of billions of dollars of money, and let’s call it tax money could come from other countries when we stop them from ripping us off. So, you wouldn’t have to play around with Medicaid and Medicare and things that really are dear to people’s hearts. If you look at some of these agencies, how big and fat they are, you can cut and have them run better than they’re running right now. When I heard we were going to Iraq, somebody said, “Oh, we’re going to the oil.” I said, “Huh, that makes sense.” That’s smart. $15 trillion. That does a lot to solve our deficit problem, doesn’t it? I’d like to pay off debt. I’d like to-
Speaker 5: We got a lot of it.
Donald Trump: Look at a lot of this and pay interest.
Speaker 5: Well, we got a lot of it.
Donald Trump: We dim and we’re going to start reducing costs now that we took care of our military.
Marc Steiner: That’s Donald Trump trying to explain deficits and debts over the last nine years, Bill. Talk a bit about, I mean one of the things we’ve talked about over the time together is that you don’t necessarily see deficits as a bad thing, but talk about the comparison between which you’re talking about were deficits and what he’s doing.
Bill Black: All right. The thing that’s consistent in all of those vignettes is that Trump knows absolutely nothing about business, absolutely nothing about economics, absolutely nothing about deficits. He was mushing together a whole bunch of different things. He knows a little bit about owing money to people because he owes tremendous amounts of money and he stiffs them. He stiffs the banks. He stiffs the workers, et cetera, et cetera. He files for bankruptcy, and eventually the bankers cut you off in those circumstances if you don’t pay your debt, and that’s why we’ve done series in the past that the only entity that will loan to him still is arguably the most corrupt bank in the world, Deutsche Bank. That’s his aspect of finances. Then he goes through a bunch of things, including trade that have nothing to do with the deficits, in terms of budget. Then he goes through this idea, hey, if we just stole other people’s property, right, then we’d have a lot more property and we’d be richer.
We steal their oil, except that A, violates all the rules of war and B, people tend to fight back and you end up spending billions, indeed trillions of dollars and losing hundreds of thousands of lives. This is just all the stupidity, the lack of care about humans, unwillingness to read a briefing paper if it’s longer than literally one paragraph. What is different is federal deficits. When you have a sovereign currency like the United States, have with a broad range, not very much to do with producing inflation. We’ve seen that of course. Trump has run very, very large deficits. Unemployment has been, in fact, at historically low levels and inflation hasn’t even reached the tiny amount that the Federal Reserve Watts says makes the economy work better. So, the inflation isn’t the problem. The deficit per se isn’t the problem.
The problem is twofold. One, Trump doesn’t spend things where we should be spending things, like on helping poor people, like on building infrastructure, like on dealing with climate disruption and such. He does spend money stupidly, on things like his wall and such. That isn’t a deficit question. That is a stupidity question. We can’t afford to do dumb things with real resources. When we create his wall, we absolutely waste resources and that’s a dumb thing that we should stop.
Marc Steiner: When you look at this, and Alex let me bring you in here. I mean when you look at this, what he just did here, increasing military spending by just 0.3% to $740.5 billion, while lowering the non-defense budget by 5% to $590 billion. The interesting part here to me is that when he does this and makes this horrible slashing of things, is that, and we’ll get into that in a moment, is that what we forget about, is that last July we increased the military budget more than it has been since the Vietnam and Korean war. The Democrats signed on to that because they said he wasn’t going to cut social services. He wasn’t going to cut these programs and it wasn’t going to cut social security. But in fact that’s what he’s done. They got hoodwinked into an old budget to increase military spending. Now they’re stuck with this new budget. I mean, there’s a history of why this is happening this way as well, that I think is important to remember. Give us your perception of this.
Alex Lawson: I think that the president’s budget, which is a statement of his values, is really clear. It’s pandering to defense contractors and Wall Street billionaires. It has, it basically decimates Medicaid, almost $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid, the largest provider of longterm care in this country. It cuts tens of billions of dollars out of Social Security, around three quarters of $1 trillion out of Medicare. The list of programs that have cuts that would be existential, goes on and on. Those are all aimed at satisfying his two criteria or two-pronged criteria. They have to be both stupid and cruel. Though, it has to be cruel in that it really hurts people.
Marc Steiner: Right.
Alex Lawson: But it has to be stupid because supposedly it has something to do with the deficit. But all of these cuts are penny wise, pound foolish. They would actually cost way more money in the long run or in social securities case, have absolutely nothing to do with the deficit. What we’re looking at is why the congressional Democrats ever bargain in good faith with the congressional Republicans is beyond me. But I wouldn’t say that the president’s budget is separate from that conversation in many respects. But it definitely shows you exactly where the Republican Party’s vision is. It’s why Donald Trump goes out of his way to lie about what he actually proposes. In the days before releasing it, he says he’s not going to cut Social Security and Medicare as you noted. But he does exactly that.
Marc Steiner: This is what he had to say at Davos.
Speaker 7: Entitlements ever be on your plate?
Donald Trump: At some point they will be. It’ll be toward the end of the year. The growth is going to be incredible, and at the right time we will take a look at that. You know that’s actually the easiest of all things, if you look because it’s such a [crosstalk 00:08:53].
Speaker 7: But you’re willing to do some of the things that you said you wouldn’t do in the past though in terms of Medicare.
Donald Trump: We’re got to look. We also have assets that we never had. I mean we never had growth like-
Marc Steiner: Such a disingenuous human being at best. I mean, when we say that the … That just cues me, ask you both this question is what you just said Alex, but when we say that what happened last July, I mean it seems to me in many ways the Democrats were, some of them, a lot of most progressive Democrats were complicit in this because they thought they had a deal, that will give you all this money for the military, which they shouldn’t have done the first place, many people would argue, as long as you don’t cut this. I mean, they were set up and now we are facing, this battle is going to take place in the midst of an election, where I could see them shutting down government, other things happening to battle over this budget. I mean this budget is going to play out in 2020, which is going to be a very tense and tight election. Who wants to go? Bill, you want to jump in this first and go to Alex?
Bill Black: Okay, so first it’s of course a reminder of why appeasement strategies when you’re dealing with dishonest, awful, evil people never work. As Churchill said, “The idea is you feed the crocodile other people, hoping that you know that he’ll get too full and won’t eat you at the end of the process.” Well guess what? He’ll get around to you eventually in these circumstances. So yes, the whole Biden thing about I can work with people is just a soccer strategy in these circumstances when people aren’t honest that you’re bargaining with. Then they take what you give the first time and they take the second time. They do. From their view, you’re not reasonable. You’re a chump, and they love to take advantage of chumps. Second point, this is a political gift to Democrats if they take it.
Marc Steiner: If they take it.
Bill Black: If they take it, right, and then run with it because this is horrific stuff, absolutely indefensible. The Democrats need to be talking about this every day. But the third thing is it really displays Trump’s true base, right? The base that the people usually talk about are the faces at his MAGA rallies, right? They’re the faces of people who are typically don’t have all that much money, all that much education, and they’re screaming, ranting and raving. That is a base and it’s critical to his ability to win elections. But the real base of Donald Trump is the absolute sleaziest CEOs in the world, primarily Americans, but not exclusively Americans. That’s why the tax cut was his top priority, and why the tax cut was unbelievably weighted towards the wealthiest people. There’s an interesting Pew study of the really, really rich people, and they’re different than normal people. The deficits really, supposedly drive them crazy.
But what really, really drive them crazy is the idea of anybody poor getting money, right? They hate the entitlement programs and such. They in particular, they hate Medicaid because that goes to poorer people and food stamps because that goes to poorer people and such. Therefore, it is no coincidence they, after first doing the massive payoff to that base, the kleptocratic wealthy, Trump is then following through with their greatest desires, which is a combination of screwing the poor but also taking all the protections away, like the EPA. So, it’s no surprise that he’s absolutely destroying the ability of the EPA, not just now, but for all time, is his goal, to protect the public.
Marc Steiner: When you saw that the EPA and Alex, when you talked about the EPA, they cut the EPA by 26.5%, Health and Human Services by 9%, education 8%, interior 13.4%, so he can drill more oil wherever he wants to. House and Urban Development goes down by 15.2%. State Department and AID gets slashed to the bone with 22%. What’s the response to this and what happens to Social Security, which you spend your life working on, your work working on? What is the political response?
Alex Lawson: I think that there is a key player in this who is incredibly important and also incredibly dishonest. That’s the corporate media. I actually will say that many Democrats take the fact that Donald Trump is targeting Social Security and Medicare so squarely, and he needs seniors to win elections. Republicans need seniors to win elections, and his policies are disastrous for seniors. But if the media is just telling, repeating Donald Trump’s lies, then the people will not know actually what he’s doing. This is not theoretical. Donald Trump tweeted, my budget is not going to cut Social Security and Medicare, basically. He just stated that, and he released a budget that decimates those programs and the AP reported it in the headline and in the tweet as his budget basically left Social Security and Medicare alone. In the story it details the cuts, but you do a quick new search right now, and guess what they actually copied as it went around the country? The headline.
It seems like the media is reporting basically, press releases, except now Donald Trump just tweets them directly to them. Instead of taking five minutes to look at the tables in the back and actually tell the American people what Donald Trump is actually doing. So, without independent media voices getting the truth out there, unfortunately too many of the American people don’t actually know that Donald Trump is literally right now, in implementing a Social Security rule alongside his budget, alongside the Medicaid block granting, reaching his hand into our pockets and stealing our earned benefits, all for the benefit of his billionaire paymasters on Wall Street, who want the money. They’re greedy. They want the money. But I also agree with Bill that there is a bit of a sadism and it as well. They actually want these policies to be cruel. The cruelty is part of the point of them.
Marc Steiner: So just quickly, Alex talk a bit about exactly what he’s done to Social Security and Medicare.
Alex Lawson: In the assault on both Social Security and Medicare is actually on multiple fronts and Medicaid as well. Medicaid is the largest provider of longterm care in this country. For millions of Americans it actually doesn’t matter. For a senior in a nursing home, they don’t care if it’s Medicaid paying for it or if it’s Medicare or which piece the different program covers. Medicaid covers this. Medicare covers that. If you cut $1 trillion out of Medicaid and then you, a senior gets thrown out of their nursing home, they don’t care if it’s one program or the other. It’s the totality of the attacks on the entire system. With Social Security, you’re seeing a bunch of different ways of going at it.
The union-busting inside to decimate the workforce, at the same time as continually slashing the budget, which is what we see in the budget, as well as restricting … They actually put in new rules, which we know exactly what they do because Ronald Reagan also put them in, and it’s to create a bureaucracy that’s so complex that people can’t access their benefits and they lose them. People who are currently have the benefits lose those. It’s a full-fledged assault on our Social Security system. Medicaid, it’s just a total destruction of it. Medicare, they’re trying to cut it to the bone and actually transfer people from the traditional Medicare side over to what are called Medicare Advantage, which are just private insurance companies. So, across the entire system, what you see is a push to move people from systems that work, into systems that profit a tiny sliver of billionaires on Wall Street.
If they can’t prioritize something like Social Security, if they don’t think that’s politically feasible, they just try to destroy the system, so that people lose faith in it, and actually will allow a political change that cuts benefits or decimates the system even further.
Marc Steiner: I’m going to conclude with this. I mean, it’s when you even look at the Wall Street Journal, they wrote about this today saying that the proposals cut $4.4 Trillion over a decade. $2 trillion come from mandatory spending programs, but they can ramp up the money, almost $1.5 trillion over the next two years to push up the Pentagon and build the wall and do the rest. In those customers, people forget is also Veterans Administration’s inside those cuts. What is the political response? Let’s talk a bit about that just before we have to close. Bill, I’ll let you start. I mean because this is, the Democrats seem to me often stumble over themselves, at least the establishment does to respond and not respond, a lot of these things just to go when they’ve been given a golden age to talk to the American people with.
Bill Black: Right, Right now there is no real democratic leader. You could see during some of the impeachment stuff, when you actually had someone who had a leadership position and an opportunity to think strategically and think about how to make a presentation to the public. They’re actually not as horrific as they usually are when you see them in these five minute increments at hearings, where it’s often farcical. This is something that the billionaires and millionaires, instead of the ads that they’re doing can really hammer on if they want to be useful. They can go through and present those tables that he was just talking about and show, Hey, he said, there are no cuts here. This is where the cuts actually are, and here’s what Medicaid is and this is what it’s going to be your life. But not just tables. Do what Trump did with that ad in the Superbowl. One black woman-
Marc Steiner: Oh yes, that ad.
Bill Black: [crosstalk 00:19:57] type of thing. We as human beings, we respond to narrative, to stories, to empathy about individuals. Think of it that way. Think of the, there are literally millions of people, actually there are literally tens of millions of people that will suffer really severe harm. Tell the stories.
Marc Steiner: Bill, that is so critical what you just said to learn that lesson. Alex, a very quick thought before we finish.
Alex Lawson: I just would say that if you want to see, I think really perfect messaging on this, if you look at the ads that Bernie Sanders was running in Iowa, right at the end of Iowa, that we’re teeing up Trump on Social Security and Medicare, and counter posing Bernie Sanders, decades-long championing of these programs, not just defending from cuts but working to expand the programs against Donald Trump’s attacks on these programs. That is a political message that wins and is breaking through, and is easy for the American people to see whose side, which politician is on. Donald Trump wants to cut your Social Security. Bernie Sanders wants to expand your social security. That kind of messaging breaks through.
Bill Black: I also want to see ads with US soldiers, and the aid that is critical to them as well, a counterpunch to their gut.
Marc Steiner: Absolutely. Well, let’s say that they listened to us. Alex Lawson, Bill Black. Thank you both so much. We’ll pick up on this together again soon. Appreciate your time.
Bill Black: Thank you.
Alex Lawson: Thanks.
Marc Steiner: Folks, we will stay on this. Our future’s at stake. I’m Marc Steiner for the Real News Network. Thank you for joining us. Take care.
Economic Update: Capitalism’s Uneven Development
Partner Content Provided By:Economic Update with Richard Wolff
February 13, 2020
This week’s episode of Economic Update features an introductory discussion by Professor Wolff on the heavy social costs which flow capitalism's systematically uneven economic development.
"The views expressed in third party content do not necessarily reflect those of The Real News Network or its editors."
Partner Content Provided By:Economic Update with Richard Wolff
February 13, 2020
This week’s episode of Economic Update features an introductory discussion by Professor Wolff on the heavy social costs which flow capitalism's systematically uneven economic development.
"The views expressed in third party content do not necessarily reflect those of The Real News Network or its editors."
FREE JULIAN ASSANGE VIDEO'S
United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture on the Julian Assange Case
Partner Content Provided By:AcTVism
February 12, 2020
In this speech, Nils Melzer, a United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and Professor of international law at the University of Glasgow, talks about the case of Julian Assange. This speech was recorded on the 4th of February, 2020 at the Royal National Hotel in London in a public rally organized by the Don't Extradite Assange Campaign.
"The views expressed in third party content do not necessarily reflect those of The Real News Network or its editors.
Tariq Ali Speaks Out on Assange’s Case and US Wars
Partner Content Provided By:AcTVism
February 18, 2020In this Feb. 4 speech at a public event for Julian Assange at the Royal National Hotel in London, author, writer, filmmaker, and public intellectual Tariq Ali speaks about Julian Assange's extradition case.
"The views expressed in third party content do not necessarily reflect those of The Real News Network or its editors."
Human Rights Lawyer Jennifer Robinson on the Dangers of Extraditing Julian Assange
Partner Content Provided By:AcTVism
February 20, 2020
Human rights lawyer and barrister for Assange's legal team Jennifer Robinson highlights the dangers that Julian Assange's extradition poses to press freedom worldwide.
"The views expressed in third party content do not necessarily reflect those of The Real News Network or its editors."
Advent-led consortium to spend 'billions' on expanding Thyssenkrupp Elevator
BERLIN (Reuters) - The consortium that won the bid to acquire Thyssenkrupp’s elevators division wants to spend billions of euros on expanding the business, a manager at one of three partners said in remarks published on Sunday.
“The is no shortage of money for a global expansion,” Ranjan Sen, managing partner with private equity firm Advent told the Handelsblatt business daily. “This could by all means amount to single-digit billions.”
Thyssenkrupp said on Thursday it had agreed to sell its elevators division to a consortium of Advent, Cinven and Germany’s RAG foundation for 17.2 billion euros ($18.96 billion).
Thyssenkrupp said it would reinvest about 1.25 billion euros to take a stake in the unit.
By far the German conglomerate’s most profitable business, Thyssenkrupp Elevator is the world’s fourth-largest lift manufacturer behind United Technologies Corp’s Otis, Switzerland’s Schindler and Finnish rival Kone.
BERLIN (Reuters) - The consortium that won the bid to acquire Thyssenkrupp’s elevators division wants to spend billions of euros on expanding the business, a manager at one of three partners said in remarks published on Sunday.
“The is no shortage of money for a global expansion,” Ranjan Sen, managing partner with private equity firm Advent told the Handelsblatt business daily. “This could by all means amount to single-digit billions.”
Thyssenkrupp said on Thursday it had agreed to sell its elevators division to a consortium of Advent, Cinven and Germany’s RAG foundation for 17.2 billion euros ($18.96 billion).
Thyssenkrupp said it would reinvest about 1.25 billion euros to take a stake in the unit.
By far the German conglomerate’s most profitable business, Thyssenkrupp Elevator is the world’s fourth-largest lift manufacturer behind United Technologies Corp’s Otis, Switzerland’s Schindler and Finnish rival Kone.
Paris' Louvre Museum closed as staff walk out over coronavirus
People line up at the Louvre Museum as the staff closed the museum during a staff meeting about the coronavirus outbreak, in Paris, France, March 1, 2020. REUTERS/Gonzalo Fuentes
PARIS (Reuters) - Tourists and art lovers were unable to visit the Louvre in Paris on Sunday as workers staged a walkout at the world’s most-visited museum after a staff meeting about the coronavirus outbreak.
Long lines of disgruntled tourists snaked outside the museum on Sunday morning as management held a staff meeting about the outbreak to reassure workers that the risk was contained.
But the home of Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa and the Venus de Milo sculpture remained closed afterward. Workers refused to return to work after the meeting failed to reassure them, BFM TV said.
“Despite talks with management and the staff doctor, the Louvre Museum was unable to open in the absence of sufficient personnel,” a spokeswoman for the museum said after the meeting.
She added that there would be another meeting on Monday, but it was unclear when the Louvre would reopen.
Museums are not covered by a ban on large public gatherings announced by the government on Saturday as it tries to contain the coronavirus spread in France.
Authorities said that until further notice public gatherings in confined spaces with more than 5,000 people should be canceled.
As of Saturday evening, France had 100 confirmed cases of the illness.
Because of the ban, the annual Paris farm show closed a day early on Saturday. A half-marathon that was expected to draw more than 40,000 runners on Sunday in the capital was called off although several hundred determined athletes did run anyway.
Exclusive: Norway wealth fund could blacklist four major climate culprits
Gwladys Fouche
OSLO (Reuters) - Norway’s $1 trillion wealth fund will exclude four companies for their vast emissions of greenhouse gases, or at least put them on probation to force them to change, the chairman of its ethics watchdog told Reuters.
FILE PHOTO: A general view of the Norwegian central bank in Oslo, Norway March 6, 2018. REUTERS/Gwladys Fouche/File Photo
The fund’s ethics body is, separately, opening a new front, said Johan H. Andresen: investigating whether technology companies’ tools are being used for “improper surveillance”, with their makers held to account regardless of their intent.
The world’s largest sovereign wealth, which has massive market influence because it owns 1.5% of the world’s listed shares, operates under ethical guidelines set by parliament.
Andresen, chairman of the fund’s Council on Ethics, said it had recommended the fund divest shares in the four polluters, after probing the oil, steel and concrete industries. The four companies were “worst in class” compared with peers in the same sectors but also compared with other sectors, he said.
The Norwegian central bank, which manages the fund, should make announcements about the firms imminently, the 58-year-old added. Companies to be excluded are not named until the fund has sold the shares, to avoid the stock falling in value beforehand.
“All of them were recommendations to exclude because we felt it was needed: they were cases that stood out,” Andresen said in an interview ahead of the publication of the council’s annual report on Sunday.
The central bank typically follows the council’s recommendations to censure companies but sometimes, rather than immediately excluding them, it puts them on a watch list to give them a set period of time to come up with a plan to significantly change their behavior, or face exclusion.
CARBON, NUKES, TOBACCO
The fund is forbidden by parliament from investing in companies that produce nuclear weapons, landmines, or tobacco, or violate human rights, among other criteria.
Emissions became a criterion for exclusion in 2016. In 2017 the Council on Ethics recommended a handful of companies be excluded but, since then, work had been suspended while the central bank asked for clarification from the finance ministry about the interpretation of the criterion. This has now happened, enabling the council to proceed.
To avoid blacklisting, companies should have a plan showing how they intend to adapt to climate change, with specifics crucial, Andresen said.
“We will look at speed, time, capital spend dedicated,” he added. “We want to see if they are walking the walk.”
A fifth company will now be assessed by the central bank for possible exclusion for using too much coal in its activities, Andresen said.
1984: BIG BROTHER’S WATCHING YOU
The council is also investigating a new area for possible human rights violations - whether tech products are used for “improper surveillance”.
“We are not looking at intent but whether the products of companies are being used improperly,” he said. “Artificial intelligence can be used to find cancer but it can be used for other things ... We are looking for documentation as to whether companies know what their products are used for.”
Andresen, who also owns private investment vehicle Ferd, said he expected the fund to announce possible exclusion decisions in this area this year as the council had already concluded investigations in “several cases”.
“We are looking at the sharper end, where the norm violations are the most visible and where it is easier to establish the facts,” he added. “George Orwell’s 1984 is, to some extent, here. These are scary developments.”
Andresen said he also expected a decision to be published this year about a company that causes severe environmental damage, as well as several companies in the textile industry for labor condition violations that breached human rights.
Some 65 companies have been excluded by the fund, on various grounds, on recommendations from the Council on Ethics. Another 68 companies have been excluded directly by the central bank based on their dependence on coal.
The fund, created from the proceeds of Norway’s oil industry, gradually sells shares in any company it wishes to drop. The main aim is to remove the ethical risk.
Gwladys Fouche
OSLO (Reuters) - Norway’s $1 trillion wealth fund will exclude four companies for their vast emissions of greenhouse gases, or at least put them on probation to force them to change, the chairman of its ethics watchdog told Reuters.
The fund’s ethics body is, separately, opening a new front, said Johan H. Andresen: investigating whether technology companies’ tools are being used for “improper surveillance”, with their makers held to account regardless of their intent.
The world’s largest sovereign wealth, which has massive market influence because it owns 1.5% of the world’s listed shares, operates under ethical guidelines set by parliament.
Andresen, chairman of the fund’s Council on Ethics, said it had recommended the fund divest shares in the four polluters, after probing the oil, steel and concrete industries. The four companies were “worst in class” compared with peers in the same sectors but also compared with other sectors, he said.
The Norwegian central bank, which manages the fund, should make announcements about the firms imminently, the 58-year-old added. Companies to be excluded are not named until the fund has sold the shares, to avoid the stock falling in value beforehand.
“All of them were recommendations to exclude because we felt it was needed: they were cases that stood out,” Andresen said in an interview ahead of the publication of the council’s annual report on Sunday.
The central bank typically follows the council’s recommendations to censure companies but sometimes, rather than immediately excluding them, it puts them on a watch list to give them a set period of time to come up with a plan to significantly change their behavior, or face exclusion.
CARBON, NUKES, TOBACCO
The fund is forbidden by parliament from investing in companies that produce nuclear weapons, landmines, or tobacco, or violate human rights, among other criteria.
Emissions became a criterion for exclusion in 2016. In 2017 the Council on Ethics recommended a handful of companies be excluded but, since then, work had been suspended while the central bank asked for clarification from the finance ministry about the interpretation of the criterion. This has now happened, enabling the council to proceed.
To avoid blacklisting, companies should have a plan showing how they intend to adapt to climate change, with specifics crucial, Andresen said.
“We will look at speed, time, capital spend dedicated,” he added. “We want to see if they are walking the walk.”
A fifth company will now be assessed by the central bank for possible exclusion for using too much coal in its activities, Andresen said.
1984: BIG BROTHER’S WATCHING YOU
The council is also investigating a new area for possible human rights violations - whether tech products are used for “improper surveillance”.
“We are not looking at intent but whether the products of companies are being used improperly,” he said. “Artificial intelligence can be used to find cancer but it can be used for other things ... We are looking for documentation as to whether companies know what their products are used for.”
Andresen, who also owns private investment vehicle Ferd, said he expected the fund to announce possible exclusion decisions in this area this year as the council had already concluded investigations in “several cases”.
“We are looking at the sharper end, where the norm violations are the most visible and where it is easier to establish the facts,” he added. “George Orwell’s 1984 is, to some extent, here. These are scary developments.”
Andresen said he also expected a decision to be published this year about a company that causes severe environmental damage, as well as several companies in the textile industry for labor condition violations that breached human rights.
Some 65 companies have been excluded by the fund, on various grounds, on recommendations from the Council on Ethics. Another 68 companies have been excluded directly by the central bank based on their dependence on coal.
The fund, created from the proceeds of Norway’s oil industry, gradually sells shares in any company it wishes to drop. The main aim is to remove the ethical risk.
Sailor dies aboard oil tanker moored off Venezuela: sources
(Reuters) - A sailor aboard an oil tanker anchored off Venezuela’s coast died on Saturday, three people with knowledge of the incident said, marking the second death in less than a week involving personnel aboard ships serving the crisis-stricken OPEC nation.
Juan Carlos Navarrete, a 58-year-old Cuban national serving as a helmsman aboard the Petion Panamax tanker, died after falling overboard while the tanker was anchored in Amuay Bay in western Venezuela, one of the sources, union leader Ivan Freites, said on Sunday.
Neither Venezuela’s state oil company PDVSA, nor its oil or information ministries, immediately responded to requests for comment.
Both the Petion and its operator, Cyprus-registered Caroil Transport Marine Ltd, were hit with sanctions by the United States last September for transporting Venezuelan oil to Cuba. Washington has imposed sanctions on PDVSA as part of its bid to oust socialist President Nicolas Maduro, who Cuba supports.
Freites said that since the sanctions, tankers transporting oil between Venezuela and Cuba frequently turn off their lights at night and switch off their location transmission systems to avoid detection, putting the safety of the crew at risk.
“They do these maneuvers without the necessary security conditions,” Freites said. “They are not complying with anything.”
Despite the sanctions, the Petion has taken several trips between Cuba and Venezuela in the past three months, Refinitiv Eikon data showed. It was scheduled to depart for Cuba in late February, according to Venezuelan port documents seen by Reuters, but the data show it has remained near Amuay.
Caroil Transport could not immediately be reached for comment.
Armed assailants killed the captain of the San Ramon oil tanker last Monday after boarding the ship while it was anchored off the Jose terminal in eastern Venezuela.
(Reuters) - A sailor aboard an oil tanker anchored off Venezuela’s coast died on Saturday, three people with knowledge of the incident said, marking the second death in less than a week involving personnel aboard ships serving the crisis-stricken OPEC nation.
Juan Carlos Navarrete, a 58-year-old Cuban national serving as a helmsman aboard the Petion Panamax tanker, died after falling overboard while the tanker was anchored in Amuay Bay in western Venezuela, one of the sources, union leader Ivan Freites, said on Sunday.
Neither Venezuela’s state oil company PDVSA, nor its oil or information ministries, immediately responded to requests for comment.
Both the Petion and its operator, Cyprus-registered Caroil Transport Marine Ltd, were hit with sanctions by the United States last September for transporting Venezuelan oil to Cuba. Washington has imposed sanctions on PDVSA as part of its bid to oust socialist President Nicolas Maduro, who Cuba supports.
Freites said that since the sanctions, tankers transporting oil between Venezuela and Cuba frequently turn off their lights at night and switch off their location transmission systems to avoid detection, putting the safety of the crew at risk.
“They do these maneuvers without the necessary security conditions,” Freites said. “They are not complying with anything.”
Despite the sanctions, the Petion has taken several trips between Cuba and Venezuela in the past three months, Refinitiv Eikon data showed. It was scheduled to depart for Cuba in late February, according to Venezuelan port documents seen by Reuters, but the data show it has remained near Amuay.
Caroil Transport could not immediately be reached for comment.
Armed assailants killed the captain of the San Ramon oil tanker last Monday after boarding the ship while it was anchored off the Jose terminal in eastern Venezuela.
Argentine president to send abortion legalization law to Congress
Nicolás Misculin
SANTIAGO (Reuters) - Argentine President Alberto Fernandez announced on Sunday that he will send to Congress a bill to legalize abortion, an initiative that has broad social support but is also strongly opposed by religious groups in Pope Francis’ home nation.
FILE PHOTO: The image of a green ribbon is projected on the side of the National Congress as activists hold green handkerchiefs, symbolizing the abortion rights movement, during a rally to legalize abortion, in Buenos Aires, Argentina February 19, 2020. REUTERS/Agustin Marcarian
The center-left Peronist president, who took office in December, will also capitalize on his strong electoral mandate to reform the judiciary and Argentina’s intelligence services, he told Congress in a speech to open the body’s ordinary sessions.
Fernandez was accompanied by a crowd waving the flags of his “Frente de Todos” coalition and presented to the house by his vice president and the senate head, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner.
The president said the legislative measures would help him keep his promise to fight poverty, which in Argentina blights almost 40% of the population following years of recession and high inflation.
“Within the next 10 days I will present a bill for voluntary termination of pregnancy that legalizes abortion at the start of pregnancy and allows women to access the health system when they make the decision to abort,” Fernandez said to loud applause.
The initiative, promoted for years by an increasingly powerful feminist movement in Argentina, will be accompanied by a sexual education and pregnancy prevention drive, according to the Fernandez government.
Current Argentine law only permits abortions in cases of rape, or if the mother’s health is at risk. A previous bill to legalize abortion up to 14 weeks was passed by the lower house but rejected by the senate after a campaign by the country’s powerful Roman Catholic Church.
Fernandez has also pledged to bolster investment in hydrocarbons production and kick start economic growth.
Successfully renegotiating the repayment terms of some $100 billion of public debt, which the government has said is unpayable in its present condition, will be key to achieving the latter goal.
Fernández hopes to close an agreement with private creditors brokered by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) by the end of this month.
“The most important thing is that the agreement we reach with the creditors is sustainable,” he told Argentine legislators.
On Monday, a new round of dialogues will begin with IMF officials and private creditors.
Nicolás Misculin
SANTIAGO (Reuters) - Argentine President Alberto Fernandez announced on Sunday that he will send to Congress a bill to legalize abortion, an initiative that has broad social support but is also strongly opposed by religious groups in Pope Francis’ home nation.
FILE PHOTO: The image of a green ribbon is projected on the side of the National Congress as activists hold green handkerchiefs, symbolizing the abortion rights movement, during a rally to legalize abortion, in Buenos Aires, Argentina February 19, 2020. REUTERS/Agustin Marcarian
The center-left Peronist president, who took office in December, will also capitalize on his strong electoral mandate to reform the judiciary and Argentina’s intelligence services, he told Congress in a speech to open the body’s ordinary sessions.
Fernandez was accompanied by a crowd waving the flags of his “Frente de Todos” coalition and presented to the house by his vice president and the senate head, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner.
The president said the legislative measures would help him keep his promise to fight poverty, which in Argentina blights almost 40% of the population following years of recession and high inflation.
“Within the next 10 days I will present a bill for voluntary termination of pregnancy that legalizes abortion at the start of pregnancy and allows women to access the health system when they make the decision to abort,” Fernandez said to loud applause.
The initiative, promoted for years by an increasingly powerful feminist movement in Argentina, will be accompanied by a sexual education and pregnancy prevention drive, according to the Fernandez government.
Current Argentine law only permits abortions in cases of rape, or if the mother’s health is at risk. A previous bill to legalize abortion up to 14 weeks was passed by the lower house but rejected by the senate after a campaign by the country’s powerful Roman Catholic Church.
Fernandez has also pledged to bolster investment in hydrocarbons production and kick start economic growth.
Successfully renegotiating the repayment terms of some $100 billion of public debt, which the government has said is unpayable in its present condition, will be key to achieving the latter goal.
Fernández hopes to close an agreement with private creditors brokered by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) by the end of this month.
“The most important thing is that the agreement we reach with the creditors is sustainable,” he told Argentine legislators.
On Monday, a new round of dialogues will begin with IMF officials and private creditors.
Study casting doubt on Bolivian election fraud triggers controversy
Aislinn Laing
SANTIAGO (Reuters) - A study by Massachusetts Institute of Technology experts that called into question the alleged election fraud that drove Bolivian President Evo Morales to resign has triggered sniping between left and right-leaning governments in Latin America.
The analysis by two researchers in MIT’s Election Data and Science Lab, made public last week, stated that an Organization of American States (OAS) finding that fraud helped Morales win was flawed and concluded that it was “very likely” the socialist president won the October vote by the 10 percentage points needed to avoid a runoff.
The OAS in a statement on Friday dismissed the MIT study as “unscientific.”
Bolivia will run a fresh election in May. The MIT study prompted Morales, who fled Bolivia first to Mexico and then to Argentina, to call on Sunday for the “democratic” international community to steward the upcoming election carefully.
“The coup-mongerers intend to disqualify our candidates,” Morales wrote on Twitter.
The OAS report cited several violations in the October election including a hidden computer server designed to tilt the vote toward Morales, who served as Bolivia’s president for 14 years. Morales resigned amid violence in Bolivia in the aftermath of the election fraud allegations, declaring he was the victim of a “coup.”
Morales has said he will return to Bolivia, but has been charged by the caretaker government with sedition and blocked from running as a candidate for senator.
Leaders of a number of left-leaning Latin American countries supportive of Morales have weighed in since the release of the MIT report, with Mexico asking the OAS to clarify its findings.
Venezuela’s socialist President Nicolas Maduro reiterated his claim that the OAS is a tool of the United States, posting on Twitter on Sunday that the MIT study was “more proof that the Ministry of the Colonies (OAS) threatens the will of the free peoples of the continent.”
Argentine President Alberto Fernandez said the report’s findings justified his continued support for Morales.
“We demand the prompt democratization of Bolivia, with the full participation of the Bolivian people and without prescriptions of any kind,” Fernandez wrote on Twitter.
Conservative leaders in Latin America backed the OAS.
Ernesto Araujo, Brazil’s foreign minister, said fraud in Bolivia’s election had been “crystal clear”.
Tuto Quiroga, a former Bolivian president who is running in the upcoming election, called the MIT study a “rehash of old lies.” Quiroga pointed out that Morales had himself asked the OAS to review the October election, called a fresh vote after the OAS report on the matter and dismissed members of the country’s electoral board.
MIT did not respond to a request for comment.
Recession, record violence hit support for Mexico president: poll
MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Record levels of violence and an economic slump are taking an increasing toll on support for Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, an opinion poll showed on Sunday.
The Feb. 20-26 survey of 1,000 Mexican adults by pollster Buendia & Laredo showed the president’s approval rating had slipped to 62% from 67% in late November. In February 2019, backing for the veteran leftist stood at 85%, the poll said.
“Bit by bit, the economy and security are starting to cut through more,” said Jorge Buendia, head of the polling firm.
Lopez Obrador took office in December 2018 promising to bring down record levels of gang-fueled violence and to ramp up economic growth. Instead, he presided over a mild recession last year, and was unable to stop homicides rising to new heights.
Holding daily news conferences at 7 a.m., the 66-year-old has been adept at shaping the political agenda, blaming Mexico’s problems on the legacy of corruption and “neo-liberal” privatizations he says he inherited from previous governments.
But his response to a slew of brutal murders in recent weeks, including one of a 7-year-old girl and another of a young woman mutilated by her partner, has been less surefooted, sparking protests and helping galvanize opposition to him.
The survey suggested that confidence in the government was lower than in the president. Some 40% of respondents said the country was on the wrong track, up from 29% in November, while 49% took the opposite view, down from 57% in the previous poll.
That net positive balance of opinion of 9 percentage points represented a sharp decrease from the survey’s positive balance of 56 points one year earlier.
Launching attack after attack on what he describes as his “conservative” opponents, Lopez Obrador has admitted to polarizing Mexico. The latest survey suggested that divisions in society have widened as his popularity frays.
Support for the president among Mexicans with lower levels of education has held up far better, the poll showed.
In August 2019, Lopez Obrador had a 70% approval rating among respondents with only primary education, a 73% rating among those attaining only secondary levels of education, and 68% among Mexicans who had university degrees or better.
By February, the approval rating among the first two groups was only slightly lower, standing at 69% and 67% respectively. But support among the university-educated had plunged to 43%.
MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Record levels of violence and an economic slump are taking an increasing toll on support for Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, an opinion poll showed on Sunday.
The Feb. 20-26 survey of 1,000 Mexican adults by pollster Buendia & Laredo showed the president’s approval rating had slipped to 62% from 67% in late November. In February 2019, backing for the veteran leftist stood at 85%, the poll said.
“Bit by bit, the economy and security are starting to cut through more,” said Jorge Buendia, head of the polling firm.
Lopez Obrador took office in December 2018 promising to bring down record levels of gang-fueled violence and to ramp up economic growth. Instead, he presided over a mild recession last year, and was unable to stop homicides rising to new heights.
Holding daily news conferences at 7 a.m., the 66-year-old has been adept at shaping the political agenda, blaming Mexico’s problems on the legacy of corruption and “neo-liberal” privatizations he says he inherited from previous governments.
But his response to a slew of brutal murders in recent weeks, including one of a 7-year-old girl and another of a young woman mutilated by her partner, has been less surefooted, sparking protests and helping galvanize opposition to him.
The survey suggested that confidence in the government was lower than in the president. Some 40% of respondents said the country was on the wrong track, up from 29% in November, while 49% took the opposite view, down from 57% in the previous poll.
That net positive balance of opinion of 9 percentage points represented a sharp decrease from the survey’s positive balance of 56 points one year earlier.
Launching attack after attack on what he describes as his “conservative” opponents, Lopez Obrador has admitted to polarizing Mexico. The latest survey suggested that divisions in society have widened as his popularity frays.
Support for the president among Mexicans with lower levels of education has held up far better, the poll showed.
In August 2019, Lopez Obrador had a 70% approval rating among respondents with only primary education, a 73% rating among those attaining only secondary levels of education, and 68% among Mexicans who had university degrees or better.
By February, the approval rating among the first two groups was only slightly lower, standing at 69% and 67% respectively. But support among the university-educated had plunged to 43%.
Nicaraguan poet and priest who criticized president dies at 95
FILE PHOTO: Nicaraguan poet and priest and Reina Sofia Prize winner, Ernesto Cardenal, speaks during a celebration for his 90th birthday at the National Theatre Ruben Dario in Managua, Nicaragua January 27, 2015. REUTERS/Oswaldo Rivas/File Photo
MANAGUA (Reuters) - Nicaraguan poet and priest Ernesto Cardenal died on Sunday at the age of 95 in Managua due to heart and kidney problems, a close relative said.
Cardenal, a strong critic of Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, was suspended by the Catholic Church for more than three decades due to his political activism.
Diaspora has big role as Somalia rebuilds economy, global ties: finance minister
Andrea Shalal
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Somalia’s 2-million strong diaspora has a huge role to play as the Horn of Africa country rebuilds its economy and resets ties with major international institutions after three decades as a “failed state,” Somalia’s finance minister said.
FILE PHOTO: A general view shows traffic along the road in Dhusamareb,
Andrea Shalal
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Somalia’s 2-million strong diaspora has a huge role to play as the Horn of Africa country rebuilds its economy and resets ties with major international institutions after three decades as a “failed state,” Somalia’s finance minister said.
FILE PHOTO: A general view shows traffic along the road in Dhusamareb,
administrative capital of Galmudug state, in central Somalia December 23, 2019.
REUTERS/Feisal Omar/File Photo
Long saddled with $5.3 billion in debt, Somalia is in the process of inking debt forgiveness deals with the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and other big institutions after nearly three decades of clan warfare, famine and sporadic terror attacks by al Qaeda-linked militant group al Shabaab.
Somali Finance Minister Abdirahman Duale Beileh, a longtime member of the diaspora himself, will finalize a debt forgiveness agreement on Monday with the African Development Bank in Abidjan, another milestone as Somalia normalizes ties with the rest of the world.
He signed the first of several such deals with the World Bank on Thursday in Washington, paving the way for Mogadishu to receive deeper and broader financial and technical support, and expects the IMF to follow suit later this month.
“It’s a historic moment,” Abdirahman told Reuters in an interview on Friday. “I’m really happy I get to participate in the renaissance, the rebirth of Somalia.”
On March 31, Somalia officials will meet with Paris Club creditors, with non-Paris Club creditors to attend as well.
He said he hoped the creditors would agree to cancel about 75% or 80% of Somalia’s debt, with the remainder to be repaid on strict and closely supervised terms over the next few years.
Those agreements will pave the way for Somalia to receive grants and concessional financing to build new water and energy infrastructure, fund education and expand fisheries and other potential sources of revenue, Abdirahman said.
But he said he is also relying on help from Somalis living in the United States, Canada and elsewhere, who contribute about $2 billion or 40% of Somalia’s gross domestic product in remittances each year, to shore up trust in the government, invest in businesses and move the country forward.
“We need a big perception change, a big cultural shift,” he said, noting that 75% of Somalis were under 30 years old and had no memory of more normal times before 1991. “It is totally a shift of paradigm, a shift of attitude.”
Educated and working in the West, he said he was counting on diasporan Somalis to change the attitudes of their clansmen back home, and support a range of reconstruction projects. Women also had a huge role in rebuilding the economy, he said.
To guide its work, Somalia is now building a database of potential donors and investors among diasporan Somalis.
Abdirahman, who also holds a U.S. passport, plans to do his own outreach during a visit to one of the biggest communities in Minneapolis in May.
“You can’t imagine the feeling of being reclassified from a failed state to a normal country,” he said. “To be classified as a normal country is a blessing for us.”
Long saddled with $5.3 billion in debt, Somalia is in the process of inking debt forgiveness deals with the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and other big institutions after nearly three decades of clan warfare, famine and sporadic terror attacks by al Qaeda-linked militant group al Shabaab.
Somali Finance Minister Abdirahman Duale Beileh, a longtime member of the diaspora himself, will finalize a debt forgiveness agreement on Monday with the African Development Bank in Abidjan, another milestone as Somalia normalizes ties with the rest of the world.
He signed the first of several such deals with the World Bank on Thursday in Washington, paving the way for Mogadishu to receive deeper and broader financial and technical support, and expects the IMF to follow suit later this month.
“It’s a historic moment,” Abdirahman told Reuters in an interview on Friday. “I’m really happy I get to participate in the renaissance, the rebirth of Somalia.”
On March 31, Somalia officials will meet with Paris Club creditors, with non-Paris Club creditors to attend as well.
He said he hoped the creditors would agree to cancel about 75% or 80% of Somalia’s debt, with the remainder to be repaid on strict and closely supervised terms over the next few years.
Those agreements will pave the way for Somalia to receive grants and concessional financing to build new water and energy infrastructure, fund education and expand fisheries and other potential sources of revenue, Abdirahman said.
But he said he is also relying on help from Somalis living in the United States, Canada and elsewhere, who contribute about $2 billion or 40% of Somalia’s gross domestic product in remittances each year, to shore up trust in the government, invest in businesses and move the country forward.
“We need a big perception change, a big cultural shift,” he said, noting that 75% of Somalis were under 30 years old and had no memory of more normal times before 1991. “It is totally a shift of paradigm, a shift of attitude.”
Educated and working in the West, he said he was counting on diasporan Somalis to change the attitudes of their clansmen back home, and support a range of reconstruction projects. Women also had a huge role in rebuilding the economy, he said.
To guide its work, Somalia is now building a database of potential donors and investors among diasporan Somalis.
Abdirahman, who also holds a U.S. passport, plans to do his own outreach during a visit to one of the biggest communities in Minneapolis in May.
“You can’t imagine the feeling of being reclassified from a failed state to a normal country,” he said. “To be classified as a normal country is a blessing for us.”
Canada and indigenous group reach tentative deal in dispute that led to road, rail blockades
Steve Scherer
BUSINESS NEWS
MARCH 1, 2020 / 2:13 PM
OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canadian authorities on Sunday reached a tentative deal with an indigenous group in the Pacific province of British Columbia that could end solidarity protests across Canada that have been blocking rail lines and roads for weeks.
FILE PHOTO: Supporters of the indigenous Wet'suwet'en Nation's hereditary chiefs block the Pat Bay highway as part of protests against the Coastal GasLink pipeline, in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada February 26, 2020. REUTERS/Kevin Light/File Photo
Activists have disrupted passenger and freight traffic to show solidarity with the Wet’suwet’en people, who are seeking to stop TC Energy Corp’s (TRP.TO) Coastal GasLink pipeline from being built across their land.
After three days of talks in which work on the pipeline had been stopped, Indigenous affairs ministers from British Columbia and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government said they reached an agreement that would address future land rights disputes, but said pipeline construction would continue.
After the deal was announced, Coastal GasLink President David Pfeiffer said construction would be restarted on Monday.
The agreement will now be reviewed by the Wet’suwet’en people, British Columbia’s Indigenous Relations Minister Scott Fraser said in a Facebook live stream from the town of Smithers.
That consultations should take about two weeks, Wet’suwet’en hereditary leader Chief Woos said.
The agreement will “create certainty and clarity for the Wet’suwet’en and all British Columbians,” Fraser said, without providing details.
“They are permitted and allowed to go to work,” Fraser said when asked about whether laborers building TC Energy’s GasLink pipeline would be allowed to continue construction.
The proposed agreement includes establishing a permanent table to address legacy land rights and title issues, a senior federal government source said.
Carolyn Bennett, the federal minister of crown-indigenous relations, called the agreement a “milestone” in indigenous relations. Bennett declined to reveal any of the deal’s details, saying the Wet’suwet’en people should “see it first”.
Police in the eastern province of Ontario cleared protesters from a major Canadian National Railway Co (CNR.TO) line on Monday, allowing some shipments to resume.
Trudeau, who says improving relations with aboriginal groups is a priority, called for dialogue. But tensions built quickly as the blockades led to railroad layoffs and shortages of goods like propane and as business groups warned of further economic damage.
At least one rail line in Quebec, south of Montreal, remains blocked as some indigenous protesters were holding out.
Transport Minister Marc Garneau said last week that the effects of the disruptions would be felt for weeks and months to come.
Reporting by Steve Scherer; Editing by Grant McCool and Daniel Wallis
FILE PHOTO: Supporters of the indigenous Wet'suwet'en Nation's hereditary chiefs block the Pat Bay highway as part of protests against the Coastal GasLink pipeline, in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada February 26, 2020. REUTERS/Kevin Light/File Photo
Activists have disrupted passenger and freight traffic to show solidarity with the Wet’suwet’en people, who are seeking to stop TC Energy Corp’s (TRP.TO) Coastal GasLink pipeline from being built across their land.
After three days of talks in which work on the pipeline had been stopped, Indigenous affairs ministers from British Columbia and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government said they reached an agreement that would address future land rights disputes, but said pipeline construction would continue.
After the deal was announced, Coastal GasLink President David Pfeiffer said construction would be restarted on Monday.
The agreement will now be reviewed by the Wet’suwet’en people, British Columbia’s Indigenous Relations Minister Scott Fraser said in a Facebook live stream from the town of Smithers.
That consultations should take about two weeks, Wet’suwet’en hereditary leader Chief Woos said.
The agreement will “create certainty and clarity for the Wet’suwet’en and all British Columbians,” Fraser said, without providing details.
“They are permitted and allowed to go to work,” Fraser said when asked about whether laborers building TC Energy’s GasLink pipeline would be allowed to continue construction.
The proposed agreement includes establishing a permanent table to address legacy land rights and title issues, a senior federal government source said.
Carolyn Bennett, the federal minister of crown-indigenous relations, called the agreement a “milestone” in indigenous relations. Bennett declined to reveal any of the deal’s details, saying the Wet’suwet’en people should “see it first”.
Police in the eastern province of Ontario cleared protesters from a major Canadian National Railway Co (CNR.TO) line on Monday, allowing some shipments to resume.
Trudeau, who says improving relations with aboriginal groups is a priority, called for dialogue. But tensions built quickly as the blockades led to railroad layoffs and shortages of goods like propane and as business groups warned of further economic damage.
At least one rail line in Quebec, south of Montreal, remains blocked as some indigenous protesters were holding out.
Transport Minister Marc Garneau said last week that the effects of the disruptions would be felt for weeks and months to come.
Reporting by Steve Scherer; Editing by Grant McCool and Daniel Wallis
U.S. investigating whistleblower allegations; vows to keep federal workers safe
Andrea Shalal
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government on Sunday said it was investigating complaints that federal workers were not given proper protective gear and training before greeting U.S. citizens evacuated from a cruise ship that had 691 people infected with the new coronavirus.
U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Alex Azar told CBS’s “Face the Nation” he was personally involved in the probe, and the government was determined to make sure its workers were kept safe.
Azar told CBS it had been 14 days since any HHS worker had contact with the evacuees from the Diamond Princess cruise ship, and none had contracted the disease.
About 70 cases have been reported in the United States, including 47 cases among people repatriated from the Chinese city of Wuhan, the supposed epicenter of the outbreak, or from the Diamond Princess cruise ship quarantined in Japan.
“Even if these allegations proved to be true, there was no spreading of the disease from this,” he said, adding that the department had offered to test any HHS employees involved if they wanted what he called “that extra piece of mind.”
Speaking on “Fox News Sunday,” Azar said the government would not allow any retaliation against the HHS worker who first raised concerns about the issue or other employees.
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal and Representative Jimmie Gomez, a Democrat from California, last week asked the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office to provide answers within a week about reports that HHS had retaliated against the whistleblower in question.
In a separate letter to Azar, the lawmakers said the whistleblower alleged that “staff were sent into quarantined areas ‘without personal protective equipment, training, or experience in managing public health emergencies, safety protocols, and the potential danger to both themselves and members of the public they come into contact with.’”
They said the whistleblower also reported that when staff raised safety concerns, they were “admonished ... for decreasing staff morale, accused of not being team players, and had their mental health and emotional stability questioned.’”
On Sunday, Azar declined to provide details on whether the whistleblower had been reassigned to a different position, saying it would be inappropriate to discuss personnel matters.
“Nobody would ever be reassigned or discriminated against or prejudiced or retaliated against because of raising concerns about the functioning of the department,” Azar said. “If our employees raise concerns about our processes, if something proves not to be right, we are grateful.”
Andrea Shalal
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government on Sunday said it was investigating complaints that federal workers were not given proper protective gear and training before greeting U.S. citizens evacuated from a cruise ship that had 691 people infected with the new coronavirus.
U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Alex Azar told CBS’s “Face the Nation” he was personally involved in the probe, and the government was determined to make sure its workers were kept safe.
Azar told CBS it had been 14 days since any HHS worker had contact with the evacuees from the Diamond Princess cruise ship, and none had contracted the disease.
About 70 cases have been reported in the United States, including 47 cases among people repatriated from the Chinese city of Wuhan, the supposed epicenter of the outbreak, or from the Diamond Princess cruise ship quarantined in Japan.
“Even if these allegations proved to be true, there was no spreading of the disease from this,” he said, adding that the department had offered to test any HHS employees involved if they wanted what he called “that extra piece of mind.”
Speaking on “Fox News Sunday,” Azar said the government would not allow any retaliation against the HHS worker who first raised concerns about the issue or other employees.
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal and Representative Jimmie Gomez, a Democrat from California, last week asked the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office to provide answers within a week about reports that HHS had retaliated against the whistleblower in question.
In a separate letter to Azar, the lawmakers said the whistleblower alleged that “staff were sent into quarantined areas ‘without personal protective equipment, training, or experience in managing public health emergencies, safety protocols, and the potential danger to both themselves and members of the public they come into contact with.’”
They said the whistleblower also reported that when staff raised safety concerns, they were “admonished ... for decreasing staff morale, accused of not being team players, and had their mental health and emotional stability questioned.’”
On Sunday, Azar declined to provide details on whether the whistleblower had been reassigned to a different position, saying it would be inappropriate to discuss personnel matters.
“Nobody would ever be reassigned or discriminated against or prejudiced or retaliated against because of raising concerns about the functioning of the department,” Azar said. “If our employees raise concerns about our processes, if something proves not to be right, we are grateful.”
Black Democrats turn their backs on Bloomberg at church before Super Tuesday votes
Joseph Ax, Trevor Hunnicutt
SELMA, Ala. (Reuters) - Joe Biden, fresh off a victory in South Carolina propelled by black voters, on Sunday commemorated a landmark civil rights march in Alabama, where some worshippers at an African-American church turned their backs on his rival Michael Bloomberg.
Biden and the others competing for the Democratic nomination to challenge Republican President Donald Trump in November hit the campaign trail before Super Tuesday nominating contests in 14 states including Alabama. Biden, whose win in Saturday’s South Carolina primary galvanized his campaign, and the current front-runner, Bernie Sanders, traded jabs on Sunday news shows.
Bloomberg, a former New York mayor, received a chilly reception at the historic Brown Chapel AME Church in Selma after pastor Reverend Leodis Strong told the gathering the billionaire businessman initially had turned down the invitation to speak.
“I was hurt, I was disappointed,” Strong said as Bloomberg looked on stonily. “I think it’s important that he came, and it shows a willingness on his part to change.”
About 10 people stood up and turned their backs on Bloomberg as he spoke about racial inequality. Black voters are a key constituency of the Democratic Party.
“I think it’s just an insult for him to come here. It’s the disrespect for the legacy of this place,” Lisa Brown, who traveled to Selma from Los Angeles, told Reuters later. She said the idea to protest Bloomberg’s remarks had circulated but she stood as an individual, not an organized group.
The quiet protest suggests Bloomberg may have an uphill climb with some African-American voters, who have supported Biden in large numbers and carried him to a resounding victory in South Carolina.
Biden and Bloomberg are trying to present themselves as the party’s best choice to take on Trump, arguing that Sanders is too far to the left to win the general election.
Black attendees stand and turn their backs on Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg as he talks about his plans to help the U.S. black community during remarks at commemoration ceremonies for the 55th anniversary of the "Bloody Sunday" march in the Brown Chapel AME church in Selma, Alabama, U.S., March 1, 2020. REUTERS/Joseph Ax
At church in Selma, the vice president to the country’s first African American president, Barack Obama, was clearly the favorite. Biden was seated in a place of honor with the pastor, facing the pews where Bloomberg sat, and got a glowing introduction from U.S. Representative Terri Sewell, a black Alabama lawmaker who supports him.
“Most importantly, he has earned the right to be in this pulpit and to address you now,” Sewell said.
Democratic contenders Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar sat on folding chairs at the margins of the church audience. The pastor yelled at Tom Steyer, who dropped out of the race after finishing third in South Carolina, to sit down. “This is a house of God, this is not a political rally,” he chided.
The candidates were in Selma to mark the 55th anniversary of “Bloody Sunday,” when civil rights marchers were beaten by state troopers and local police while crossing a bridge in Selma.
Bloomberg skipped the first four state nominating contests including South Carolina but has blanketed the nation with about $500 million in advertising and will be on the ballot for the first time on Tuesday, when the biggest prizes are California and Texas.
He has made a concerted effort to reach out to black voters, including apologies for overseeing an increase in the use of a police practice called “stop and frisk” in New York City that disproportionately affected black and other racial minority residents. A federal judge found the practice was an unconstitutional form of racial profiling.
A Reuters/Ipsos poll of registered Democrats and independents, conducted Feb. 19-25, showed Bloomberg garnering the support of 20% of black voters, third among the Democratic candidates behind Sanders (26%) and Biden (23%).
At least five Super Tuesday states - Alabama, North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas and Virginia - have big blocs of African-American voters.
‘NOT A SOCIALIST’
Biden won overwhelmingly in South Carolina, drawing 48% of the votes cast compared to 20% for Sanders. Edison Research exit polls showed Biden with 61% of African-American support there to Sanders’ 17%.
Slideshow (10 Images)
The victory led the former vice president to assert himself as a viable moderate alternative to Sanders, an independent U.S. senator from Vermont and self-described democratic socialist.
Sanders’ calls for a political revolution have rattled a Democratic Party establishment worried he is too far to the left to beat Trump.
“I think the Democratic Party is looking for a Democrat - not a socialist, not a former Republican, a Democrat - to be their nominee,” Biden told “Fox News Sunday.”
Biden’s reference to a former Republican appears to have been aimed at Bloomberg, who switched parties.
Sanders attacked Biden for taking contributions from political organizations called Super PACs and billionaires, courting wealthy donors at what he said was the expense of working-class, middle-class and low-income people.
“I don’t go to rich people’s homes like Joe Biden,” Sanders said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”
Biden lags Sanders in fundraising and organization in Super Tuesday states and beyond.
Sanders planned to campaign on Sunday in heavily Democratic California, where he leads opinion polls.
The Sanders campaign announced overnight it had raised $46.5 million from more than 2.2 million donations in February, a huge sum dwarfing what any other Democratic candidate had raised last year in any three-month period.
Biden reported his February haul was $18 million. Warren’s campaign said she raised more than $29 million last month.
Bloomberg, meanwhile, continues to spend. He purchased three minutes of commercial air time during on broadcast networks CBS and NBC on Sunday evening to address the coronavirus outbreak.
Writing by Doina Chiacu; Editing by Will Dunham and Lisa Shumaker
Joseph Ax, Trevor Hunnicutt
SELMA, Ala. (Reuters) - Joe Biden, fresh off a victory in South Carolina propelled by black voters, on Sunday commemorated a landmark civil rights march in Alabama, where some worshippers at an African-American church turned their backs on his rival Michael Bloomberg.
Biden and the others competing for the Democratic nomination to challenge Republican President Donald Trump in November hit the campaign trail before Super Tuesday nominating contests in 14 states including Alabama. Biden, whose win in Saturday’s South Carolina primary galvanized his campaign, and the current front-runner, Bernie Sanders, traded jabs on Sunday news shows.
Bloomberg, a former New York mayor, received a chilly reception at the historic Brown Chapel AME Church in Selma after pastor Reverend Leodis Strong told the gathering the billionaire businessman initially had turned down the invitation to speak.
“I was hurt, I was disappointed,” Strong said as Bloomberg looked on stonily. “I think it’s important that he came, and it shows a willingness on his part to change.”
About 10 people stood up and turned their backs on Bloomberg as he spoke about racial inequality. Black voters are a key constituency of the Democratic Party.
“I think it’s just an insult for him to come here. It’s the disrespect for the legacy of this place,” Lisa Brown, who traveled to Selma from Los Angeles, told Reuters later. She said the idea to protest Bloomberg’s remarks had circulated but she stood as an individual, not an organized group.
The quiet protest suggests Bloomberg may have an uphill climb with some African-American voters, who have supported Biden in large numbers and carried him to a resounding victory in South Carolina.
Biden and Bloomberg are trying to present themselves as the party’s best choice to take on Trump, arguing that Sanders is too far to the left to win the general election.
Black attendees stand and turn their backs on Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg as he talks about his plans to help the U.S. black community during remarks at commemoration ceremonies for the 55th anniversary of the "Bloody Sunday" march in the Brown Chapel AME church in Selma, Alabama, U.S., March 1, 2020. REUTERS/Joseph Ax
At church in Selma, the vice president to the country’s first African American president, Barack Obama, was clearly the favorite. Biden was seated in a place of honor with the pastor, facing the pews where Bloomberg sat, and got a glowing introduction from U.S. Representative Terri Sewell, a black Alabama lawmaker who supports him.
“Most importantly, he has earned the right to be in this pulpit and to address you now,” Sewell said.
Democratic contenders Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar sat on folding chairs at the margins of the church audience. The pastor yelled at Tom Steyer, who dropped out of the race after finishing third in South Carolina, to sit down. “This is a house of God, this is not a political rally,” he chided.
The candidates were in Selma to mark the 55th anniversary of “Bloody Sunday,” when civil rights marchers were beaten by state troopers and local police while crossing a bridge in Selma.
Bloomberg skipped the first four state nominating contests including South Carolina but has blanketed the nation with about $500 million in advertising and will be on the ballot for the first time on Tuesday, when the biggest prizes are California and Texas.
He has made a concerted effort to reach out to black voters, including apologies for overseeing an increase in the use of a police practice called “stop and frisk” in New York City that disproportionately affected black and other racial minority residents. A federal judge found the practice was an unconstitutional form of racial profiling.
A Reuters/Ipsos poll of registered Democrats and independents, conducted Feb. 19-25, showed Bloomberg garnering the support of 20% of black voters, third among the Democratic candidates behind Sanders (26%) and Biden (23%).
At least five Super Tuesday states - Alabama, North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas and Virginia - have big blocs of African-American voters.
‘NOT A SOCIALIST’
Biden won overwhelmingly in South Carolina, drawing 48% of the votes cast compared to 20% for Sanders. Edison Research exit polls showed Biden with 61% of African-American support there to Sanders’ 17%.
Slideshow (10 Images)
The victory led the former vice president to assert himself as a viable moderate alternative to Sanders, an independent U.S. senator from Vermont and self-described democratic socialist.
Sanders’ calls for a political revolution have rattled a Democratic Party establishment worried he is too far to the left to beat Trump.
“I think the Democratic Party is looking for a Democrat - not a socialist, not a former Republican, a Democrat - to be their nominee,” Biden told “Fox News Sunday.”
Biden’s reference to a former Republican appears to have been aimed at Bloomberg, who switched parties.
Sanders attacked Biden for taking contributions from political organizations called Super PACs and billionaires, courting wealthy donors at what he said was the expense of working-class, middle-class and low-income people.
“I don’t go to rich people’s homes like Joe Biden,” Sanders said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”
Biden lags Sanders in fundraising and organization in Super Tuesday states and beyond.
Sanders planned to campaign on Sunday in heavily Democratic California, where he leads opinion polls.
The Sanders campaign announced overnight it had raised $46.5 million from more than 2.2 million donations in February, a huge sum dwarfing what any other Democratic candidate had raised last year in any three-month period.
Biden reported his February haul was $18 million. Warren’s campaign said she raised more than $29 million last month.
Bloomberg, meanwhile, continues to spend. He purchased three minutes of commercial air time during on broadcast networks CBS and NBC on Sunday evening to address the coronavirus outbreak.
Writing by Doina Chiacu; Editing by Will Dunham and Lisa Shumaker
South Africa probes apartheid-era death in police custody
By MOGOMOTSI MAGOME February 3, 2020
FILE — This Aug. 22, 2017 file shows the upper floors of the Johannesburg Central Police Station, formerly known as John Foster Square, in Johannesburg, where medical doctor and former activist Neil Aggett is alleged to have committed suicide while in police custody in 1982. An inquest into the death of Aggett is being held Monday Feb. 3, 2020, where his family and others say they believe he died as result of torture by authorities. (AP Photo/Denis farrell/File)
JOHANNESBURG (AP) — Being hanged upside down until unconsciousness. Daily beatings. Being forced to do strenuous exercises while naked.
These are some of the abuses perpetrated by South Africa’s police when activist Neil Aggett died in custody in 1982, according to witnesses who were jailed at the same time.
The harrowing testimony came at the inquest into the death of Aggett, a medical doctor and union activist, who police at the time said hanged himself. But his family and others say they believe he died as a result of torture by authorities during apartheid, South Africa’s previous and brutal regime of racial discrimination.
Aggett, 28, was held by police for 70 days without charges before he died. Fellow prisoners who saw him said he appeared to have been badly tortured.
“He was struggling to walk. He was bending forward almost like he was unable to pick his body up. It felt like the time I myself had my hands chained against my feet,” said the Rev. Frank Chikane, an anti-apartheid activist who saw Aggett while both were held by police.
“He was slow like a patient, he looked very weak and stressed,” said Chikane.
Chikane, a prominent former anti-apartheid activist, described how he was tortured by police in the same police building, now known as Johannesburg Central Police Station.
“They hanged me head down. They put me on a broom and hanged me with my head facing down until I lost consciousness. I don’t know how long that lasted. By the time I regained consciousness, they took me back to the cell, ” said Chikane.
Another former prisoner, Barbara Hogan, told how a handcuffed Aggett gave her a defiant clenched fist salute as police officers led him through a corridor.
Hogan, who later became a Cabinet minister in South Africa’s post-apartheid government, said she was subjected to daily abuse by police.
According to Hogan, she was handcuffed to a chair and repeatedly slapped in the face, among other punishments. She said had attempted to kill herself to end the abuse.
“I saw no way of getting out of the situation. I had friends who had been tortured badly,” she said.
Hogan said she regretted that a report she had compiled had been intercepted by the apartheid police and led to the arrest of activists including Aggett.
Aggett had been forced to do strenuous exercises while naked, said another former prisoner Maurice Smithers.
Aggett’s family has pursued the case for years.
The inquest into Aggett’s death follows that of Ahmed Timol, an anti-apartheid activist who also died in police detention. That investigation determined that Timol did not die of suicide, as the apartheid regime had said, but had been killed. Former policeman Joao Rodrigues is set to go on trial for Timol’s killing after a South African court last year declined his application for a permanent halt of his prosecution.
At least 67 detainees had died while in the custody of the apartheid government’s secret police, said Jabulani Mlotshwa of the National Prosecuting Authority.
“Those are the ones which we know of. The grim reality is that the count was probably higher,” he said.
Representing the Aggett family, advocate Howard Varney said their aim is to get the 1982 ruling that Aggett killed himself overturned.
The inquest is expected to continue throughout February.
By ANDREW MELDRUM February 5, 2020
JOHANNESBURG (AP) — The dream of an equitable, non-racial South Africa was the driving force of the struggle against apartheid and remains a goal today, those who returned to the grave of an activist who died in police custody 38 years ago said Wednesday.
The memorial for Neil Aggett was held as South Africa begins to re-investigate his death in police custody after battling apartheid, South Africa’s system of racial discrimination that ended in 1994 with all-race elections.
Infuriated by the death of the 28-year-old doctor and trade union activist, an estimated 15,000 people carried his coffin from central Johannesburg to the Westpark cemetery, which in 1982 was for whites only.
A band of 30 people returned to the grave on Wednesday, the anniversary of Aggett’s death, as harrowing descriptions of police torture have emerged from several people jailed at the same time and who saw Aggett in terrible condition. He was held for 70 days without charges.
The initial inquest in 1982 found that Aggett had hanged himself, despite evidence that he had been repeatedly abused by police.
“The testimony of the abuse is difficult to hear, but I hope this new inquest will find that my brother did not kill himself,” said Aggett’s sister, Jill Burger. “That was very traumatic for our family. It is a wound that needs to be healed and the truth about his death will help that.”
She said she hopes the case will “open the doors for more families to come forward and demand the truth about how their loved ones died.”
More than 65 anti-apartheid activists died in police custody during the apartheid era.
“I hope this re-opened inquest will allow others who lost loved ones to get justice,” Burger said. “This will help families find peace at last.”
Fellow prisoner Prema Naidoo, who spoke at the memorial service, said he became emotional when giving testimony but said it was important to remain committed to the goals of the anti-apartheid struggle.
“Our struggle was about non-racialism. It was a struggle about human rights,” Naidoo said. “Those remain our ideals. We want to see the law take its course against those who perpetuated abuse.”
Janine Ward said her brother and father were detained by police during the apartheid years.
“Let the legacy of Neil and so many others not be wasted,” Ward said. “These stories must come out. We must carry on believing in the beautiful South Africa that we must have.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)