Sunday, October 11, 2020

#MAKETHERICHPAY
WFP chief seeks million from donors, billionaires for food

EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press•October 9, 2020



World Food Program (WFP) Executive Director David Beasley speaks to the media about the organization's Nobel Peace Prize win, at the airport in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, late Friday, Oct. 9, 2020. The World Food Program won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for fighting hunger and seeking to end its use as "a weapon of war and conflict" at a time when the coronavirus pandemic has driven millions more people to the brink of starvation. (AP Photo/Sam Mednick)

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Even before COVID-19 became an issue, World Food Program chief David Beasley was warning global leaders that the world would face the worst humanitarian crisis since World War II in 2020.

He said that was because of wars in Syria, Yemen and elsewhere, locust swarms in Africa, frequent natural disasters, and economic crises including in Lebanon, Congo, Sudan and Ethiopia. Then came COVID-19 which quickly became a pandemic that has swept the world, escalating the need for food — and U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres says it is still not under control.

Beasley, who got COVID-19 in April, has spent the months since he recovered reaching out to world leaders and visiting stricken countries with a new warning that he delivered to the U.N. Security Council last month: millions of people are closer to starvation because of the deadly combination of conflict, climate change and the coronavirus pandemic.

He said the WFP and its partners were going all out to reach as many as 138 million people this year — “the biggest scale-up in our history.”

Beasley urged donors, including governments and institutions, to help, and he made a special appeal to the more than 2,000 billionaires in the world, with a combined net worth of $8 trillion, to open their bank accounts.

The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday to the U.N. food agency is a tribute not only to its work in the even greater humanitarian crisis than Beasley envisioned in this COVID-ravaged year, but as the Nobel committee made clear it is a plea for unity and multilateral cooperation to tackle global challenges as WFP has done in a world facing increasing nationalism and populism.

Beasley called the award “a humbling, moving recognition of the work of WFP staff who lay their lives on the line every day to bring food and assistance for close to 100 million hungry children, women and men across the world — people whose lives are often brutally torn apart by instability, insecurity and conflict.”

He also paid tribute to the agency's government, organizations and private sector partners who help the hungry and vulnerable.

“Every one of the 690 million hungry people in the world today has the right to live peacefully and without hunger,” Beasley said in a statement on the WFP website.

“Today, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has turned the global spotlight on them and on the devastating consequences of conflict. Climate shocks and economic pressures have further compounded their plight,” he said. “And now, a global pandemic with its brutal impact on economies and communities, is pushing millions more to the brink of starvation.”

While the food crisis is mainly the result of conflict, Beasley said in April that he raised the prospect of a hunger pandemic because of the economic impact of COVID-19.

He told the Security Council last month that famine has been averted because of generous donations, but “this fight is far, far, far from over — the 270 million people marching toward the brink of starvation need our help today more than ever.”

And he said 30 million people who rely solely on WFP for food to survive will die without it, and WFP needs $4.9 billion to feed them for a year.

“We’re doing just about all we can do to stop the dam from bursting,” Beasley said. “But, without the resources we need, a wave of hunger and famine still threatens to sweep across the globe. And if it does, it will overwhelm nations and communities already weakened by years of conflict and instability.”

WFP’s logistics operation is key to delivering food to tens of millions in need, and lockdowns and closed borders because of the pandemic have created immense difficulties for the agency.

Beasley has stressed that measures to contain the coronavirus must be balanced with the need to keep supply chains and trade moving across borders. And he has repeatedly expressed concern over COVID-19 shutdowns not only impeding the delivery of food but worsening other problems, such as disrupting vaccinations and treatments for other illnesses.

“There is a grave danger that many more people will die from the broader economic and social consequences of COVID-19 that from the virus itself, especially in Africa,” Beasley has said, “and the last thing we need is to have the cure be worse than the disease itself.”





At least 12,000 mink dead as coronavirus spreads among fur farms in Utah and Wisconsin

Harriet Alexander, The Independent•October 9, 2020





Thousands of mink bred in fur farms in Utah and Wisconsin have now died form Covid-19 (AP)

Thousands of mink bred in fur farms in Utah and Wisconsin have died from coronavirus, after scientists believe the virus was introduced to the animals by humans.

The outbreak was first noticed in Utah in August. Ten thousand mink have now died in Utah fur farms, a spokesperson from the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food (UDAF) told CBS News on Friday.

This week Wisconsin, the largest fur-producing state, became the second state to confirm a Covid-19 outbreak among their mink population, with one farm affected so far.

Two thousand mink in the one farm - which is now under quarantine - have died, the channel reported.


Wisconsin’s Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) said that it had implemented new measures for "carcass disposal, cleaning and disinfecting the animal areas, and protecting human and animal health."

On Wednesday a third state, Michigan, confirmed that mink there had tested positive too.
Wisconsin has the largest mink fur farming industry in the United States
Professor Tim Blackburn / UCL

Scientists believe that humans passed the virus to the animals, and not the other way round.

This week researchers from University College London (UCL) concluded that 26 animals, including farm animals like pigs, horses and sheep, may be vulnerable to infection with coronavirus and could “warrant further investigation and possible monitoring”.

Professor Christine Orengo, from UCL Structural and Molecular Biology and lead author of the study, said: “We wanted to look beyond just the animals that had been studied experimentally, to see which animals might be at risk of infection, and would warrant further investigation and possible monitoring.

“The animals we identified may be at risk of outbreaks that could threaten endangered species or harm the livelihood of farmers.”

She pointed towards cases of coronavirus outbreaks in mink farms that show some animals may act as “reservoirs” of Covid-19, with the potential to re-infect humans.

The scale of the outbreak among mink is unclear, as the fur farms say it is impossible to test every single animal.

The Fur Commission USA, which represents mink farmers, say that there are approximately 275 mink farms in 23 states across the county, producing about three million pelts annually, with a value of more than $300m.

Fur from the dead, infected mink is still being used commercially, and Fur Commission USA told the AP that the fur is processed to eliminate all traces of the virus before it is used for clothing.

As with humans, younger mink are less likely to contract the virus, and most deaths occur among older mink, ages one to four years old.

Difficulty breathing is a common symptom, but the virus progresses extremely quickly, killing most infected mink by the next day.

Researchers have reported that mink are especially susceptible to the virus due to a specific protein in their lungs.

The Netherlands has now moved up its deadline to end mink fur farming by three years to prevent future outbreaks, and killed thousands of animals earlier this year to stop the spread. Spain followed a similar path, and last week Denmark announced a million mink will be killed to stop the outbreak among animals there.

The Humane Society of the United States has called the inaction by the US government "indefensible."

"Fur farms are miserable places for wild animals like mink," Kitty Block, president and CEO of the Humane Society of the US.

"Now, with the coronavirus outbreak killing the animals by the thousands, the suffering has only intensified.

"The only way to end the dual problems of pandemic outbreaks on fur farms and the animal suffering inherent in fur farming is to close down this industry for good."

Read more

Scientists test whether coronavirus can be passed from minks to humans

‘Considerable risk’ of humans transmitting Covid-19 to wild animals

Calls to shut down fur trade after mink become infected with Covid-19
TALIBAN AND SEX PISTOL 
ENDORSE TRUMP

John Lydon Doubles Down on Supporting Trump: ‘I’d Be Daft as a Brush Not to’
THE NEW AXIS OF EVIL;
JOHNNY ROTTEN, TALIBAN, TRUMP 

Katrina Nattress, SPIN•October 11, 2020


Click here to read the full article on SPIN.

John Lydon is known for unapologetically championing Trump, and during a recent interview with the Observer he doubled down on his support of the president.

The Sex Pistols and Public Image Ltd frontman cited the economy as the reason why he’ll be voting to re-elect Trump. “I’d be daft as a brush not to,” he said. “He’s the only sensible choice now that Biden is up — he’s incapable of being the man at the helm.”

More from SPIN:
John Lydon Talks Shit to Henry Rollins and Marky Ramone at Punk Doc Event

John Lydon to Voice Mutant Pig in New Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Series


Lydon went on to explain that his support began after the president was accused of being racist. “I’ve been accused of the very same thing, so I’m offended for anybody who’s called that,” he divulged.

For those who need a refresher, the singer and his crew were involved in an altercation with Kele Okereke at 2008’s Summercase festival. The Bloc Party vocalist asked Lydon if he’d consider getting Public Image Ltd back together, and he allegedly responded by going on a racist tirade that included the statement “your problem is your black attitude” and physically assaulting Okereke.

Mogwai’s Stuart Braithwaite witnessed the attack and called out Lydon via Twitter after the interview was published. “John Lydon’s entourage attacked @keleokereke and used racist language,” he wrote. “We were there. That he uses that incident as his reason to support Trump is extremely telling. What a disappointing man.”

John Lydon’s entourage attacked @keleokereke and used racist language. We were there. That he uses that incident as his reason to support Trump is extremely telling. What a disappointing man. https://t.co/P1g7U9tiph
— stuart braithwaite (@plasmatron) October 11, 2020

Lydon denied the allegations at the time, and told the Observer he was “shocked” to be called racist.

When asked about George Floyd’s death, the punk legend said “There’s not anyone I know anywhere that wouldn’t say that wasn’t ghastly.”

“It doesn’t mean all police are nasty or all white folk are racist. Because all lives matter,” he added.

When it was pointed out to him that some consider the “all lives matter” motto to diminish Black Lives Matter, Lydon reiterated his stance. “Of course I’m anti-racism,” he said before adding that he won’t be controlled by political groups or movements.



The Taliban on Trump: "We hope he will win the election"


Sami Yousafzai, CBS News•October 10, 2020


Editor's Note: A statement in this article was incorrectly attributed to Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid. It was told to CBS News by another senior Taliban leader. CBS News has corrected that attribution and added additional statements from the interview with Mujahid.


President Trump's reelection bid received a vote of support Friday from an entity most in his party would reject: the Taliban.

Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told CBS News in a phone interview, "We believe that Trump is going to win the upcoming election because he has proved himself a politician who accomplished all the major promises he had made to American people, although he might have missed some small things, but did accomplish the bigger promises, so it is possible that the U.S. people who experienced deceptions in the past will once again trust Trump for his decisive actions."

Mujahid added, "We think the majority of the American population is tired of instability, economic failures and politicians' lies and will trust again on Trump because Trump is decisive, could control the situation inside the country. Other politicians, including Biden, chant unrealistic slogans. Some other groups, which are smaller in size but are involved in the military business including weapons manufacturing companies' owners and others who somehow get the benefit of war extension, they might be against Trump and support Biden, but their numbers among voters is low."


Another senior Taliban leader told CBS News, "We hope he will win the election and wind up U.S. military presence in Afghanistan."

Trump campaign spokesman Tim Murtaugh said Saturday that they "reject" the Taliban support. "The Taliban should know that the president will always protect American interests by any means necessary," Murtaugh said.

The Taliban's enthusiasm for Mr. Trump is grounded in the goal they share of getting U.S. troops out of Afghanistan after 19 years of war — a longtime promise of the president.

There are now fewer than 5,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and national security adviser Robert O'Brien has said that number would drop to 2,500 by early next year.

The Trump administration signed a historic pact with the Taliban in February in which the U.S. and its allies set a timetable for U.S. troops to withdraw by the spring of 2021. The pact requires the Taliban to break from al Qaeda and negotiate a power-sharing deal with Afghan government rivals.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo reiterated last month, after meeting with Taliban co-founder and political deputy Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar in Doha, that the U.S. was set for a full withdrawal from Afghanistan by April or May of 2021.

The Obama administration was unsuccessful in its attempts to broker a similar diplomatic deal. Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden told "Face the Nation" in February that the U.S. should draw down but also keep a residual force of "several thousand people to make sure we have a place from which we can operate" should al Qaeda or ISIS gain capacity to strike the U.S.

This week, President Trump said all troops should be "home by Christmas," although it is unclear if that is actually expected to happen or if he was simply reiterating his position on wanting to bring troops home.

"We should have the small remaining number of our BRAVE Men and Women serving in Afghanistan home by Christmas," he tweeted.

That timeline is at odds with the advice of U.S. military commanders, who do not believe it is safe to reduce troop levels below 4,500 unless the Taliban breaks with al Qaeda and reduces the level of violence. It is also unclear how it will affect peace talks between the Afghan government and Taliban negotiators in Qatar.

Civilians continue to be caught up in ongoing violence in Afghanistan, many in Taliban attacks. From January 1 to June 30 this year, the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) documented 2,176 civilian injuries and 1,282 civilian deaths due to the conflict.

The Taliban also noted it thinks highly of Mr. Trump's "America first" creed.

"It is the slogan of Trump from the start that they are not cops for the world and don't want a single flag and anthem for the globe, but their priority is America," Mujahid said. "When there is no interference by U.S. in other countries, we believe they are facing fewer threats compared to their aggressive position. Trump has a concrete policy in this regard and it is better for America."

The senior member of the Taliban praised the president's honesty. "Honestly, Trump was much more honest with us than we thought, even we were stunned with his offer to meet Taliban in Camp David."

In 2019, President Trump disclosed that he had invited the Taliban for peace talks at Camp David — days before the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He said he canceled the plans after the Taliban killed a U.S. soldier.

The senior Taliban member told CBS News, "Trump might be ridiculous for the rest of the world, but he is sane and wise man for the Taliban."

The senior leader also expressed concern about Mr. Trump's bout with the coronavirus: "When we heard about Trump being COVID-19 positive, we got worried for his health, but seems he is getting better."

Contributing: Margaret Brennan, David Martin, Haley Ott and Nicole Sganga

'We reject their support': Trump campaign strongly declines Taliban endorsement for his 2020 reelection


David Choi, Business Insider•October 10, 2020
President Donald Trump. Getty

A representative of the Taliban said the group supports President Donald Trump's reelection on Friday, according to CBS News.

"When we heard about Trump being COVID-19 positive, we got worried for his health, but seems he is getting better," a senior leader reportedly said.

Tim Murtaugh, the campaign director for Trump's reelection, told Insider he rejected the group's endorsement.

A representative of the Taliban said the group supports President Donald Trump's reelection on Friday, according to CBS News.

"We hope he will win the election and wind up US military presence in Afghanistan," Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid told the news organization.

Mujahid reportedly added that it approved of the Trump campaign's "America first" slogan. Trump has mentioned the phrase in numerous speeches throughout his presidency and campaign.

"It is the slogan of Trump from the start that they are not cops for the world and don't want a single flag and anthem for the globe, but their priority is America," Mujahid said to CBS News.

Another senior leader from the group said he grew concerned after the US president tested positive for the coronavirus earlier this month.

"When we heard about Trump being COVID-19 positive, we got worried for his health, but seems he is getting better," the senior leader told CBS News.

A senior Taliban member also reportedly added: "Trump might be ridiculous for the rest of the world, but he is sane and wise man for the Taliban."
Afghan Taliban fighters. AP Photo

Tim Murtaugh, the communications director of Trump's reelection, vehemently rejected the group's statements and ribbed former Vice President Joe Biden's tenure.

"We reject their support and the Taliban should know that the President will always protect American interests by any means necessary, unlike Joe Biden who opposed taking out Osama bin Laden and Qassem Soleimani," Murtaugh said in a statement to Insider.

The statements from the terrorist organization comes as Trump announced on Wednesday that he wanted to completely pull all US troops from Afghanistan by the holiday season.

"We should have the small remaining number of our BRAVE Men and Women serving in Afghanistan home by Christmas," Trump tweeted.

It is unclear exactly how many US forces remain in the country; however, US Central Command, the military command responsible for the region, previously said it expected around 4,500 troops in Afghanistan by November.

Following Trump's tweet, Mujahid described the move as "a very positive step," according to The Washington Post.

US military officials were caught off-guard by Trump's Twitter announcement, which has been a prevailing sentiment throughout his presidency. Republican lawmakers and former military leaders have also expressed frustration at the timeframe of the withdrawal, leading many to speculate that the terrorist group would surge once the US withdraws.

Meanwhile, peace talks between the Afghan government and Taliban remain ongoing. In February, the US signed a peace deal that included steps for it to withdraw all forces from the country in exchange for security assurances. But the efficacy of the peace agreement has been called into question, due to continued violence against Afghan forces by the Taliban.

Taliban denies endorsing Donald Trump


Emily Goddard, The Independent•October 11, 2020
Donald Trump takes his mask off before speaking from the South Portico of the White House in Washington, DC during a rally on 10 October (AFP via Getty Images)

The Taliban has denied endorsing Donald Trump after reports emerged claiming the Afghan militant group had said it hoped the US president would be re-elected.

Zabihullah Mujahid, a spokesperson for the Taliban, was reported to have supported Mr Trump’s bid to remain in the White House and expressed concern over his health.

CBS News quoted Zabihullah Mujahid to have said during a phone interview: “We hope he will win the election and wind up US military presence in Afghanistan.”

The American news outlet also said another Taliban senior leader told them: “When we heard about Trump being Covid-19 positive, we got worried for his health, but seems he is getting better.”- 

In response, Trump campaign spokesperson Tim Murtaugh said they “reject” the Taliban support, adding: “The Taliban should know that the president will always protect American interests by any means necessary.”

But the Taliban also appeared to reject the comments as Mr Mujahid published a “clarification” on Sunday, saying CBS “misinterpreted and misrepresented my words”.

“US news outlet @CBSNews has interpreted and published my remarks incorrectly. Nothing of the sort has been communicated as publicised by them,” he wrote on Twitter.

Mr Trump announced in a tweet on Thursday that he wants to bring US troops serving in Afghanistan home by Christmas.

Such a move to withdraw the remaining 5,000 troops and ending 19 years of US military presence in the country would likely be claimed as a victory by the Taliban.

The US deal with the Taliban had scheduled the withdrawal of troops by May 2021, subject to certain security guarantees.

Mr Trump said the US was “dealing very well with the Taliban” after Taliban and Afghan government peace negotiators held their first formal meeting to end two decades of war in September.

Read more

Taliban expands influence in Afghanistan as US troops withdraw

Taliban welcome Trump tweet promising early troop withdrawal

US troops in Afghanistan to be 'home by Christmas,' Trump tweets

Faith leaders back Biden in sign that evangelical support for Trump is waning

Harriet Sherwood Religion correspondent, The Guardian•October 9, 2020
Photograph: Andrew Harnik/AP

More than 1,600 faith leaders in the US have publicly backed Joe Biden, the Democratic candidate in next month’s presidential election, amid signs that some evangelical voters are turning away from Donald Trump.

The Biden endorsements mainly come from Catholics, evangelicals and mainline Protestants. They include Jerushah Duford, the granddaughter of Billy Graham; Susan Johnson Cook, a former US ambassador for religious freedom; Michael Kinnamon, former general secretary of the National Council of Churches; and Gene Robinson, a former bishop in the Episcopal church.

“This record-breaking group of endorsers shows that President Trump’s lack of kindness and decency is energizing faith communities and will cost him this election,” said Doug Pagitt, executive director of the Christian campaign organisation Vote Common Good, which compiled the endorsements.

The organisation said the announcement represents the largest group of clergy to endorse a Democratic candidate for president in modern history.



Related: Meet the anti-abortion Republicans defecting from Trump and voting Biden this year | Will Samson

“Four years ago, many religious voters decided to look the other way and give Trump a chance, but after witnessing his cruelty and corruption, a growing number of them are turning away from the president.”

In the 2016 election, more than 80% of white evangelicals voted for Trump, with many taking the view that his pledge to make conservative and pro-life appointments to the supreme court outweighed unease about his personal behaviour. White evangelicals make up about a quarter of the US electorate.

But some surveys have suggested an erosion of support for Trump among white evangelicals. A poll conducted last month on behalf of Vote Common Good in five key battleground states found an 11-point swing among evangelical and Catholic voters towards Biden.

In July the Public Religion Research Institute found a seven-point drop in white Christian support for Trump, and a Fox News survey in August showed 28% of white evangelicals backed Biden, compared with 16% who supported Hillary Clinton in 2016.

A group called Pro-life Evangelicals for Biden said that, despite disagreeing with the Democratic candidate’s stance on abortion, “we believe that on balance, Joe Biden’s policies are more consistent with the biblically shaped ethic of life than those of Donald Trump. Therefore … we urge evangelicals to elect Joe Biden as president.”

Biden, a Catholic who has frequently spoken of how his faith has sustained him through challenging times, is hoping to win over undecided Catholic voters with a series of ads broadcast in battleground states.

Some Catholic bishops have issued statements criticising Trump’s policies. Last month, more than 150 Catholic theologians, activists and nuns signed an open letter to Catholic voters urging them to oppose Trump, saying he “flouts core values at the heart of Catholic social teaching”.

Responding to the Christian leaders’ endorsement of Biden, Josh Dickson, faith engagement director of the Democratic candidate’s campaign, said: “The common good values of the Biden-Harris agenda are resonating with voters motivated by faith. We know that Joe Biden and [running mate] Kamala Harris are the clear moral choice in this election. We hope this show of support will encourage other voters of faith to make their values, not party affiliation, their primary voting criteria this year.”

One of those publicly backing Biden, Ronald Sider, president emeritus of Evangelicals for Social Action, said: “I urge everyone, especially evangelicals, to support Joe Biden as president. Poverty, racism, lack of healthcare and climate change are all ‘pro-life’ issues. On those and many other issues, Biden is much closer than Trump to what biblical values demand.”

Belinda Bauman, the author of Brave Souls: Experiencing the Audacious Power of Empathy, said: “In all my years I’ve never publicly endorsed a candidate. But this year is different – very different. This year we don’t just face a political choice, we face a moral one.”

FBI sent a team to 'exploit' Portland protesters' phones

VIOLATING FIRST AND FOURTH AMENDMENTS

Jon Fingas Associate Editor, Engadget•October 10, 2020


Federal law enforcement officials aim at protesters outside a fence during a demonstration against police violence and racial inequality in Portland, Oregon, U.S., July 24, 2020. REUTERS/Caitlin Ochs TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY


Federal agents tend to focus their phone cracking efforts on terrorists, but they appear to have shifted their attention to civil disobedience. NYR Daily has learned that the FBI sent its “Fly Team” counterterrorism unit to Portland in mid-July to conduct the “initial exploitation” of phones and other devices used by people protesting police racism and violence. The email revealing the plan, from now-retired special agent George Chamberlain, also asked for help with the “investigative follow up.”

There’s a concern that the FBI may have been pushing the limits of its device search powers in the process. Fly Team co-creator Raymond Holcomb told NYR that it’s unclear what authority the FBI unit had to search the phones, and whether or not agents had consent or warrants. The Fly Team was formed to tackle counterterrorism with a “different set of tools,” not everyday protesters.

Members of the House Committee on Homeland Security have lately worried that federal agents have held on to seized phones for months.

The FBI declined to comment on the details of the operation, citing the “ongoing nature” of cases like this. It maintained that the Portland activity met “all of our legal requirements,” and that it had “not been focused on peaceful protests.”

Those claims might not be enough to satisfy some critics. Senator Ron Wyden has demanded clarity on FBI and Homeland Security activity in Portland, saying that it would be “outrageous” if Oregon residents faced federal surveillance like phone exploits due solely to their politics. Without transparency, it’s not certain that the FBI or DHS respected protesters’ digital rights.
Ivory Coast opposition rallies against President Ouattara's third term bid

Loucoumane Coulibaly, Reuters•October 10, 2020




Ivory Coast opposition rallies against President Ouattara's third term bid
A supporter of Ivory Coast's opposition coalition parties holds a sign during a stadium rally, in Abidjan

By Loucoumane Coulibaly

ABIDJAN (Reuters) - Thousands of opposition supporters rallied in the Ivory Coast's commercial capital on Saturday to protest against President Alassane Ouattara's plan to seek a third term in the Oct. 31 presidential election.

By early afternoon around 20,000 people had packed a 35,000 capacity stadium in Abidjan, chanting and dancing. Some held banners saying "The people say no to an illegal third term."

Ouattara announced in August that he will seek another term following the sudden death of his handpicked successor.

The constitutional council has cleared him and three other candidates to run, but the opposition says Ouattara is violating the constitution by seeking another term and has called for a civil disobedience campaign.

The 78-year old president, in power for a decade, says a 2016 constitutional change means his two-term limit has been reset.

Over a dozen people have been killed in violent protests, sparking memories of 2010-11, when 3,000 people died in the civil war following a disputed election that Ouattara won. Ivory Coast is the world's top cocoa producing nation.


"My advice to President Ouattara is that Ivorians should sit down to discuss. We want peace. We don't want war," Eve Botti, a supporter of the FPI opposition party, told Reuters at the rally.

Sie Coulibaly, a supporter of former rebel leader Guillaume Soro, whose candidacy was rejected, said he came to the rally to say no to Ouattara's third term. Soro is in exile in France.

The opposition has called for the election to be postponed, but have stopped short of saying they will boycott the poll, while the ruling party has said the election will take place regardless of whether they participate.

Campaigning is expected to start on Oct. 15.

(Editing by Frances Kerry)
International Coalition Backs Embattled Expert on Chinese Foreign-Influence Operations
NR THE VOICE OF THE RIGHT IN AMERIKA

Jimmy Quinn, National Review•October 9, 2020


Nearly 150 China-focused experts and academics signed on to a letter this week expressing their support for Anne-Marie Brady, a professor at New Zealand’s University of Canterbury, whose work on the Chinese Communist Party’s foreign political interference has been the target of a review by the school’s vice chancellor.

The paper that triggered the review is “Holding a Pen in One Hand, Gripping a Gun in the Other,” Brady’s investigation of how China’s People’s Liberation Army has infiltrated civil society and higher education in New Zealand for the purposes of military research. The CCP “is preparing China for what the Chinese leadership believes is an inevitable war,” Brady writes in the paper. “The New Zealand government needs to work with businesses and universities to devise a strategy to prevent the transfer of military-end-use technology to China.” The report asserts that New Zealand universities — including the Victoria University of Wellington, Massey University, and Lincoln University — have partnerships with Huawei, in addition to alleging the participation of academics in Beijing’s Thousand Talents Program.

The University of Canterbury’s vice chancellor, Cheryl de la Ray, ordered a review into the report after Brady presented it to New Zealand’s parliament this past summer. De la Ray put the paper under review because it has “manifest errors of fact and misleading inferences,” Canterbury’s deputy vice chancellor of research Ian Wright told Stuff, the biggest news website in the country. A number of the academics and universities mentioned in the document have denied Brady’s claims.

Brady declined a request for comment, saying that she has been instructed by university administrators not to discuss the inquiry. But the academics who signed onto this week’s letter have defended the integrity of her scholarship and maintained that the accusations against her are baseless. Among them are Adrian Zenz, the researcher who has spurred a public reckoning with the CCP’s drive to eradicate its Uyghur population in Xinjiang, and Clive Hamilton, the Australian professor who wrote a book that brought widespread public attention to Chinese political interference in his country.


Describing the “ground-breaking” nature and “profound impact internationally” of Brady’s work, the letter states:

We, who know this area, can see no manifest errors or misleading inferences based on the evidenced material provided in the report. The paper does not make “inferences.” People who study it may draw some, but that does not mean the paper made them, misleading or otherwise. Since Professor Wright publicly voiced the allegations a group of us peers again went through Professor Brady’s Parliamentary submission. We find in it no basis for the allegations. Some of the links in its comprehensive sourcing have gone stale since she submitted it but those URLs all still work if put into Wayback or archive.today.

We are disappointed to see no prompt follow-up, explanation or clarification of the University’s position concerning the allegations. The impression left by that published report should have been corrected to show that the University did not intend any endorsement of the complaints, nor an approval or acceptance of complaints to the University as the appropriate way to criticise academic work. The silence has been interpreted as collaboration in slander against a very distinguished scholar whose work has been consistently based on sound social scientific methodology.

Brady has previously faced harassment for her work on Chinese influence. Over the past couple of years, she has been the target of break-ins, mail tampering, and theft of banking information, she told the New Zealand Herald in 2019. The reason for this is no secret: Her work on China’s political influence in New Zealand paints the picture of a country whose participation in international organizations, close access to Antarctica, dairy industry, and research on technologies with military applications has made it an enticing target. New Zealand’s value to Beijing is also “as a soft underbelly through which to access Five Eyes intelligence,” she has written of the intelligence partnership that also includes the United States, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom.

Brady’s travails raise further questions about the true level of CCP influence in New Zealand and around the world, and about how people who stand to be embarrassed by their ties to the Chinese regime work quietly to deter dissent. Charles Burton, a senior fellow at the MacDonald Laurier Institute in Canada who was one of the letter’s organizers, called it “unfortunate that this matter is being addressed in a secret university tribunal” without due process or public scrutiny. Burton also says he worries that some human-resources departments could see this situation as an invitation to take similar Beijing-friendly steps going forward.

There’s no evidence that Canterbury undertook its review of Brady’s work at the behest of the Chinese government, which makes the episode even more worrying. After all, when foreigners with an interest in preserving their ties to the CCP suppress scholarship inconvenient to its strategic aims on their own, the regime’s aggressive, malignant foreign policy becomes that much harder to counteract.
More from National Review


China Bullies Foreign Companies into Espousing Its Worldview


The Strange Attempt to Stop a New Book on China’s Global Influence


Senator Josh Hawley Reveals the Nasty Truth Behind Confucius Institutes
Massive 3,500-pound shark spotted off coast of North America

CBS News•October 10, 2020

A 3,500 pound great white shark dubbed Nukumi — meaning "Queen of the Ocean" — has been spotted off the coast of Nova Scotia. The massive 50-year-old shark was tagged and released by Ocearch, a research and exploring team that hopes its latest trip out to sea provides new clues to unravel the mysteries of great whites.

"When you see these big females like that that have scars from decades over their lives and multiple mating cycles, you can really kinda see the story of their life unfolding across all the blotches and healed wounds on their body," team leader Chris Fischer told CBS News' Jeff Glor. "It really hits you differently thank you would think."
A 50-year-old, 3,500-pound shark nicknamed Nukumi, meaning "Queen of the Ocean." 

Tagging Nukumi, one of the largest great white sharks ever seen, was the crowning achievement of Ocearch's month-long trip off the North American coast that had them running from storms for 21 days in the middle of an unprecedented Atlantic hurricane season.
Tagging Nukumi, one of the largest great white sharks ever seen, was the crowning achievement of Ocearch's month-long trip. / Credit: CBS News / Ocearch

At the end, Ocearch was successfully able to sample and release a total of eight great white sharks, including the so-called "Queen of the Ocean."

Fischer explained that tracking Nukumi comes with a "great opportunity" to show the researchers "where the Atlantic Canada white shark gives birth" — something that has never been witnessed before.

Along with gathering more information on their birth, Ocearch's goal is to learn more about the apex predators that keep the ocean in balance.

"If they thrive, the system thrives," Fischer explained. "The white shark is the balance keeper, and the path to abundance goes through them."

Without white sharks in the ocean, fish supplies that humans depend on could be wiped out by overpopulations of seals and squids.

"If we understand their lives, we can help them thrive," he said.
They try to keep each shark out of the water for no more than 15 minutes, during which the animal is sustained by a rush of seawater. / Credit: CBS News / Ocearch

Ocearch's satellite tags allow researchers to track sharks for five years. The practice of tagging involves hooking the shark with a smaller boat, then gliding it onto a large lift, and allowing scientists to take blood samples and attach a tag to the dorsal fin, which they say does not cause pain due to a lack of blood and nerve connections. They try to keep each shark out of the water for no more than 15 minutes, during which the animal is sustained by a rush of seawater.

Fischer defended the team's methods, which have been criticized for being too invasive.

"When you look at the blood data and the stress data, it doesn't indicate that," he said.

He said Ocearch's mission is "orders of magnitude greater" than anything previously done in white shark research, which he claims intimidates the "traditional science community that's using really primitive methods."

"We're studying the biology of the white shark, getting a complete picture of that as well as the ecology of the white shark at the same time," Fischer said.

While sharks around North America are in "much better shape than they were decades ago," Fischer said, the real challenge will be tackling decreasing shark populations worldwide.

"Try to get the white sharks moving in the right direction, start creating awareness, and hope that that impacts the fish stocks, the marine mammal stocks," he said. "I think there, you're lookin' at more like you gotta have a 100-year vision."
Pakistan cleric killed in apparent sectarian attack

Associated Press•October 11, 2020

KARACHI, Pakistan (AP) — Gunmen riding on a motorcycle shot and killed a religious scholar who belongs to a little-known branch of Islam in Pakistan's bustling city of Karachi, police said on Sunday.

The killing of Maulana Adil Khan was immediately condemned and seen as an attempt to trigger sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shiites in the country. Prime Minister Imran Khan termed it “an attempt by India to create sectarian conflict across the country,” though no immediate evidence was given that India was behind the attack.

Khan is the son of late prominent scholar Maulana Saleemullah Khan, who founded the grand seminary, Jamia Farooqia, decades ago. The seminary adheres to the Sunni Muslim teachings of the Deobandi sect, whose scholars have been the target of killings in the past.

Khan held a doctorate in religious studies, received training in his father's seminary and had taught in Malaysia.

Police chief Ghulam Nabi Memon said the cleric and his driver were both killed in the attack Saturday evening, which took place in the middle class neighborhood of Shah Faisal Colony.

Police said that when the cleric’s vehicle stopped in front of a busy shopping area, gunmen opened fire targeting the driver before firing three bullets that struck Khan’s head, neck and chest. The three attackers then fled on the back of a shared motorcycle.

Khan was rushed to a private hospital where he was pronounced dead upon arrival, said the hospital's spokesperson Anjum Rizvi. Police said the driver died before reaching a government hospital.

Pakistan has a history of sectarian enmity between Sunni and Shiite extremists. Attacks by both sides have claimed hundreds of lives, including those of religious scholars.

Counter-terrorism police officer Raja Umar Khitab said the attack appeared to be a “conspiracy to trigger sectarian violence.”

Taking Page From Authoritarians, Trump Turns Power of State Against Political Rivals

David E. Sanger, The New York Times•October 11, 2020
The south side of the White House in Washington, on Saturday, Oct. 10, 2020, as viewed from the Ellipse. (Stefani Reynolds/The New York Times)

President Donald Trump’s order to his secretary of state to declassify thousands of Hillary Clinton’s emails, along with his insistence that his attorney general issue indictments against Barack Obama and Joe Biden, takes his presidency into new territory — until now, occupied by leaders with names like Putin, Xi and Erdogan.

Trump has long demanded — quite publicly, often on Twitter — that his most senior cabinet members use the power of their office to pursue political enemies. But his appeals this week, as he trailed badly in the polls and was desperate to turn the national conversation away from the coronavirus, were so blatant that one had to look to authoritarian nations to make comparisons.

He took a step even Richard Nixon avoided in his most desperate days: openly ordering direct immediate government action against specific opponents, timed to serve his reelection campaign.

“There is essentially no precedent,” said Jack Goldsmith, who led the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel under President George W. Bush and has written extensively on presidential powers. “We have a norm that developed after Watergate that presidents don’t talk about ongoing investigations, much less interfere with them.”


“It is crazy and it is unprecedented,” said Goldsmith, now a professor at Harvard Law School, “but it’s no different from what he has been saying since the beginning of his presidency. The only thing new is that he has moved from talking about it to seeming to order it.”

Trump’s vision of the presidency has always leaned to exercising the absolute powers of the chief executive, a writ-large version of the family business he presided over. “I have an Article II,” he told young adults last year at a Turning Point USA summit, referring to the section of the Constitution that deals with the president’s powers, “where I have the right to do whatever I want as president, but I don’t even talk about that.”

Now he is talking about it, almost daily. He is making it clear that prosecutions, like vaccines for the coronavirus, are useless to him if they come after Nov. 3. He has declared, without evidence, that there is already plenty of proof that Obama, Biden and Clinton, among others, were fueling the charges that his campaign had links to Russia — what he calls “the Russia hoax.” And he has pressured his secretary of state to agree to release more of Clinton’s emails before the election, reprising a yearslong fixation despite having defeated her four years ago.

Presidential historians say there is no case in modern times where the president has so plainly used his powers to take political opponents off the field — or has been so eager to replicate the behavior of strongmen. “In America, our presidents have generally avoided strongman balcony scenes — that’s for other countries with authoritarian systems,” Michael Beschloss, the presidential historian, wrote on Twitter after Trump returned from the hospital where he received COVID-19 treatment and removed his mask, while still considered contagious, as he saluted from the White House balcony.

Long ago, White House officials learned how to avoid questions about whether the president views his powers as fundamentally more constrained than those of the authoritarians he so often casts in admiring terms, including Vladimir Putin of Russia, Xi Jinping of China and Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey. They have something in common: Trump’s State Department has criticized all three for corrupting the justice systems in their countries to pursue political enemies.

Pompeo has always bristled when reporters have asked him to explain what the world should believe when it reads Trump’s most authoritarian-sounding tweets. He answers that what distinguishes the United States is that it is a “rule of law” nation, and then often turns the tables on his questioners, charging that even raising the issue reveals that the reporters are partisans, not journalists, intent on embarrassing Trump and the United States.

But his anger is often wielded as a shield, one that keeps him from publicly grappling with the underlying question: How can Washington take on other authoritarians around the world — especially China, Pompeo’s nemesis — for abusing state power when the president of the United States calls for political prosecutions and politically motivated declassifications?

“We’ve never seen anything like this in an American election campaign,” said R. Nicholas Burns, a former undersecretary of state who is now an informal adviser to Biden. “It reduces our credibility — we look like the countries we condemn for nondemocratic practices before an election.”

“I have worked for nine secretaries of state,” Burns said. “I cannot imagine any of them intervening in an election as blatantly as what we are seeing now. Our tradition is that secretaries of state stay out of elections. If they wanted to release Hillary Clinton’s emails, they could have done it in 2017, 2018 or 2019. It is an abuse of power by Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo.”

Another career diplomat who served as both ambassador to Russia and deputy secretary of state, William J. Burns, said that what Trump had ordered is “exactly the kind of behavior I saw so often in authoritarian regimes in many years as an American diplomat.”

“In dealing with Putin’s Russia or Erdogan’s Turkey, we would have protested and condemned such actions,” he said. “Now it’s our own government that’s engaging in them.

“The result,” said Burns, now the president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “is the hollowing out of our institutions at home and deep corrosion of our image and influence abroad.”

In the current cases, it is unclear whether Trump will get his wish — or whether his loyal appointees will slow-walk his requests. There is some evidence they are already looking for escape hatches.

Pompeo, the administration’s most conspicuous ideologue, Trump’s most vocal loyalist and a lawyer, was clearly taken aback when the president expressed displeasure, saying he was “not happy” that the State Department had not released emails sent through Clinton’s home server.

“You’re running the State Department, you get them out,” the president told Fox Business in an interview this week. “Forget about the fact that they were classified. Let’s go. Maybe Mike Pompeo finally finds them.”

Pompeo, one of his aides said Saturday, was in a box: The complaint about Clinton’s home server was that she was risking exposing classified emails by not using the State Department email system — a system Russia had already infiltrated — yet Trump was demanding that they be released in full. Just days before, he had announced, over Twitter, that he was using his executive power to declassify all of them, without redactions.

“We’ve got the emails,” Pompeo responded on Fox News. “We’re getting them out. We’re going to get all this information out so the American people can see it.”

But he also hinted that many of Clinton’s emails, mostly those that were stored on the State Department’s own system, have already been posted on the agency’s website, after an unusually diligent effort by the department to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests from Trump’s supporters. (They are often heavily redacted — to the point of containing no content — despite the president’s order to the contrary.)

“We’re doing it as fast as we can,” Pompeo told Dana Perino, a Fox News anchor who once served as President Bush’s press secretary. “I certainly think there’ll be more to see before the election.”

Pompeo clearly understands the problem: Even if he makes all of them public, they are unlikely to satisfy the president. Last year, the State Department’s own inspector general found that while Clinton had risked compromising classified information, she did not systematically or deliberately mishandle her emails.

William Barr may face an even greater challenge in satisfying the president. No attorney general since John Mitchell, who served Nixon and brought conspiracy charges against critics of the Vietnam War, bent the Justice Department more in a president’s direction. And Nixon himself, while urging the IRS to audit political opponents, stopped short of publicly calling for individual prosecutions. Yet in February, Barr told ABC News that Trump “has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case.” At the same time, he complained that the president’s tweets about the Justice Department “make it impossible for me to do my job.”

Now, clearly, the president has asked Barr to act in a criminal case — and not in a quiet phone call. Instead, he did it on Twitter and Fox News, expressing his deep disappointment with his second attorney general, for essentially the same reason he fired his first one, Jeff Sessions: insufficient blind loyalty.

His complaint appears to have been driven by Barr’s warning to the White House and other officials that there are likely to be no indictments before the election from the investigation being run by John Durham, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut. Durham is searching for evidence that the inquiry into Russia was a politically motivated effort to undercut his presidency.

Trump says the case is clear-cut. He told Rush Limbaugh, the conservative radio host to whom he gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom during the last State of the Union address, that Durham has had “plenty of time to do it.”

“Unless Bill Barr indicts these people for crimes — the greatest political crime in the history of our country — then we’ll get little satisfaction, unless I win,” Trump said on Fox Business.

“If we don’t win,” he said, “that whole thing is going to be dismissed.”

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

© 2020 The New York Times Company