Timothy Ray Brown, first person cured of HIV/AIDS, dies at 54

Sept. 30 (UPI) -- American Timothy Ray Brown, the first person in history who was said to be cured of HIV/AIDS, has died of terminal cancer. He was 54.

Brown became known as the "Berlin patient" when he was diagnosed with HIV while living in Germany in 1995. In 2007, he was given a bone marrow transplant from a rare donor who was naturally resistant to the virus that causes AIDS.

Brown received the transplant when it was discovered that he had acute myeloid leukemia, which was not related to his HIV status.

Brown died on Tuesday at his home in Palm Springs, Calif.

"I am truly blessed that we shared a life together but I'm heartbroken that my hero is now gone," partner Tim Hoeffgen wrote in a Facebook post.

"Tim's spirit will live on and the love and support from family and friends will help me through this most difficult time."

Hoeffgen said Brown returned to the United States in 2010 and went public with the treatment he'd received.

A year later, doctors said it appeared that Brown had become the first person in the world to be "functionally cured" of HIV/AIDS.

"I quit taking my HIV medication the day that I got the transplant and haven't had to take any since," Brown said in 2011.

Sharon Lewin, president-elect of the International AIDS Society and director of the Doherty Institute in Australia, said Brown helped open the door for the development of HIV treatments.

"Timothy was a champion and advocate for keeping an HIV cure on the political and scientific agenda," she said in a statement.

"It is the hope of the scientific community that one day we can honor his legacy with a safe, cost-effective and widely accessible strategy to achieve HIV remission and cure using gene editing or techniques that boost immune control."

Report: Trump policies could add 1.8B gigatons of greenhouse gases


Environmental rule changes under the administration of President Donald Trump, could result in 1.8 gigatons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere by 2035, a new report released Thursday said. 

Sept. 18 (UPI) -- The Trump administration's unraveling of Obama-era environmental rules could lead to the release of an additional 1.8 billion gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions by 2035, according to a new examination released Thursday by the Rhodium Group.

The independent research firm said the extra release of the carbon dioxide is equivalent to one-third of all greenhouse emissions pumped into the atmosphere in 2019 and could speed up global warming.

"While some of these moves remain mired in legal uncertainty, the Trump administration has successfully unraveled the majority of Obama-era climate policies, including the Clean Power Plan, fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles, and efforts to curb potent greenhouse gases from refrigerants and air conditioning."

The White House in August eased regulations preventing methane leakage from oil and gas facilities, the firm said.

RELATED Study: Full transition to electric cars would improve U.S. air, health

The Trump administration had been fighting to prevent California from creating its own emissions standards, which would be stricter than once proposed by the White House.

Other possible greenhouse contributions could come from methane emissions from the oil and gas industry and coal-fired power plants that have found some new life under Trump.

"Having promised to cut environmental regulation on the campaign trail, President Trump wasted no time once in office," the report said. "In March 2017, Trump signed an executive order directing then-Environmental Protection Agency director Scott Pruitt to repeal and replace the Clean Power Plan (CPP), former President Obama's signature climate policy."
RELATED Study: Models underestimate amount of carbon absorbed by Earth's oceans


The report said Trump doubled down on his environmental policy by taking the United States out of the Paris Climate Accord in 2017.

Shell to cut thousands of jobs in step toward renewable energy

WORKERS SHOULD BE RETRAINED FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY JOBS BY SHELL & BP! NO LAYOFFS!


The company also said it expects gasoline sales to rebound in the third quarter, after COVID-19 lockdowns eased in many parts of the world. File Photo by Gary Rothstein/UPI | License Photo

Sept. 30 (UPI) -- Oil producer Royal Dutch Shell announced Wednesday it will lay off thousands of workers by the end of 2022 as part of a step toward renewable energy.

The job cuts, which Shell said could number 9,000, represent more than 10% of the company's workforce and include about 1,500 who have volunteered to be part of the reduction, the company said in a third quarter update.

The cuts are expected to reduce costs by as much as $2.5 billion within two years -- and are part of a drive by Shell to reduce "organizational complexity" and restructure operations for net-zero emissions by 2050.

"We will have some oil and gas in the mix of energy we sell by 2050, but it will be predominantly low-carbon electricity, low-carbon biofuels, it will be hydrogen and it will be all sorts of other solutions too," Shell CEO Ben van Beurden said in a statement, calling the cuts "very painful."

"[We] will be saying goodbye to people we know well and really like and who have great loyalty to the company. But we are doing this because we have to."

Rival BP announced earlier this year it would cut about 10,000 jobs as it contends with lower oil prices and depressed demand due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Shell said it will report sharply lower oil and gas production in its third-quarter earnings report, citing the pandemic and hurricane-related shutdowns of oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico where production was curtailed by the equivalent of up to 70 thousand barrels of oil per day.

The company also said it expects gasoline sales to rebound in Q3, after COVID-19 lockdowns eased in many parts of the world.

Gallup: 8 in 10 Americans favor some form of legal abortion

Abortion rights supporters demonstrate during the "Stop Abortion Bans Day of Action" rally in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on May 21, 2019. File Photo by Kevin Dietsch/UPI | License Photo

Sept. 30 (UPI) -- Eight in 10 Americans approve of legalized abortion in some form -- but the vast majority also believe there should be at least some restrictions on the procedure, a new Gallup survey shows.

According to the poll, 79% said abortion in the United States should either be legal in all (29%) or some (50%) circumstances.

Of those who favor abortion with restrictions, 14% said it should be legal in most circumstances, 35% in some circumstances and 1% did not specify conditions.

Thus, a total of 43% of U.S. adults believe abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances, the survey found.

The numbers also show, though, that 70% of all respondents said abortion should either be entirely illegal (20%) or available only under certain circumstances (50%).

The survey found that two-thirds of respondents favor upholding the landmark Supreme Court abortion case Roe vs. Wade, which legalized abortion in the United States in 1973.

"The combined 79% of Americans who think abortion should be legal in all or under certain circumstances echoes the majority public support Gallup consistently finds for upholding Roe vs. Wade," Gallup wrote.

The survey found that 44% said abortion is morally acceptable and 47% said it's morally wrong.

Politically, 59% of Republicans and half of independents favor at least some restrictions for abortion while 49% of Democrats said it should be available in all conditions.

Seventy-eight percent American women say the procedure should either be fully legal (32%) or legal with some restrictions (46%). Among men, 79% said the same.

The age range that most favored fully legalized abortion in all cases was the 18-29 group (39%).

Gallup polled more than 1,000 U.S. adults in May for the survey, which has a margin of error of 4 points.

American Medical Association asks Supreme Court to review abortion 'gag order'

The American Medical Association on Thursday petitioned the Supreme Court to review two appeals court decisions on a revised rule banning federally funded family planning clinics from referring women for abortions. Photo by Bill Greenblatt/UPI | License Photo


Oct. 1 (UPI) -- The American Medical Association led a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday to review a Trump administration revised rule banning federally funded family planning clinics from referring women for abortions.

The petition, filed alongside the American Civil Liberties Union, Planned Parenthood and the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, calls on the court to weigh conflicting decisions in a pair of appeals courts regarding the so-called "gag rule" earlier this year.

Under the revised rule issued by the Department of Health and Human Services in 2019, the government said it would require "clear financial and physical separation" between Title X-compliant facilities and those that provide abortions or abortion referrals.

"The AMA strongly believes that our nation's highest court must step in to remove government overreach and interference in the patient-physician relationship. Restricting the information that physicians can provide to their Title X patients blocks honest, informed conversations about health care options -- an unconscionable violation that is essentially a gag rule," AMA President Susan Bailey said in a statement.

In February, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the rule, stating that it allows family clinics to mention abortion, but not to refer or encourage it, and that it was a "reasonable interpretation" of federal law and was not "arbitrary and capricious," as challengers including Planned Parenthood had argued.

However, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked enforcement of the federal rule in Maryland earlier this month, saying the Trump administration's rule revision "failed to recognize and address the ethical concerns of literally every major medical organization in the country."

"The petitioners argue that until the Ninth CIrcuit's erroneous decision is corrected, the administration's gag rule is harming patient care and causing physicians and other health care professionals to violate ethical obligations by preventing Title X clinics from providing 

The petition also comes as the Senate prepares to confirm President Donald Trump's nomination to the Supreme Court, Amy Coney Barrett, shifting the court's makeup to a 6-3 conservative majority following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Task force: U.S. must prioritize AI in race to defend against Russia, China


A congressional task force report this week recommended the Pentagon focus funding and effort in artificial intelligence, biotechnology and cyber warfare as part of countering the growing power of China and Russia. Photo by Cpl. Jessica Davey/U.S. Marine Corps

A bipartisan congressional task force this week recommended that the Department of Defense prioritize investing in artificial intelligence, supply chain resiliency and cyberwarfare in order to deal with imminent threats from China and Russia.

The Future of Defense Task Force, chaired by Reps. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., and Jim Banks, R-Ind., on Tuesday released an 87-page report pointing out the vulnerabilities in U.S. national security and recommending how to fix them.

Banks said in a statement that the Pentagon needs to innovate to ensure the United States maintains its global military supremacy, and the report was the roadmap to do it.

"This report details a vision of the future of defense--specifically a smart, whole-of-nation strategy addressing the rise of China," he said.

The U.S. economic and military dominance post-Cold War has been reduced in recent years, the report said. China is expected to soon overtake the United States as the world's largest economy, and despite historic defense spending, the United States has failed to keep pace with China's and Russia's military modernization.

"If we fail to act on this plan, the world order will shift from one that favors democracy to one that favors authoritarianism," Moulton said.

The Future of Defense Task Force was launched last October to examine how to maintain the Pentagon's technological edge against Russia and China.

Advancements in artificial intelligence, biotechnology, quantum computing and space, cyber, and electronic warfare are making traditional battlefields and boundaries increasingly irrelevant, according to the report. The United States also remains vulnerable to increasing cyberattacks against civilian populations.

"Using the Manhattan Project as a model, the United States must undertake and win the artificial intelligence race by leading in the invention and deployment of AI while establishing the standards for its public and private use," the report said.

It recommends that all new defense acquisition programs should be AI-ready and have evaluated at least one AI or autonomous alternative prior to funding.
The task force said the U.S. should invest at least 1% of the GDP in foundational science and technology research, and the Pentagon should implement the recommendation of the Defense Science Board to spend 3.4% of its total budget on science and technology research programs.

Pointing out that the COVID-19 pandemic had illustrated that a lack of domestic manufacturing capability and access to reliable supply chains "is among our greatest national security and economic vulnerabilities," the task force recommended forming a National Supply Chain Intelligence Center under the Director of National Intelligence to monitor and protect U.S. supply chain interests.

The report also advised that to ensure the preservation of human rights, the United States should push for a global treaty on artificial intelligence to "establish accountability, promote collaboration and transparency, ensure fairness, and limit the harmful use of AI."

The treaty would also be expected to create an international code of ethics and privacy protections to ensure personal freedoms.

The US fears competition. Its status as head of the global order must now be rethought

American pre-eminence was sustained by a grand bargain: it could sit at the top if it did not abuse its position – or it kept its abuse to bearable levels

Now that it no longer wants to behave responsibly, a more multipolar world which works for the benefit of all must be devised, argues Chandran Nair

Chandran Nair
Published: 5:00am, 3 Oct, 2020


A burnt Make America Great Again cap hat lies on the ground after a protest in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in June. Photo: Reuters

Make America Great Again may be US President Donald Trump’s rallying cry to his base, but it should also be recognised as a by-product of a much more significant trend: America’s fear of competing in a post-Western world.

Every week, if not every day, there seems to be some new American policy targeting China. Sanctions against Huawei and ZTE. Executive actions against TikTok and WeChat. New scrutiny of Chinese companies on US exchanges. Arrests of Chinese – and
Chinese-Americans – accused of espionage.Threats to expel Chinese journalists. Designating the Confucius Institutes as foreign missions. Sanctions on Chinese officials. Shutting down the Chinese consulate in Houston. One Chinese government official has referred to it as the “US hunting down the companies” of other countries.

Taken together, it’s now clear the United States is pursuing a policy to sanction and contain
China in an attempt to arrest its rise, leveraging its financial and – for now – technological superiority against the country.

All of this points towards a US that has developed a fear of competing with others. Everyone is a threat, not a worthy competitor. Every competitor is accused of
copyright infringements, of taking advantage of US technology, and of being a threat to national security. They are all eventually sanctioned in ways that only the US has the power to enforce.

European and Japanese firms have experienced this as well, but China is the first real competitor to the US that is not part of its security framework and thus will not take these actions sitting down.

Rather than compete on an equal footing, the US is resorting to sanctioning these potential competitors, and encouraging its allies like Britain to do the same. It is abandoning positions it has held and demanded of others for decades – such as calls for an open internet – when they no longer suit its interests.

To use the words of former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, there is a feeling that America “dropped the ball” when it comes to innovation and research. And rather than pick the ball back up and compete for the basket, it wants to disqualify the competition. This has resulted in actions unbecoming of a superpower, which will sow the seeds of its own decline.

This insecurity, rooted in an almost religious belief in its own exceptionalism, is fostered by the realisation that the US has lost much of its global leverage over the past few decades. Along with its reckless disregard for even trade rules, this has ushered in a new era of global instability.

In the aftermath of the war in Iraq, the global financial crisis of 2007-2008, and now the
coronavirus pandemic, it has lost its moral superiority. Other countries took the US seriously not just because it was powerful, but also because there was the perception that it knew what it was doing. That perception is no longer held.

The rise of the rest has also weakened America’s economic supremacy: the US is no longer the only large market in town. Europe, China, the Asean region and others provide their own large markets and access to capital. The US makes up about 11.5 per cent of global trade, while China makes up 12.4 per cent and the European Union, 16 per cent.

US Army soldiers carry shotguns as they walk through a detention camp near the Kuwait-Iraq border in 2008. America’s endless wars have left it unable to project power as easily as it once could. Photo: AFP

America’s military edge has also been weakened. With the rise of China and exhaustion from its endless wars, the US can no longer project power globally as easily as it could even just a decade ago.

All that’s left is its position at the head of the global order, underpinned by the global use of the dollar. The current administration is ready and willing to use this position to pursue its own interests, no matter the collateral damage. This is untenable and the world needs to act with urgency.

American pre-eminence was sustained by a grand bargain: the US could sit at the top, yet would not abuse its position – or, at least, keep its abuse of the system at bearable levels. The US clearly benefits from its position as the sole superpower, and when it built this order after World War II, no other country was really in a position to dictate terms.

When faced with the risk calculus of trying to create a different system, most governments probably felt the effort and conflict with the US wasn’t worth it. American meddling was mostly kept within tolerable levels, and usually targeted at countries on the periphery of the global system – and the US-led system provided enough benefits that countries decided to tolerate it.

Washington’s recent actions against China, however, reveal that the US is now willing to pursue what it sees as its national interest against any major economy it deems to be a competitor.

There are those within the current US administration who understand that certain actions should not be taken. At one point, for example, the White House reportedly considered trying to break the Hong Kong dollar’s peg to the US one – only to be convinced otherwise by panicked aides worried about destroying the entire dollar-based system.

China says UK has 'poisoned' Sino-British relationship over Hong Kong and Huawei

In some ways, it doesn’t matter what the outcome of this year’s election will be: even if the US does go back to being more restrained – and it won’t in practice when it comes to several countries – no one can dismiss the worst-case scenarios any more.

It has to return to its core values and be willing to compete so that it can earn the right to lead. No country has the right to lead by breaking all the rules and sowing the seeds of instability across the world. So what happens now?

The fundamental flaw in the global system is that it relies on one country behaving responsibly – or, at least, responsibly enough for people to tolerate it. It should be clear to all that this simply cannot go on.

Yet losing any kind of global structure is also dangerous: the world needs global cooperation for peacekeeping, managing the global economy, and combating global problems like
climate change and the Covid-19 pandemic.

The answer is not in hoping that there will be more enlightened US leadership, but instead in creating a multipolar world with the US, China, Europe and two or three regional blocs like the African Union.

Whatever system replaces the current one must avoid being reliant on one country. But an alternative is desperately needed. That means a greater presence for non-American voices. European governments are key to this and need to step up and take responsibility, and not settle into their comfortable role following the US.

It has been 75 years since World War II: the Europeans have to stop romanticising the “special” transatlantic relationship. Rising countries like China and
India need to determine what they want the world to look like, and what it means to be a responsible global citizen – both for themselves and for others.

And the US needs to be willing to let go of its sole leadership role, which, in truth, has had its own negative effects on ordinary Americans.

A forest fire burns out of control in California. The world needs international cooperation to combat global problems like climate change. Photo: Reuters

It is time the United Nations started the process of redesigning the global system. This could begin with a high-level conference involving the General Assembly. Initial proposals could be introduced and discussed at regional forums, before being refined by key regional blocs like the EU, Asean and the African Union.

They should examine two critical options. The first is to allow the US dollar to retain its current position, but with a complete overhaul of the conditions attached so that the US is restricted in its ability to “weaponise finance” as part of its foreign policy.

The second, more challenging, option is to design a system that does not allow any one country to abuse it for that country’s own ends, replacing it with a different structure based on something like a basket of currencies.

This will be a painful and messy transition as Americans will find it difficult to accept that they are not the only game in town. The world must be united and prepared in anticipating their angry reaction, but also in enduring the pain of the transition to another system.

This transition is necessary, if the world is to have a more resilient global system that cannot be hijacked by any one country’s national interest. There is opportunity here, the likes of which has not been seen for decades, and it must be seized to bring the world together and address the existential threats facing humanity in the 21st century.

We must not shy away from it just because it has never been done before. Perhaps it will even be supported by a more enlightened US leadership, as part of a new road map to “making America great again”. ■


Chandran Nair is the founder of the Global Institute for Tomorrow and a member of the Club of Rome. He is also the author of The Sustainable State: The Future of Government, Economy and Society

Nothing will satisfy Washington with Huawei other than its destruction


The 5G equipment maker is not any more dangerous than any other major global telecoms gear supplier. Its real threat is not cybersecurity, but China’s potential challenge to America’s technological dominance, especially in cyber networks

Alex Lo
Published: 9:00pm, 1 Oct, 2020

You almost feel sorry for Luigi De Vecchis for his desperation. Speaking on cybersecurity, the Huawei president in Italy says he is ready for its equipment to be “vivisected” to show it poses no security threat.

If he was speaking to an audience of network security or computer forensic experts, the offer might make sense.

But what Huawei is really facing is America “the grand inquisitor”, whose sole interest is to destroy the Chinese 5G pioneer. To do that, Washington has to drag Huawei’s reputation through the mud with unfounded accusations, try to put its founder’s daughter – who is also its chief financial officer – behind bars on trumped-up charges with its sanctions law against Iran, and pressure allies in Europe and client states in Latin American to ban Huawei. It is working.

“We will open our insides, we are available to be vivisected to respond to all of this political pressure …,” said De Vecchis at the opening ceremony of the company’s cybersecurity centre in Rome.

He also said Huawei had no intention of leaving the Italian market, despite all the pressure from trade sanctions imposed by Washington over security concerns. He may be fighting a losing battle.

During his current European diplomatic tour, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has made significant inroads in persuading European countries to curb China’s 5G technology. France and Britain are set to phase out the Chinese technology. Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte has said he will heed US security concerns about Chinese 5G telecoms while his country’s main telecoms operator has said it will not use any Chinese 5G equipment.

In an inquisition, no evidence will ever exonerate the accused. Accusations are made, however outlandish, for the defendant to refute, not for the prosecutor to prove. The absence of guilt is just a spur for judges to dig deeper and go harsher with their ordeal for the victim to produce proof of guilt.

As part of the Edward Snowden revelations, we know US cybersecurity agencies had breached Huawei’s mainframe networks in Shenzhen and found nothing untoward. Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), its key signals intelligence agency, had conducted a thorough examination of the security issues surrounding Huawei’s 5G equipment. Its conclusion that the risks were manageable was what initially led British Prime Minister Boris Johnson to allow Huawei a limited role in building his country’s 5G infrastructure, only to reverse his decision under intense American pressure.

Huawei’s equipment is not any more dangerous than that of any other major global telecoms gear supplier. Its real threat is not cybersecurity, but China’s potential challenge to America’s technological dominance, especially in telecoms networks. America’s business is not just business, but hegemony at any cost.

South China Sea: If US spy planes were posing as airliners, it must explain why

Using a false civilian cover for spy planes may not be illegal but is dangerous and risks a major international incident. On this and undersea drones, the US owes the world more than studied silence

Mark J. Valencia Published:2 Oct, 2020

Illustration: Craig Stephens

The United States has made violation of the international order its mantra in bashing China’s behaviour in the South China Sea. But it now stands accused of violating that order by flying military spy planes under the civilian “false flags” of other countries while collecting intelligence on China’s defences. China claims the US has done this at least 100 times this year. This is only its latest accusation of US violations.

According to the South China Sea Strategic Situation Probing Initiative, between September 8 and 10, several US Air Force RC-135 electromagnetic signals detection and collection aircraft used identification codes assigned to Malaysian civilian aircraft while lingering in international airspace between the Hainan and the Paracel Islands. The planes took off from US bases on Okinawa and Guam.

Some allege that such purposeful impersonation violates the Convention on International Civil Aviation. All planes registered with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) are assigned a unique six-digit code which is automatically transmitted by their transponders when interrogated by air traffic control radar. This mainly ensures that planes maintain minimum separation.


In response to the allegation, General Kenneth Wilsbach, head of Pacific Air Forces, said: “I know we follow the rules for international airspace.”


Washington’s hardened position on Beijing’s claims in South China Sea heightens US-China tensions

If using a false civilian cover for spy planes is not against international law, it should be. In 1983, after a US spy plane crossed its flight path, a Korean Airlines airliner was mistaken for it and shot down by the Soviet air force, killing all 269 on board. At the very least, the practice is a dangerous departure from international norms and undermines confidence in the ICAO and its identification system

US Air Force Boeing RC-135W and E-8C intelligence collection planes have frames similar to the Boeing 707-200 civilian airliner, and sometimes follow commercial air routes. Their identification code is what helps to distinguish them on remote sensors.

When China spots a spy plane, its military assets probably go silent. But with a “false flag”, the spy plane may deceive them into continuing activity and communications can be monitored. Under international norms, civilian aircraft should not be shot. The US may be betting on this, ironically taking advantage of China’s adherence to international norms.

South China Sea: the dispute that could start a military conflict
11 Aug 2020

What is the strategic context and role of these spy planes? US-China
relations are tense and rapidly deteriorating. The US military “rebalancing” to Asia faces China’s naval expansion, rising capabilities and ambitions. China is developing what the US calls an anti-access/area denial strategy designed to control China’s near seas and prevent US access to them in case of a conflict.

The US response is to prepare to cripple China’s command, control, communications and computers, and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) systems. This means ISR is the “tip of the spear” and both sides are trying to dominate this sphere over, on and under China’s near seas.


A rare at-sea look at China’s aircraft carrier the Liaoning and fighter jet training

A rare at-sea look at China’s aircraft carrier the Liaoning and fighter jet training
The target of these particular “undercover” ISR probes was probably
China’s nuclear ballistic missile submarines. 

China has a base at Yulin on Hainan, and the South China Sea provides a relative sanctuary for these nuclear submarines, which are its insurance against a first strike: something the US – unlike China – has not disavowed. Some probes in, over and under the South China Sea focus on detecting, tracking and, if necessary, targeting China’s nuclear submarines.

China has long disagreed with US ISR probes in the South China Sea. Both countries also disagree over the regime of prior permission for marine scientific research in China’s exclusive economic zone as stipulated in UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

China accuses the US of violating that regime by deploying instruments without its consent to search for and track submarines in its exclusive economic zone. But the US holds that such activities are military surveys and thus exempt from consent.

This is a minority view in Asia. Moreover, the US is not party to UNCLOS and has little legitimacy or credibility in unilaterally interpreting particular provisions to its advantage.

Critics also claim this practice is an “abuse of rights” prohibited by UNCLOS. In sum, these US actions constitute a violation of the UNCLOS-mandated duty to pay due regard to the rights of coastal states.

These disagreements have resulted in international incidents when China tried to prevent US Navy survey vessels such as the Bowditch and submarine hunters such as the
Impeccable from undertaking missions in its exclusive economic zone without its permission. China also objects to US Navy P8 submarine hunters that deploy sonobuoys in their missions.

The US places a heavy emphasis on developing aerial, surface and underwater drones for missions that include ISR. Years ago, it was already deploying in the South China Sea “new undersea drones in multiple sizes and diverse payloads that can, importantly, operate in shallow water, where manned submersibles cannot”, according to then defence secretary Ashton Carter.

How the US, not China, is endangering peace in the South China Sea
4 Mar 2020


But UNCLOS requires that submarines – presumably including drones – operating within 12 nautical miles of a coastal state must surface and show their flag. Little detail is publicly known of the capabilities, missions and deployment of these drones and their adherence to international law and norms is questionable.

Rather than the studied silence from the US, the world needs a full explanation of these practices and how they do not infringe upon international laws and norms.

Until then, US demands that China uphold the international order ring hollow. Indeed, the US may not only be violating international norms but also setting the stage for a major international incident.




Mark J. Valencia

Mark J. Valencia is an adjunct senior scholar at the National Institute for South China Sea Studies, Haikou, China

Hong Kong fugitives are refugees? Washington, you’ve got to be kidding


America’s ‘war on terror’ has displaced between 37 million and 59 million people around the world, according to a new study but the US State Department wants to accept Hong Kong people fleeing the law as part of its propaganda war against China

SCMP Columnist
My Take by Alex Lo
Published: 2 Oct, 2020

Washington is good at telling sick jokes. The latest? In its annual proposal on refugee admissions, the US State Department has proposed including Hong Kong people for the first time, in response to the new Chinese national security law.

It will prioritise “people who have suffered or fear persecution on the basis of religion; for Iraqis whose assistance to the United States has put them in danger; for refugees from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras; and for refugees from Hong Kong, Cuba, and Venezuela”.

The US plan, though, will cap the total number of refugees accepted at 15,000, down from 18,000 this year. How many real desperate refugees are there in the world? And how many of them have been created by America’s wars, both overt and covert?

Here are some disturbing numbers compiled in a new study from the Costs of War Project at Brown University.

Canada has resettled more than 10 times as many refugees per Canadian citizen than the US

“US post-9/11 wars have forcibly displaced at least 37 million people in and from Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, the Philippines, Libya, and Syria,” wrote lead author and anthropologist David Vine.

“This exceeds those displaced by every war since 1900, except World War II. The 37 million is a very conservative estimate. The total displaced by the US post-9/11 wars could be closer to 48–59 million.”

Breaking down the numbers, they are: 5.3 million Afghans; 9.2 million Iraqis; 3.7 million Pakistanis; 1.7 million Filipinos; 4.2 million Somalis; 4.4 million Yemenis; 1.2 million Libyans; 7.1 million Syrians.

Syria? Didn’t the US work tirelessly to end the horrible civil war there? Actually, it was one of the major parties that helped prolong the Syrians’ agony. Washington has provided funding, training, and logistical support to numerous rebel groups. US forces started fighting in the country in 2014 against the Islamic State.

“As a result, we focused our calculations on people displaced from five Syrian provinces where US forces have fought and operated since 2014,” Vine wrote.

Turkey has hosted 3.9 million refugees. One in seven people in Lebanon and one in 15 in Jordan are refugees.

Canada has resettled more than 10 times as many refugees per Canadian citizen than the US.

The US? In recent years, refugee admissions have practically fallen to zero from Muslim-majority countries.

Meanwhile, Hong Kong people will get priority admissions because of some propaganda campaign of US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Some people do turn your stomach.