Tory privatisation is at the heart of the UK's disastrous coronavirus response

George Monbiot

From PPE failures to care home tragedies, this crisis has exposed the pernicious role of corporate power in public policy


Wed 27 May 2020

‘Private monopolies have either failed to meet their contracts, or have provided defective gear to the entire NHS, like the planeload of useless surgical gowns that had to be recalled.’ PPE from Turkey arrives in an RAF plane at Brize Norton in Oxfordshire. Photograph: Steve Parsons/PA

Amid the smog of lies and contradictions, there is one question we should never stop asking: why has the government of the United Kingdom so spectacularly failed to defend people’s lives? Why has “this fortress built by Nature for herself against infection”, as Shakespeare described our islands, succumbed to a greater extent than any other European nation to a foreseeable and containable pandemic?

Part of the answer is that the government knowingly and deliberately stood down crucial parts of its emergency response system. Another part is that, when it did at last seek to mobilise the system, crucial bits of the machine immediately fell off. There is a consistent reason for the multiple, systemic failures the pandemic has exposed: the intrusion of corporate power into public policy. Privatisation, commercialisation, outsourcing and offshoring have severely compromised the UK’s ability to respond to a crisis.

Take, for example, the lethal failures to provide protective clothing, masks and other equipment (PPE) to health workers. A report by the campaigning group We Own It seeks to explain why so many doctors, nurses and other hospital workers have died unnecessarily of Covid-19. It describes a system built around the needs not of health workers or patients, but of corporations and commercial contracts: a system that could scarcely be better designed for failure.

Four layers of commercial contractors, each rich with opportunities for profit-making, stand between doctors and nurses and the equipment they need. These layers are then fragmented into 11 tottering, uncoordinated supply chains, creating an almost perfect formula for chaos. Among the many weak links in these chains are consultancy companies like Deloitte, whose farcical attempts to procure emergency supplies of PPE have been fiercely criticised by both manufacturers and health workers.

At the end of the chains are manufacturing companies, some of which have mysteriously been granted monopolies on the supply of essential equipment. These private monopolies have either failed to meet their contracts, or provided defective gear to the entire NHS, like the 15m protective goggles and the planeload of useless surgical gowns that had to be recalled.

Instead of stockpiling supplies, as emergency preparedness demands, companies in these chains have been using just-in-time production systems, whose purpose is to cut their costs by minimising stocks. Their minimised systems could not be scaled up fast enough to meet the shortfall. Where there should be a smooth, coordinated, accountable programme, there’s opacity, byzantine complexity and total chaos. So much for the efficiencies of privatisation.

The pandemic has also exposed the privatised care system as catastrophically unfit and ill-prepared. In 1993, 95% of care at home was provided publicly by local authorities. Now, almost all of it – and almost all residential care – is provided by private companies. Even before the pandemic, the system was falling apart, as many care companies, unable to balance the needs of their patients with the demands of their shareholders, collapsed, often with disastrous consequences.

Now we discover just how dangerous their commercial imperatives have become, as the drive to make care profitable has created a fragmented, incoherent system, answerable sometimes to offshore owners, that fails to meet basic standards, and employs harassed workers on zero-hour contracts. If there is one thing we have learnt from this pandemic, it’s the need for a publicly owned, publicly run National Care Service – the care equivalent of the NHS.

It could all become much worse, due to another effect of corporate power. A report by the Corporate Europe Observatory shows how law firms are exploring the possibility of suing governments for the measures they have taken to stop the pandemic. Many trade treaties contain a provision called “investor state dispute settlement”. This enables corporations to sue governments in opaque offshore tribunals, for any policies that might affect their “future anticipated profits”.

So when governments, in response to coronavirus, have imposed travel restrictions, or requisitioned hotels, or instructed companies to produce medical equipment or limit the price of drugs, the companies could sue them for the loss of the money they might otherwise have made. When the UK government commandeers private hospitals or the Spanish government prevents evictions by landlords, and stops water and electricity companies from cutting off destitute customers, they could be open to international legal challenge. These measures, which override democracy, have already hampered attempts by many governments, particularly of poorer nations, to protect their people from disasters. They urgently need to be rescinded.

The effectiveness of our health system is also threatened by the trade treaty the UK government hopes to sign with the US. The Conservatives promised in their manifesto that “the NHS is not on the table” in the trade talks. But they have already broken their accompanying promise, “we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards”. Earlier this month, they voted that measure out of the agriculture bill. US companies are aggressively demanding access to the NHS. The talks will be extremely complex and incomprehensible to almost everyone. There will be plenty of opportunities to give them what they want while fooling voters.

Boris Johnson’s central mission, overseen by Dominic Cummings, is to break down all barriers between government and the power of money. It is to allow private interests to intrude into the very heart of government, while marginalising the civil service. This helps to explain why Johnson is so reluctant to let Cummings go. The disasters of the past few weeks hint at the likely results.

• George Monbiot is a Guardian columnist

Hong Kong crisis: riot police flood city as China protests build


Pro-democracy groups gather to protest against national anthem bill


Helen Davidson, and Verna Yu in Hong Kong

Wed 27 May 2020

Thousands of armed police have flooded the streets of Hong Kong in a show of force to prevent protests against a law criminalising ridicule of China’s national anthem.

At lunchtime rallies, police fired pepper bullets into crowds, and arrested at least 180 protesters.

Protests have also been fuelled by growing anger at Beijing’s increasing interference in the semi-autonomous city, with the National People’s Congress expected to rubber-stamp national security laws on Thursday.

Roads around the Legislative Council building (LegCo), where lawmakers have begun a second reading debate on the anthem law, had been blocked off since at least Tuesday, and pedestrian walkways were cordoned off to all except those with work passes. Shops near LegCo were closed.


In the morning rush hour police in riot gear stopped and searched mainly young people outside Hong Kong’s MTR railway stations, and lined walkways as commuters shuffled past, prompting accusations on social media that the city had become “a police state”.

On social media, protest organisers urged people to “be water” and keep moving throughout the city, but acknowledged it would be difficult to stop the anthem debate without high risk of arrest. “But you can at least make a statement,” said one post.

Crowds regrouped from lunchtime in Mong Kok, where people including schoolchildren were detained; in Causeway Bay, where police arrested at least 180 people for unauthorised gatherings; and Central, where officers fired pepper ball rounds to disperse crowds, and repeatedly charged at protesters.

Police said people had put rubbish on the roads and thrown objects at officers.

“Police had no other option and needed to employ minimal force, including pepper balls to prevent the relevant illegal and violent behaviour,” the force said.

The Guardian view on Hong Kong’s future: China’s doublespeak

Read more

The crowds remained, swearing at police and chanting: “Hong Hong independence, it’s the only way.”

“I’ve come for something I care deeply about – ultimately it’s freedom,” said a 40-year-old lawyer who wished to remain anonymous, citing the national security laws, Beijing encroachment, and a recent report clearing police of wrongdoing.


“If we keep quiet, they can get away with it. I don’t think we can change things but need to make sure our voices are heard.”
Xinqi Su 蘇昕琪(@XinqiSu)

Rounds of pepper ball were fired at protesters on D’Aguilar St in Central. pic.twitter.com/NCmgspwI0TMay 27, 2020

Shortly before midday, crowds led by thee former legislator Leung Kwok-hung gathered at Admiralty station, near LegCo, where they were told by police to leave or they would be prosecuted. Shouting back, protesters told the police to “be Hongkongers”.

They chanted: “Human rights are higher than the regime” and “Five demands, not one less”, and demanded the government withdraw the national anthem bill and national security legislation.
Pak Yiu(@pakwayne)

Protesters have now gathered in Hysan Place chanting slogans instead of surrounding legco due to heavy security pic.twitter.com/udjzq7hiT4May 27, 2020


“Of course I need to make my voice heard. They’re forcing this upon us and we can’t fight against them,” said Mrs Lam, a 74-year-old woman.

A 73-year-old woman who gave the surname Cheung said she swam to Hong Kong from China to “escape the dictatorial rule of the CCP [Chinese Communist party]” when she was 15.

“The Communist party is not trustworthy,” she said. “When they say you’re guilty then you’re guilty. Is there still ‘one country, two systems’? Of course we need to fight.”

A district councillor, Roy Tam, said police had pointed pepper spray at him. “Police use force to intimidate people to disperse gatherings,” he said. “Freedom of assembly has gone.”

Elsewhere, protesters gathered in Hysan Place shopping centre shouting slogans, including some calling for independence – a demand previously on the fringe but now growing in popularity.

Police said they had arrested several young people and teenagers for possession of weapons, including petrol bombs. On Facebook police said protesters had thrown barriers on to rail lines, driven slowly to hold up traffic and set fire to rubbish bins.

Opponents say the anthem bill is another step towards authoritarianism, and could be weaponised against pro-democracy activists and legislators.

Under the proposed law, a person commits an offence if they take various actions with “intent to insult” the anthem, such as changing lyrics or music or singing in a “disrespectful way”. It carries financial penalties and jail time of up to three years.

March of the Volunteers is the national anthem of the People’s Republic of China, as well as Hong Kong and Macau, but booing of the anthem at Hong Kong football marches has previously embarrassed Beijing.

FacebookTwitterPinterest Riot police check a pedestrian in Causeway Bay, Hong Kong. Photograph: Vincent Yu/AP


Macau enacted laws in January 2019, but Hong Kong’s stalled amid political gridlock which later descended to violence. The government said it had a constitutional responsibility to enact the law quickly, and has declared it a priority.

It has denied the bill would suppress freedom of speech, and said an offence would occur only if someone expressed their views by publicly and intentionally insulting the national anthem.

Several days have been set aside for debate, and the vote is scheduled for 4 June – the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre and another source of controversy given Hong Kong’s vigil this year won’t be allowed.

On Sunday thousands joined an unauthorised protest against both the anthem bill and Beijing’s plan to impose national security laws, which was quickly cracked down on by police.
Trump ‘displeased’ with proposed national security law

Hong Kong media reported on Wednesday that Beijing had expanded the scope of the draft security law legislation. “Mainland lawyers who have handled national security cases in the past say this change could bring not just individuals, but also organisations under the scope of the law,” RTHK said.

On Tuesday, the US president, Donald Trump, warned he would take action against China if it imposed the laws. Trump didn’t say if it involved sanctions or changes to the city’s special trading status but his press secretary, Kayleigh McEnany, said the president was “displeased”, and it was “hard to see how Hong Kong can remain a financial hub if China takes over”.

The president’s vague warning came hours after his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, said China’s military must increase its preparations for armed confrontations.


“It is necessary to step up preparations for armed combat, to flexibly carry out actual combat military training, and to improve our military’s ability to perform military missions,” he told military officers on the sidelines of the country’s annual Two Sessions political gathering.

The comments, which did not refer to Hong Kong directly, came just a day after the commander of the People’s Liberation Army garrison stationed in Hong Kong said his troops – estimated to number around 10,000 – stood ready to “safeguard” Chinese sovereignty in the city and support national security laws.



Hong Kong crisis: protesters and police clash over new anthem law – video

Coronavirus origin research hit by political agendas, China’s ‘Sars hero’ says

Respiratory expert Zhong Nanshan says project with US epidemiologist Ian Lipkin to find source of virus is at risk

International scientific cooperation ‘vital’ to prevent future pandemics


Guo Rui in Guangzhou and Zhuang Pinghui in Beijing  27 May, 2020

Renowned Chinese respiratory specialist Zhong Nanshan says international scientific cooperation is essential. Photo: Xinhua

In an exclusive, wide-ranging interview with the Post, veteran Chinese infectious disease expert Zhong Nanshan shares his insights into the global battle to control the Covid-19 pandemic. In this third part of a four-part series, Zhong says the blame game between the US and China is putting important research at risk at a time when the world’s scientific community needs to join hands and work together.

The politicisation of the Covid-19 pandemic could stall vital global scientific cooperation into an investigation of its origins, according to China’s most respected respiratory expert.

Zhong Nanshan, 83, known as a “Sars hero” for his role in fighting the 2002-03 severe acute respiratory syndrome epidemic, said scientists around the world needed to team up to establish where the new coronavirus, which causes Covid-19, had come from.
Zhong, from the Chinese Academy of Engineering and a senior adviser to the government in its drive against Covid-19, said he had been approached by
Ian Lipkin, the US epidemiologist, to use molecular tools to establish how the virus jumped to humans but the endeavour could be stalled for fear it would be distorted by political agendas.


Lipkin, professor of epidemiology at Columbia University, was an adviser on the film Contagion and himself contracted Covid-19. His association with Zhong dates back 17 years when they worked together on the Sars outbreak in China.

Lipkin has been working since 2018 with professor Lu Jiahai’s team at Sun Yat-sen University’s public health school in Guangzhou, southern China, on emerging infectious diseases. They have been trying to establish the origin of the new coronavirus since February. Zhong, Lu and Lipkin met in Guangzhou in January and are in regular contact.

“Professor Lipkin has a very good technology, called molecular capture, which can capture and analyse the key gene to identify the source of the virus,” Zhong said. “It will be a large amount of work that involves not only drawing [human] blood but also blanket investigation into animals.”

But Zhong said US politicisation of the pandemic, which aimed to lay blame on China, was putting the project at risk. “[Origin tracing] should have been an important scientific issue that called for joint research and I am all for it but now, with the political labelling, it is very difficult to do so,” he said.

US President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have claimed, without evidence, that the virus escaped from a laboratory in Wuhan — the central Chinese city where the first cases were reported — and called for an investigation into the outbreak.

They have also blamed China’s initial handling of the outbreak for causing the spread of the disease around the world. China has rejected the claims and accused the US of spreading unfounded conspiracy theories.

Beijing has repeatedly said it opposes politically-driven investigations into the origin of the coronavirus and would accept objective and science-based probes within the framework of the World Health Organisation, when the epidemic has waned.

Zhong said the Chinese government had investigated the claims about the Wuhan laboratory and found no improprieties. “After the US made the allegations, the Chinese Centre of Disease Control and Prevention and the National Health Commission sent a special team to investigate the Wuhan Institute of Virology for two weeks,” he said.

“The investigators found nothing improper and there was nothing that could show [the coronavirus] was manufactured by the laboratory. We also know that, based on their manpower, technological capability, and finance, it is just impossible for them to have manufactured it (the virus).”

Available evidence suggests bats were the reservoir host for the new coronavirus which then possibly passed through an animal intermediary host to humans. Wuhan’s Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market – where wild animals were traded and which was linked to 27 of the 41 early cases – was initially believed to be the source of infection.

However, epidemiologists had found only traces of the virus in samples taken at the market. In addition, Zhong said, the first known case of the coronavirus in Wuhan, as well as most of the 1,099 cases treated in the city, had no links to the market at all.

Zhong said investigations into the origins of the coronavirus were important for preparing for the next outbreak, as there had already been three this century – Sars in 2002, Middle East respiratory syndrome (Mers) in 2015 and now Covid-19. But, he said, investigations should cover other countries as well as China.

“We need to find out exactly how the virus transmitted,” he said. “It’s a process of evolution and that can happen anywhere. Data showed it happened in China, France and the United States. We really need to find out how this happened.”

Zhong said it was now established that the earliest cases had occurred in September and November. “It occurred in November in the US and also in France and Italy, so it’s a world problem that the virus might have existed long before [it was reported in China],” he said.

Zhong said that, even though animals at the market had been disposed of as part of the Wuhan government’s initial response to curb the spread of the virus, an investigation could still figure out it’s role in the pandemic if scientists joined hands and worked together.

Shao Yiming, chief expert on Aids at China’s Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, told the journal Science last week that, even though the market had been disinfected and animals disposed of, there were still ways investigate. Shao said records of where the animals had come from were still available and could be used to trace those sold in the market.


Guo Rui is a China reporter covering elite politics, domestic policies, environmental protection, civil society, and social movement. She is also a documentary filmmaker, recording modern Chinese history and social issues through film. She graduated from Nankai University with a master degree in Modern Chinese History.

Noam Chomsky’s take on America’s coronavirus response, in hands of ‘megalomaniac’ Trump

Left-wing thinker Noam Chomsky says we will recover from pandemic, but not deleterious effects of global warming
He warns of ‘enormous’ amount of potential control and surveillance in the future

Agence France-Presse 25 May, 2020

US linguist and political activist Noam Chomsky. File photo: AFP

The United States is on a chaotic path with no federal plan against the coronavirus pandemic as it reduces public health funding and ignores the advances of climate change, according to activist scholar Noam Chomsky, considered the founder of modern linguistics.

What follows are extracts, edited for clarity, from an AFP interview with the 91-year-old leftist intellectual:, who has authored more than 100 books and is currently a professor at the University of Arizona.

For two months he’s been confined in Tucson with his Brazilian wife Valeria, his dog and a parrot who can say “sovereignty” in Portuguese.

Question: How do you read the current situation in the United States, where coronavirus has killed more residents than any other nation in the world?

Answer: There’s no coherent leadership. It’s chaotic. The presidency, the White House, is in the hands of a sociopathic megalomaniac who’s interested in nothing but his own power, electoral prospects – doesn’t care what happens to the country, the world.

The president himself has said that it’s none of his business. He’s said that the federal government can’t do anything.

Nothing really matters except his personal power and gain. Of course he has to maintain the support of his primary constituency, which is great wealth and corporate power.

There’s 90,000 deaths and there will be a lot more … There’s no coordinated plan.


Q: How do you view the political landscape emerging from this crisis in the US and elsewhere?

A: As soon as Trump came in, his first move was to dismantle the entire pandemic prevention machinery. At the start, defunding the Centre for Disease Control, which would deal with this. And cancelling programmes that were working with Chinese scientists to identify potential viruses. So the US was singularly unprepared.



It’s a privatised society, very wealthy, with enormous advantages – far more than any other country – but it’s in the stranglehold of private control.

It doesn’t have a universal health care system … It’s the ultimate neoliberal system, actually.

Europe in many ways is worse, because the austerity programmes just amplify the danger, because of the severe attack on democracy in Europe, the shifting decisions to Brussels … So Europe has its own problems, but at least it has the residue of some kind of social democratic structure, which provides some support, which is what I think is lacking in the US.

As severe as this pandemic is, it’s not the worst problem. There will be recovery from the pandemic at severe cost … but there isn’t going to be any recovery from the melting of the polar ice caps and the rising of sea levels and the other deleterious effects of
global warming.

Q: Several countries are using technology to track citizens, storing DNA to fight the virus. Are we entering a new era of digital surveillance, and what does this mean for privacy?

A: There are now companies developing technology which make it possible for the employer … to look at what’s on your computer screen and to check your keystrokes and if you get up and walk away for a minute, they’ll send you a warning.

That’s being installed right now … It’s not the future.

The so-called Internet of Things is coming along. It’s convenient. It means if you’re driving home you can turn on the stove – but it also means that that information is going to Google and Facebook, to the government, the American government, the French government, it’s an enormous amount of potential control, surveillance and invasion. But this has happened. It’s not the future.

If we allow the huge tech companies, the state, to control our life that’s what will happen. They’ll turn it into something like China, where you have social credit systems and in some cities you get a certain amount of credits, there’s face recognition technology all over the place and everything you do gets monitored.

If you cross the street in the wrong place, you can … lose some credits, and so on.

It’s not inevitable, just like global warming, that it’s going to happen – unless people stop it.

Q: Could it be justified to halt the virus’ spread?

A: It might be – during the period of threat. There’s controls needed during wartime, you have rationing. But it doesn’t have to be permanent … ‘Yes, we’ll let you have this authority now, but it can be revoked at any time’.”

150,000 seafarers sign virtual global petition on crew stagnation

By Sulaimon Salau
27 May 2020 | 3:49 am

There is an ongoing global petition aiming to draw the attention of the general public to the problems of over 150,000 seafarers that cannot leave or cannot join ship crews due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

The initiative is from the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Goodwill Maritime Ambassador for Bulgaria Capt. Andriyan Evtimov.

The purpose is to have the document signed online by at least 150,000 people – the same number of seafarers locked in by the COVID-19, and then send it to the IMO member-state governments with an appeal for immediate and urgent measures to facilitate the movement of seafaring personnel.


Recalled that the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA), had issued a marine notice, designating seafarers as essential duty workers who should be granted free movement despite the lockdown in some states.

Currently, only a few countries permit crewmember exchange in their ports, which has a direct negative impact on seafarers’ wellbeing, on the safety of navigation, and the global supply chains.

The petition aims to draw the governments’ attention to the fact that the maritime industry is the backbone of world trade, and continuation of the restrictive measures currently in place against seafarers would lead to detrimental effects for the global economy.

More than 90 per cent of world trade takes place by the sea, and seafarers are those who constantly, and in personal deprivation, carry out their mission ensuring the operation of the supply chain, including such for medical supplies to combat the pandemic.


The petition insists that: designate seafarers and other maritime personnel as “key workers”, which should be done by the adoption of new and clear national definitions and rules and procedures duly notified to all national authorities – maritime, immigration, health, and port authorities.

It also seeks to ensure free access and movement of seafarers to and from the ships, as well as for persons employed in shipping-related activities; permit a sufficient number of airplane flights related to embarkation and repatriation of seafaring personnel and movement of maritime transport specialists.

It requested that IMO and the International Labour Organisation (ILO) member-states develop and implement a unified simplified plan for the realisation of the above measures as soon as possible, and not to subject seafarers to mandatory quarantine upon debarkation from ships where it is possible to promptly make COVID-19 tests and the test results are negative.

Nigerian Forces accused of torture and illegal detention of children – report

Amnesty International alleges that at least 10,000 died while being wrongly held – some of them in a centre part funded by the UK

BOKO HARAM NOT THE ONLY THREAT TO CHILDREN

Global development is supported byAbout this content


Emmanuel Akinwotu
Wed 27 May 2020

Nigerian soldiers guarding civilians who had fled the fighting in Bama in 2015. The country’s military had retaken the northeastern town from Boko Haram, but about 7,500 people were displaced by the fighting. Photograph: Nichole Sobecki/AFP

Widespread unlawful detention and torture by Nigerian security forces has aggravated the suffering of a generation of children and tens of thousands of people in north-east Nigeria, according to a new report.

At least 10,000 victims – many of them children – have died in military detention, among the many thousands more arrested during a decade-long conflict with jihadist groups, according to Amnesty International.

Many left their homes to flee violence from Boko Haram, whose deadly jihadist insurgency began in 2009. Yet displaced people were wrongly arrested by civilian militia forces and soldiers on suspicion of being connected to or supporting the insurgency, the report said.

In allegations strongly denied by the Nigerian army, victims suffered torture and years of detention without charge, trial or medical treatment, in “inhumane” conditions at three centres. One is the Giwa barracks detention centre where rights groups have for years reported endemic human rights abuses.


Another of the centres hosts a reintegration programme for alleged jihadists and their supporters, funded by the UK government and international donors, where conditions were not as severe but abuses were widespread, the report said.

Joanne Mariner, the acting director of crisis response at Amnesty International, called for authorities to investigate the “appalling” treatment of victims.

“From mass, unlawful detention in inhumane conditions, to meting out beatings and torture and allowing sexual abuse by adult inmates – it defies belief that children anywhere would be so grievously harmed by the very authorities charged with their protection,” she said.

“The past decade of bitter conflict between Nigeria’s military and Boko Haram has been an assault on childhood itself in north-east Nigeria,” Mariner added. “Boko Haram has repeatedly attacked schools and abducted large numbers of children as soldiers or ‘wives’, among other atrocities.”

Among the 230 people Amnesty interviewed was 10-year-old Ibrahim, who said his family had fled their village after an attack by Boko Haram when he was five and were arrested several days later by the military.

“We said we escaped from Boko Haram, but the military did not believe us,” he said. “They said that we were part of Boko Haram. They hit us children with a rope of animal skin and slapped our parents with the flat end of a long knife. They beat us every day.”

Nigeria detained children as young as five over 'Boko Haram links' – report
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/sep/11/nigeria-children-as-young-as-five-boko-haram-links-report

Another 14-year-old boy was also arrested after fleeing abduction by Boko Haram, and then detained at Giwa barracks: “The conditions in Giwa are horrible. They could make you die. There’s no place to lie down,” he said. “Up to now, nobody has told me why I was taken there, what I did, why I was in detention.”

Col Sagir Musa, the director of public relations for the Nigerian army, dismissed Amnesty’s report as “mere claims”.

“There is no basis for the accusation. The Nigerian army has strongly debunked such malicious claims and no group has convincingly refuted our position,” he said.

The findings add to a litany of abuse allegations that have dogged Nigerian security forces, intensifying during its war with Boko Haram and a jihadist offshoot, the Islamic State West African Province.

More than 36,000 people have died and almost two million are displaced within north-east Nigeria, in one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises.

Operation Safe Corridor, an army-run deradicalisation programme of mostly men and boys, which receives funding from the UK, has released thousands of jihadi suspects. Fourteen hundred Boko Haram suspects were released earlier this year.

Former detainees were positive about conditions at the Safe Corridor site yet said a number of human rights violations frequently occurred there.

Detainees were made to produce items such as shoes and soaps in training programmes which amounted to forced labour, Amnesty said. Some detainees suffered serious injuries working with caustic soda without protective equipment. At least seven detainees at the site died.

Kate Allen, the director of Amnesty International, said: “The UK’s support of a military-run detention centre that is unlawfully imprisoning people, including children, and subjecting them to unsafe conditions is particularly worrying.

“The UK government must work with the Nigerian authorities to ensure that the military is protecting the population, and that absolutely no UK support is contributing to the vile abuses taking place in the context of the conflict.”

The children left behind in West Africa's conflict-torn regions

Human rights groups say children in conflict regions aren't receiving enough support. Children who have escaped from Boko Haram are treated with suspicion in Nigeria, while schools are closing in Burkina Faso.



A generation of children in West Africa risk missing out on vital education and health care amid ongoing conflicts in the region, human rights organizations warn.

A new report released by Amnesty International on Wednesday detailed failure on the part of Nigerian authorities to protect and provide education to children in the country's northeast, which has been devastated by more than a decade of conflict between the Nigerian government and the Boko Haram armed insurgency.

Another report released by Human Rights Watch on Tuesday found an increase in Islamist extremist attacks in Burkina Faso since 2017 has had a horrific impact on children's education. Armed groups aligned with al-Qaida and the so-called Islamic State have repeatedly attacked teachers and schools in the country in opposition to Western-style education and government institutions, the report said.

Similarly, extremist-driven violence is rife in Mali and Niger, where schools are also being forced to close, leaving children without access to support and making them more vulnerable to recruitment by extremist groups.


A Nigerian soldier with women and girls rescued from Boko Haram in 2015

Boko Haram ravages northeastern Nigeria

Amnesty International's report, entitled 'We dried out tears': Addressing the toll on children of Northeast Nigeria's conflict, accuses Nigeria's military of unlawfully detaining children who escaped from the armed extremist group.

"The past decade of bitter conflict between Nigeria's military and Boko Haram has been an assault on childhood itself in Northeast Nigeria," said Joanne Mariner, Amnesty International's Acting Director of Crisis Response, in a press release.

"The Nigerian military's treatment of those who escape such brutality has also been appalling." 

The Nigerian military has been repeatedly accused by diverse rights groups of holding thousands of children in squalid conditions for years. In Amnesty's latest report, interviewees described being held in inhumane conditions while being subject to beatings, torture and sexual abuse by adult inmates. The vast majority of the children are never charged with a crime.

Nigerian authorities have consistently denied any allegations of mistreatment.

"The state government has been on top of the situation in ensuring that the [Boko Harm] insurgency does not destroy the dreams and aspirations of [these] children by providing adequate educational facilities, vocational training centers and free education centers to give them equal opportunities," Hajiya Zuwaira Gambo, the Borno State Commissioner of Women Affairs and Social Development, told DW.

Read more: Boko Haram – Nigeria moves to deradicalize former fighters


The training sketch drawn on a wall for new recruits to Boko Haram

An unwelcome return

Despite the trauma they have faced, many children who have escaped or been rescued from Boko Haram are treated with suspicion, with some classified as 'combatants' and transferred to military detention facilities, according to the report.

Former child soldier, 12-year-old Idris Muhammad, told DW how he and other boys were trained for potential combat by the extremist group.

"We were abducted form our village and they took us to their base in Sambisa Forest," he said. "Whenever they went to the battle field they normally carried us along. They taught us what they did on the battleground and they even killed people in front of us."

While the majority of girls are kidnapped to be used as brides for the fighters, 13-year-old Maryam Umar Kirawa says she and other girls were still trained to fight if necessary.

"They taught us how to kill a person with a knife, or a gun with bullets," she told DW. "They also taught us their own type of religion. In fact, they told us they were going to teach us all the methods of war before we escaped."

More support needed

Zariyatu Abubakar, a children's rights activist in northeastern Nigeria, says returnee children should be given more protection and support by authorities.

"They are only children, so somebody has to take responsibility to support them, educate them, feed them and provide shelter for them," she told DW. "We need to place these children into homes to that they will feel secure and protected."


Children abducted by extremist groups require support and education to recover from a traumatic past

UNICEF official Geoffrey Ijumba says the children need to be viewed first-and-foremost as victims if they are to be properly rehabilitated.

"We need to make sure they are integrated [back into society] because this is the only way they will rediscover their dreams and be able to contribute positively to their own personal development and to the development of [Nigeria]," he told DW.

Education suffers in Burkina Faso

Meanwhile, Human Rights Watch finds attacks by armed extremists on schools are on the rise in Burkina Faso, severely damaging children's long-term access to education.

Since the emergence of the Burkinabe Islamist group, Ansar ul Islam in 2016, violence has steadily increased, primarily in the country's northern and eastern regions, according to report by the organization entitled 'Their War Against Education': Armed Group Attacks on Teachers, Students, and Schools in Burkina Faso.


Many children in Burkina Faso are missing out on an education due to extremist violence

A surge in attacks in 2019 forced more than 830,000 people from their homes.

The extremist groups have abducted and killed education professionals, including teachers, and damaged or destroyed existing schools, the report says.

"Armed Islamist groups targeting teachers, students and schools in Burkina Faso are not only committing war crimes, but are undoing years of progress in improving children's access to education," said HRW's children's rights researcher, Lauren Seibert, in a press release.

"The Burkinabe government should investigate these attacks, ensure children regain access to schooling and provide needed support to education workers who experienced attacks."

Watch video02:57

Thousands flee violence in Burkina Faso

While some positive steps have been taken, such as reopening some schools and expanding distance-learning programs alongside its COVID-19 response, observers say the traumatic impact of the attacks will be compounded if the conflict continues.

"Armed Islamist groups have cost teachers their lives, livelihoods and physical and mental health, and they are costing hundreds of thousands of children their futures," said Seibert. "These attacks need to stop."

Children without access to education or social services are also at higher risk of being recruited by extremist groups, perpetuating the cycle even further.

Children also affected in Mali and Niger

Ongoing attacks by Islamist extremists in the Sahel region have also spilled over into Mali and Niger. UNICIEF says over 8 million children have been forced out of school.

Almost 3,000 schools were forced to close in the region between April 2017 and December 2010, including 1,261 in Mali and 354 in Niger.

Once considered a buffer zone against violence in neighboring Nigeria and Libya, the tri-border region, which includes Burkina Faso, has devolved into a hotbed of conflict, despite international military support.

According to UNICEF, the crisis in the Lake Chad region has forced over 3 million people to flee their homes.



FREED BOKO HARAM HOSTAGES: 'THE PAIN IS STILL THERE'
Traumatic experiences
"You notice one thing straightaway - the children here hardly ever laugh," says a helper at Malkohi camp, close to the Nigerian city of Yola. The camp now accommodates almost 300 people who were liberated in early May from Boko Haram captivity. About half are under 18 years old. Every third child is malnourished.
MORE PICTURES 12345678

Mohammad Al-Amin contributed to this article.


Date 27.05.2020
Author Ineke Mules
Related Subjects The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), Human Rights, Boko Haram, Niger, Nigeria, Amnesty International
Keywords Africa, Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, West Africa, Boko Haram, Islamic extremists, child soldiers, Borno State, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch (HRW), UNICEF, human rights

Permalink https://p.dw.com/p/3coTc

Between old and new empires, Hong Kong’s fate exposes stakes in Covid-19 era

Issued on: 26/05/2020

Anti-government protesters march again Beijing's plans to impose national security legislation in Hong Kong, May 24, 2020. REUTERS - Tyrone Siu
Text by:Leela JACINTO

China’s latest move to impose a new security law for Hong Kong has exposed Britain’s weakness on the international stage. But now all eyes are on the US response as the future of the semi-autonomous territory is once again caught in the geopolitical wrangling between the world’s dominant powers.


On December 21, 1984 – just days after she signed a historic treaty with China on Hong Kong’s future status – British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was asked how did she really “feel” about the Sino-British Joint Declaration.

Thatcher was in Hong Kong, where the reactions to the agreement were less ebullient than in Beijing, where the British prime minister had toasted her Chinese counterpart at a champagne ceremony in the Great Hall of the People following the signing of the historic deal. Small, but symbolic protests had greeted Thatcher’s arrival on the British territory hugging China’s southern coast, with demonstrators denouncing the “sell-out” of the people of Hong Kong.

So when Thatcher was asked about the treaty setting the terms for China’s 1997 takeover, she was on the defensive. “I feel we have done a good job for the people of Hong Kong,” she told reporters. “Just consider what sort of questions you would be asking me now had there been no agreement and a totally unknown future.”

More than 35 years later, the international treaty, which was registered at the UN, establishing the “one country, two systems” principle, is back under the spotlight.


Last week, when China announced plans to impose a new national security law for Hong Kong that, critics say, breaches the territory’s autonomous status, the 1984 Joint Declaration was a talking point on the news agenda.

“One point that many, many Hong Kong people have been rather angry about is that the [British] Foreign Office, and the entire UK government, should be opposing more strongly the way China has been breaching the provisions of the Sino-British Joint Declaration. China has effectively declared that particular document null, void, it doesn’t serve any purpose anymore,” Claudia Mo, a member of Hong Kong’s Legislative Council, told the BBC over the weekend.

It’s a view echoed by Chris Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong who handed over the territory to China in 1997. “I think the Hong Kong people have been betrayed by China, which has proved once again that you can’t trust it,” said Patten in an interview with the British daily, The Times. “The British government should make it clear that what we are seeing is a complete destruction of the Joint Declaration.”


‘Death sentence for Hong Kong’s freedoms’

Patten has led a group of more than 230 prominent parliamentarians and policymakers in 25 countries – including former prime ministers and foreign ministers – who have signed a letter decrying “the unilateral introduction of national security legislation by Beijing in Hong Kong” and calling on governments to “unite to say that this flagrant breach of the Sino-British Joint Declaration cannot be tolerated.”

Responding to the initiative by Hong Kong’s last British governor, Dorian Malovic, Asia editor of French daily La Croix, and author of several books on China, conceded, “It’s better than nothing, but it sounds a little desperate. Chris Patten tried his best to push through a more democratic system as much as possible before 1997, but he failed,” noted Malovic in an interview with FRANCE 24.

Back in 1984, the news coverage of the Joint Declaration focused on Britain's failure to take more steps before the handover to secure democracy for Hong Kong’s citizens. These days, an agreement once regarded as a weak compromise is cited in world capitals as a demonstration of Beijing’s disregard for legally binding treaties and the international community’s failure to hold China accountable for its breaches.

Beijing maintains the new law – which bans treason, subversion and sedition – is necessary after months of often-violent pro-democracy protests last year. Chinese authorities portray the protests as a foreign-backed plot to destabilise the motherland and have warned that other nations have no right to interfere in how the international business hub is run.

Critics, however, say the new security measure contravenes the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s mini-constitution adopted under the terms of the Joint Declaration. Article 23 of the Basic Law, states that the “Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People’s Government”.

An earlier attempt to pass a national security act was dropped in 2003 when it became clear the bill would not pass Hong Kong’s Legislative Council – popularly dubbed “LegCo” – following massive protests.

Beijing has long wanted a security law that would curtail dissent and protests in Hong Kong. But this time, the process adopted by Chinese authorities, by submitting a draft bill on the opening session of the National People’s Congress in Beijing last week, caught everyone by surprise.

“It was a shock. It came directly from Beijing, a draft law before the National People’s Congress is basically rubber-stamping a communist party directive. What frightened lawyers and activists is that it’s a violation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law that’s disregarding Hong Kong’s LegCo,” explained Malovic. “That’s a huge breach of the semi-autonomy of Hong Kong. It’s a death sentence for Hong Kong’s freedoms.”

Defying Covid-19 social distancing measures, protesters took to the streets in Hong Kong on Sunday as law enforcement officials braced for further unrest as the security bill makes its way through an unprecedented legislative process. The National People’s Congress (NPC) is expected to approve the bill on Thursday after which it moves to the NPC’s Standing Committee for approval.

The timing of the move was also noteworthy. “This came as foreign countries are busy coping with the coronavirus and are not looking into the Hong Kong situation. Beijing is giving a signal, ‘we don’t care about anything coming from foreign countries’. China knows it’s strong enough to do what it wants with Hong Kong,” said Malovic.

Freedom, money, but no democracy

Asian and Western democracies have condemned China’s moves to implement the new security law. Following a muted initial reaction, British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab on Friday issued a joint statement with his Australian and Canadian counterparts that declared, “We are deeply concerned at proposals for introducing legislation related to national security in Hong Kong”.

The statement also noted that the “legally binding Joint Declaration, signed by China and the UK, sets out that Hong Kong will have a high degree of autonomy”. But it offered no details or warnings of action if China breached its legally binding agreement.

The response by Hong Kong’s former colonial power failed to impress pro-democracy activists and analysts. “The UK has done very, very little, even nothing concretely to support people in Hong Kong, to support democracy in Hong Kong,” said Malovic. “Britain is in a mess in the shadow of Brexit. The thinking in London has been, we need Chinese investments, we need deals with the US, we don’t need Europe. Hong Kong people are aware of the cowardice of Britain, they’re under no illusions.”

Hasty, ill-planned exits that set the stage for crises and conflicts for future post-colonial generations have been the legacy of British colonialism. But Malovic notes that the people of Hong Kong also share some responsibility for a long-feared scenario. “The British were very smart. Everybody was free in Hong Kong except there was no democracy – and people didn’t care. I was in Hong Kong a lot in those days and I used to tell my friends people selfishly only care about making money.”

Political consciousness emerged in Hong Kong after the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, according to Malovic. But by then, the Joint Declaration underpinning Hong Kong’s handover and future administration was already signed, and Beijing proved to be an unyielding negotiating partner on democratic protections such as universal suffrage for Hong Kong’s residents.

British diplomats have acknowledged the negotiations over enshrining democratic principles that would secure Hong Kong were difficult since London was struggling to maintain close diplomatic and trade ties with Beijing.

"In a case like this in Hong Kong where there is such a disparity in strength between the two sides, between Britain and China, you go for the best you can get, and I take the simple view that half a loaf is better than no bread," Percy Cradock, the UK’s chief negotiator and a former British ambassador to China, told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

A double-edged sword

The onus of international responsibility, as ever, falls on the US and with it, the criticisms of failing to respond or overreaction, as the case may be.

Washington’s reaction has been tougher than London’s, with the US forcefully “condemning” China’s move and urging “Beijing to reconsider its disastrous proposal”. President Donald Trump, meanwhile, has threatened to respond “very strongly” if China follows through with the new law.

The US also has a new law, the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, which was passed by Congress in November amid last year’s pro-democracy protests. The law requires the US State Department to determine whether Hong Kong maintains a sufficient degree of autonomy to justify it retaining its special trade status.

“That would be a blow for Hong Kong if the US raised tariffs if it considers Hong Kong another Chinese city. But it’s a double-edged sword since US companies are also making billions in Hong Kong,” said Malovic.

Around 85,000 US citizens lived in Hong Kong in 2018, according to State Department figures, and more than 1,300 US companies operate there, including nearly every major US financial firm. The territory is also a major destination for US legal and accounting services.

Hot, tense summer

Beijing has warned that it would fight back if the US tries to oppose China on the issue, with foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian stating, “The issue of national security legislation for Hong Kong is an internal affair of China. Other nations cannot interfere.”

Zhao is considered an “alpha male” among Beijing’s aggressive “wolf warrior” diplomats, named after a Chinese blockbuster about a commando who kills American baddies with his bare hands. He has also been on the frontline of a Washington-Beijing war of words that deepened since the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan spiralled into a global pandemic.

 Read more about China’s ‘wolf warrior’ diplomats

Trump has turned China into a campaign issue ahead of the November US presidential election, but it’s a strategy, Malovic warned, that may not serve Hong Kong’s interests.

“It’s useful for Trump and Beijing, but Hong Kong will be the victim because it will be used as a cheap bargaining chip in the US-China war [of words],” said Malovic. “You have the world’s two biggest powers, with two different ideologies, but they are both acting in the same way. The Trump campaign is fed by the common enemy of China just as Beijing uses the US enemy. Trump is using the perfect enemy to ramp up patriotic, nationalist sentiments and Beijing is doing the same. It’s so childish, it would be funny if it was not so dangerous,” said Malovic.


Daily newsletterReceive essential international news every morningSubscribe

The prospect of escalating unrest and tensions are high in the weeks and months to come. Beijing’s uncompromising positions on Hong Kong have hardened resolve in the pro-democracy camp, fueling a vicious circle of state crackdowns spurring hardliners within the protest movement. It’s a strategy long favoured by autocratic states looking to crush peaceful dissent. Beijing has not yielded on calls by pro-democracy leaders for an independent investigation into the violence during last year’s protests, while Chinese state media focuses on what it calls “terrorist” acts.

The Hong Kong political calendar, meanwhile, is packed with anniversaries and events that draw demonstrations, raising the prospect of a hot, tense summer. These include the June 4 Tiananmen massacre anniversary and the July 1 marches that mark the territory’s 1997 handover. Elections for the Hong Kong Legislative Council are scheduled for September, by which time, the US is expected to move into campaign high gear.

The Covid-19 crisis has already put China under the international spotlight with news headlines on the unmasking of Beijing’s “mask diplomacy,” the aggressive tactics of “wolf warrior” diplomats and exposés on China’s attempts to hijack UN institutions.

The Hong Kong crisis adds another impetus for democratic powers in America, Asia and Europe to act amid mounting public frustration in the Covid-19 era over economic inequalities and big business interests dominating political agendas. The price of inaction, Malovic warns, will be historic. “If nothing happens against China, if the world doesn’t react, the takeover of Hong Kong by China will be a turning point in contemporary history, like the 1989 fall of the Berlin Wall. It would engrave in stone the fact that China can do anything it wants.”

Mink pass coronavirus to humans in the Netherlands
IT CALLED ZOONOSIS FOR A REASON
At least two people have caught the coronavirus from mink in the Netherlands, in probably the first mink-to-human transmission cases. The risk of infection outside mink farms is "negligible," Dutch officials said.


The Dutch government on Monday said that it was "highly likely" that a person had been infected with the coronavirus by a mink, following a similar case last week.

Mink are bred for their fur at some 155 farms across the country. The authorities detected infected animals at four such locations, Agriculture Minister Carola Schouten said in a letter to parliament. At three out of four farms, a sick human was thought to be the source of the infection among the animals, while officials were still investigating the cause at the fourth one, the minister said.


Several mink farms in the Netherlands have noted human-to-mink transmission, the reverse is rarer

The mink farms are set to close in 2023 due to a law passed before the coronavirus outbreak. Amid the latest developments, some veterinarians accused Schouten of trying to downplay the risk of the animal-to-human infection and pressured the government to clear out heavy-hit farms. However, Schouten has so far rejected the push. Addressing Dutch lawmakers on Monday, Schouten said the risk of humans getting infected outside farms was "negligible."

Dutch pets confirmed infected

Reports of humans infecting their animals, particularly cats and dogs, have appeared in various countries across the world since the beginning of the current pandemic. At least four house pets tested positive in the Netherlands last month. Minister Schouten has urged COVID-19 patients to "avoid contact with their animals."

However, the latest mink-to-human transmission was virtually unique, said the head of the country's health insitute, Jaap van Dissel, on Monday.

"This is the first time we've found, at least we've shown that it's likely, that in two cases the infection has gone from animal to human," he said. "Of course the original source of infection in China was also very likely animals," he added.

dj/msh (dpa, Reuters)