World-first as doctors transplant 3D printed ear made of human cells

Sarah Newey Jun 03 2022

MICROTIA-CONGENITAL EAR INSTITUTE/THE TELEGRAPH
Alexa, the patient, before the surgery, left, and 30 days after the surgery

A young woman has received a 3D printed ear implant made from her own cells, in a scientific development that could “revolutionise” medicine.

The 20-year-old, who was born with a deformity that left her right ear small and misshapen, had the reconstructive surgery in March in the US – part of the first clinical trial to use 3D printing to construct an implant made of living tissue.

“This is so exciting, sometimes I have to temper myself a little bit,” Dr Arturo Bonilla, who performed the surgery in Texas, told the New York Times. “If everything goes as planned, this will revolutionise the way this is done”.

The implant was produced by 3DBio Therapeutics, a regenerative medicine company based in New York, which announced the successful procedure on Thursday. The results are set to be published in a medical journal when an ongoing trial, which includes 11 volunteers, is complete.

The new ear was made from a tiny clump of cells taken from the woman’s right ear, which experts say will reduce the chance that the implant will be rejected from the body. It will continue to regenerate cartilage, meaning it will eventually feel and look like a natural ear.

It is thought to be the first time that a 3D printed implant made of living tissues has been transplanted.

The company said that, with more research, the same technology could be used for replacement spinal discs, noses and knee menisci – as well as reconstructive tissue for lumpectomies.

“It’s definitely a big deal,” said Adam Feinberg, a professor of biomedical engineering and materials science and engineering at Carnegie Mellon University, who was not involved in the trial. “It shows this technology is not an ‘if’ any more, but a ‘when’”.

The woman, who is from Mexico, had a rare birth defect called microtia. Currently, surgery to reconstruct the misshapen ears of those suffering from the disease – which affects around 80 babies a year in the UK and 1500 in the US – involves taking cartilage from a patient’s ribs, which is then carved into the rough shape of an ear.

“I’ve always felt the whole microtia world has been waiting for a technology where we wouldn’t have to go into the chest, and patients would heal from one day to the next,” Dr Bonilla told the New York Times.

The scientific advancement is the latest in a series of recent breakthroughs in organ and tissue transplants.

In January, surgeons transplanted a genetically modified pig’s heart into a 57-year-old, which lengthened his life by two months. This week, Swiss doctors said a patient who was given a human liver that had been preserved for three days remained healthy a year later.


The Telegraph

READ MORE:
* Scientists create first 3-D-printed tiny heart with human tissue
* 3D printed breasts created for Kiwi women following mastectomies
* Brains grown in a laboratory could halt Alzheimer's
* Fresh hope for infertile women after live births using 3D-printed ovaries

HEATHER McGHEE OFFERS A NEW STORY OF AMERICAN SOLIDARITY

The 2022 Zócalo Book Prize Winner Sees Hope Beyond America’s ‘Zero-Sum’ Mindset

President and CEO of LA84 Foundation Renata Simril (left) and Winner of the 2022 Zócalo Book Prize Heather McGhee (right) dig into the themes of The Sum of Us on the stage of ASU California Center in downtown L.A. Courtesy of Aaron Salcido.


by SARAH ROTHBARD | JUNE 2, 2022

The 2022 Zócalo Public Square Book Prize event’s return to in-person programming for the first time in three years—and the hopeful chord struck by the winning author—arrived at the ASU California Center in downtown L.A. at a necessary moment.

The event also streamed live online, which allowed Georgia poet laureate and 2022 Zócalo Poetry Prize winner Chelsea Rathburn to join virtually to read her winning poem, “8 a.m., Ocean Drive,” before philanthropist Tim Disney, the sponsor of both prizes, took the stage at the Herald Examiner building before a large, enthusiastic crowd.

“This book stood out for its compassion and optimism,” said Disney as he introduced The Sum of Us: What Racism Costs Everyone and How We Can Prosper Together and its author, Heather McGhee. The economist and social policy scholar, said Disney, recognizes that racism’s threat to community and cohesion “is in all of us, it rises from us”—and “so does the solution.”

McGhee echoed that optimism in thanking Disney and Zócalo for the $10,000 prize, which honors the year’s best nonfiction book on community and human connectedness “at a time when rancor and division seems like the usual spirit of the day.” And as she launched into a brief talk about her exploration of why Americans struggle for solidarity, she returned again and again to the hope she finds in that story.

McGhee finished writing The Sum of Us at a promising moment: shortly after the elections of November 2020, “when we were going to be able to put right what was broken.” By the time the book was published just a few months later, the January 6 insurrection—guided by a fear of a multi-racial America—had muted any celebrations. It felt, said McGhee, like the “zero-sum idea” at the heart of her book—“that there’s a fixed pie of well-being, and that progress for one group must come at the expense of others … [had] nearly cost us a peaceful transfer of power.”

As a result, many of the book’s readers have focused on what McGhee gets right about America’s “zero-sum game,” and in particular, the book’s central metaphor: public swimming pools. In the 1950s and 1960s, cities and towns across America elected to drain their public swimming pools rather than integrate them. White and Black Americans alike—especially those who couldn’t afford to go to a private pool—all suffered as a result.

This zero-sum thinking, McGhee continued, reared its ugly head once again just two weeks ago, this time in the form of the deaths of 10 people in a Buffalo grocery store, killed in a mass shooting by a gunman who was inspired by the “Great Replacement” theory.

The zero-sum mindset is a recurring story in American history, continued McGhee. “It is our duty and our obligation to keep asking: Who is telling us these stories?” she said. “Who is selling the idea of the zero sum? Who is telling us that we should destroy public goods rather than share them? And how are they profiting from selling those ideas?” This is where she finds hope in her work—that we can hold the “narrow, self-interested elite” accountable for perpetuating this idea, and push back with a new, louder story of American solidarity across race and origin.
‘It is our duty and our obligation to keep asking: Who is telling us these stories?’ she said. ‘Who is selling the idea of the zero sum? Who is telling us that we should destroy public goods rather than share them? And how are they profiting from selling those ideas?’

McGhee tells that story in The Sum of Us and an upcoming podcast adaptation, highlighting multiracial coalitions that have succeeded in creating political, economic, and social change in their communities that benefit people of all backgrounds. These include the Fight for $15 movement to increase the minimum wage; a renaissance in the former mill town of Lewiston, Maine; and the blocking of a Chevron refinery in Richmond, California. “In every corner of this country, ordinary people are doing extraordinary things for and with one another. It’s those stories, those examples, that we have to lift up,” she said. “The human heart has the power to change the course of history when it makes a simple agreement with another human heart.”

LA84 Foundation president and CEO Renata Simril joined McGhee on stage to continue the conversation with an interview and audience Q&A that tackled everything from how to hold corporations accountable for their role in the zero-sum game to L.A. County’s return of Bruce’s Beach in the first-ever instance of the government making reparations by returning property that was unjustly seized to a Black family.

McGhee began the book while serving as president of the think tank Demos, where she was trying “to change the rules” said Simril, only to find that “the tools of economic policy were inadequate.” Why?

McGhee said that as an economist, she saw over and over again how America was “such an outlier among our peer economies on virtually every measure of well-being,” from inequality to education. Our failure to solve these issues was more expensive than the cost of fixing them. She wanted to know: Why can’t we make these smart investments? She found that the answer—to put it bluntly—was because the majority of white people’s ideologies had drifted away from the public good. In doing so, they harmed Black Americans, as well as the middle- and working-class white Americans who make up the nation’s largest group of the uninsured and impoverished. The book was an inquiry into how this happened.

Simril asked whether race was always a subject of inquiry for McGhee.

“No,” McGhee answered quickly, explaining that her initial reluctance to study race was because she wanted to do something different from her mother, whose work has centered on racial inequality. McGhee decided to study class, instead—and found that she “kept tripping over race in the very white world of economic policy think tanks.” Her colleagues could answer “how” questions around America’s defunding of public colleges and tax cuts for billionaires, but they couldn’t figure out the “why.” “We weren’t really looking at the core question of who we are to one another, the core question of race in this highly racialized society,” said McGhee.

That question has become even more politically charged since the book’s release amid a national debate over critical race theory. While visiting Oklahoma last summer, McGhee spoke to a white woman who voiced her anger at not being taught about the Tulsa Massacre in all her years of public education—from kindergarten through graduate school—in the state. “She felt robbed, she felt lied to, she felt furious,” said McGhee, for missing a major piece of history and “an explanatory piece for the disparities that she recognized driving through Tulsa as a child.” Stories and history help us make sense of disparities, McGhee said. “The power of knowing our history is knowing why things are the way they are, and that they can be changed, too.”

History can also provide a powerful challenge to divisions within communities of color, said McGhee in response to an audience question. The same tropes, stories, and justifications come up over and over again—and we need to recognize them for what they are, she said. McGhee offered the idea that Black people are lazy as an example. “It came from the need to justify enslaving and torturing Black people to get them to work,” she said. If we recognize the trope, perhaps we can undo it.

The final audience question asked McGhee to respond to the idea that the more explicit nature of white supremacy since 2016 might create more possibilities for multiracial coalition building.

“It’s all out in the open now: ‘People of color are coming to take your country from you,’” McGhee agreed, musing, “What are the opportunities there?” The opportunities are not new, but the reminder, she said, is important. McGhee said the onus remains on individuals to decide if we’re willing to tolerate racism—and how much we’re willing to fight for our core values, including against those who would sell us a different American story.

‘Iron people’ of Ukraine’s railways are keeping war effort on track

Nicola Smith

Jun 03 2022

Former defence minister Ron Mark helps with aid effort in Ukraine
Longtime NZ First MP Ron Mark says he has been deeply affected by what he saw and experienced on the ground in Ukraine.


A lone cashier on Thursday sat in the ticket hall of Mykolaiv-Dnistrovskiy railway station.

Ivanna Bereza, 47, is used to the odd slow day in the small local stop 40 miles south of the historic city of Lviv.

But this time, the lack of customers carried an air of menace: on Wednesday night (local time), Russia hailed down missiles on a railway tunnel further down the line.

The attack weighed on Bereza’s mind. Having sold tickets for the national railway service for 16 years, her job has now put her on the invisible front line of a battle to sustain Ukraine’s economy and keep up the flow of arms from the West.

“Anything is possible, but we try not to think about it. We just keep coming in to do our shifts. What else can you do?” she said.

Russia’s strike on the Beskidy tunnel in the Carpathian mountains, a key link with Western Europe, marked the latest escalation in what the chief executive of Ukraine’s state-owned railways has called a “systematic” attempt to destroy them.

GETTY IMAGES

Staff juggle between selling tickets and keeping the flow of arms from the West going as Russia tries to take out vital infrastructure.

On Thursday, some passenger transport was cancelled as the authorities assessed the damage – but the tunnel itself was spared.

Maksym Kozytskyy, the governor of the Lviv region, told local media that five people had been injured in a barrage of four “enemy missiles” that struck the Stryi and Sambir districts in the Lviv region, western Ukraine, but most details of the attack remained shrouded in wartime secrecy.

“Any information or details apart from what was published is restricted due to the martial law and the overall situation in the country,” said a spokesman for Lviv region’s railways.

Official sources indicated that the injured had been railway workers. One unconfirmed report suggested that Verkhnie Synovydne, 40 miles south of Mykolaiv-Dnistrovskiy, may have been hit.

Still, Bereza and her four colleagues maintain a strong sense of pride about working for the state-owned network that has been crucial to keeping the country on its feet.

Boris Johnson, who travelled by train into Kyiv for his visit with Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, hailed the railway workers as “iron people” keeping the country going.

The vast railway network in the largely flat country has proved invaluable from a military standpoint for supplying key Western arms shipments as well as assisting an exodus of refugees fleeing Russian air assaults and territorial advances.

Wednesday’s attack, which triggered a nationwide air raid alert at about 9:30pm, was the latest in a series of missile barrages Russia is firing at railways and other critical infrastructure like fuel depots, bridges and storage facilities as part of its wider strategy to disrupt the Ukrainian war effort and cripple the economy.

In April, more than 50 Ukrainian civilians were killed in a strike on a train station in Kramatorsk.

Ukrainian economists warned that the country has suffered up to US$600 billion (NZ$915 million) in economic losses from Russia’s invasion, including US$92 billion in damage to hundreds of factories, medical facilities, schools, bridges, places of worship, cars and warehouses.

Meanwhile, multiple strikes have hit western Ukraine with the aim of slowing down the rapidly expanding delivery of weapons from Nato allies to battles on the eastern front.

Britain will soon send sophisticated medium-range rocket systems, joining the US and Germany in equipping the embattled nation with advanced weapons for shooting down aircraft and knocking out artillery as Russian forces pound towns and cities in the Donbas region.

FRANCISCO SECO/AP

People fleeing from shelling board an evacuation train at the train station, in Pokrovsk, eastern Ukraine.

However, behind the high-profile pledges lies a logistical game of cat and mouse to safely direct weapons to the battlefields where they are most needed.

In recent weeks, Russia has used sea- and air-launched precision-guided missiles to destroy power facilities at multiple railway stations across Ukraine, with several attacks concentrated in and around Lviv, close to the border with Poland, that has been a gateway for Nato-supplied weapons.

Moscow has made no secret of its aim to deliberately attack railways, with Sergei Shoigu, the Russian defence minister, accusing the West of “stuffing Ukraine with weapons” and warning that any Western transport carrying them would be a legitimate target.

Analysts have suggested Russia is more inclined to strike the railroad logistics now that it is focusing on conquering territory in the east and southeast of the country, and commandeering rail transport is less important to its own redefined war aims.

‘Ukrainians are like bees: they can organise themselves’

Andriy Sadovyi, the mayor of Lviv, said of Russia’s tactics: “First, the Russians are trying to scare people. Second, they try to cut the lines of supply that comes from Europe and the West. And third, they want to cause as much destruction as possible.”

However, he said that Moscow had not reckoned with Ukrainian resilience in the face of great challenges.

He told The Telegraph: “Ukrainians are like bees. They are capable of organising themselves and reacting to sudden threats.

“The Russians do not understand one thing: our army is not just 4-500,000 soldiers on the frontlines. Our army is the whole population of 44 million and they can’t have 44 million rockets to kill everyone.”

Love of worker bees : Kollontaĭ, A. (Aleksandra), 1872-1952

https://archive.org › details › loveofworkerbees00alex

Aug 26, 2011 — Love of worker bees. by: Kollontaĭ, A. (Aleksandra), ... For print-disabled users. 14 day loan required to access EPUB and PDF files.

Roe vs Wade: The extraterritorial dimension of abortion politics

Anti-choice views have shaped US – and Australian – bids to block support for family planning in developing countries.

Protests in the United States following the leak of a Supreme Court draft judgement signalled the likely overturning of the right to abortion in the country (Nick Otto/AFP via Getty Images)

TANIA PENOVIC
Published 31 May 2022 

The leaked draft majority opinion of the US Supreme Court in Dobbs vs Jackson Women’s Health Organisation has signalled the likely overturning of Roe vs Wade and intensified the politicisation of abortion in the United States in the lead-up to November’s mid-term elections.

Much has been written about the politicisation of abortion in the United States and its consequences for access to reproductive healthcare. The entrenchment of the anti-choice standpoint in the Republican party has undermined access to healthcare in the United States. Such attitudes have also shaped US foreign policy, with impacts on abortion access in developing countries.
The Global Gag

The Global Gag Rule (also known as the Mexico City Policy) was first introduced in 1984 by President Ronald Reagan and has subsequently been abandoned by successive Democrat administrations and reinstated by Republican administrations.

Australia has not been untouched by the febrile politics of abortion in the United States.

The policy was introduced as a means of barring federal foreign aid funding for organisations which provide or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning. Under the Trump administration, the policy was expanded to bar US funding to all organisations which provide abortions or abortion-related services, even if those services are funded by other sources. The policy has had a devastating effect on vulnerable and marginalised populations in developing countries, including Kenya, Nigeria and Nepal, and has been found to undermine HIV services, reduce access to contraceptives and increase unwanted pregnancies, unsafe abortions and preventable deaths.

The Global Gag was withdrawn by the Biden administration in 2021 but is almost certain to be reinstated by future Republican administrations.

How different is Australia?

Abortion has been decriminalised in Australia’s states and territories. But attempts to politicise abortion have been a feature of Australian politics and have increased in recent years, influenced by the US anti-abortion movement and the growing strength of the Christian lobby.

At the federal level, Australia’s domestic and foreign policies concerning abortion were shaped under the Howard government by the actions of anti-choice senator Brian Harradine. To secure Harradine’s support for the partial sale of then government telecommunications company Telstra, the government agreed to a ministerial veto power over the importation of mifepristone (also known as RU486), barring access to a safe alternative to surgical abortion in Australia for over a decade.

The Howard government’s deal-making with Harradine also shaped its foreign policy. AusAID Family Planning Guidelines established in 1996 barred the use of Australian aid money for activities that involve abortion training or services, or research trials or activities, which directly involve abortion drugs. The policy remained in place for 13 years.

The US Supreme Court, Washington DC

 (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

When US President Barack Obama removed the restrictions on foreign aid funding of abortion under the global gag imposed by his predecessor, Australia remained the only nation in the world to maintain such a ban. Australia’s policy stood counter to its commitment to observe the Millennium Development Goals then in place and the protocols of the World Health Organisation and has been associated with an increase in maternal deaths in the Asia Pacific, with particularly high rates of mortality associated with unsafe abortion in East Timor, Papua New Guinea and Cambodia.

The funding ban was lifted in 2009, more than 18 months after the tabling of a paper by the federal government’s All-Party Parliamentary Group on Population and Development, which described the ban as “cruel and illogical” and called for access to contraception and safe abortion as a means of reducing maternal deaths by up to 35 per cent and child deaths by 20 per cent. Notwithstanding the report, the ban’s removal was the subject of significant delay and divisive debate that stood to demonstrate that emergence of abortion as a political issue in Australia. Then opposition leader Brendan Nelson opposed the lifting of the ban, declaring that “I don’t believe that there is a place for Australia’s money to be supporting the procurement of abortion, whatever the reason” and called on individuals who wish to support aid groups which are involved in providing abortion services in the developing world to fund those organisations themselves. Nationals senator Ron Boswell claimed in Senate hearings that the Labor government would face a backlash from Christian voters if it abandoned the policy. Despite declaring his “long-standing conservative views” and personal opposition to lifting the ban, then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd supported the decision of his Foreign Minister Stephen Smith to axe the ban in light of clear political support for the change.

The Australian Christian Lobby claimed that voters had been betrayed by Rudd and threatened to campaign against him. Since the lifting of the ban, conservative religious groups have gained prominence and political influence in Australia and the Australian Christian Lobby has actively campaigned for a Trump-style global gag.

While the defeat of the Morrison government is likely to dilute the political influence of such groups, it would be wrong to assume that the politicisation of abortion will dissipate. Australia has not been untouched by the febrile politics of abortion in the United States.

In the context of our domestic and foreign policy, it is worth reflecting on the words of Australia’s first – and so far only – female Prime Minister, Julia Gillard: “We don’t want to live in an Australia where abortion again becomes the political plaything of men who think they know better.”

Dobbs v Jackson and South African womxn’s fast-disappearing right to access abortion services

South African womxn, in their diversity, have a constitutionally recognised right to bodily autonomy, and to make decisions about their sexual and reproductive health. (Photo: csvr.org.za / Wikipedia)

MAVERICK CITIZEN

BODILY RIGHTS OP-ED

By Charlene May and Khuliso Managa

31 May 2022 0

Womxn have the right to an abortion in South Africa, which is protected by the Constitution. Yet, of the 3,880 health facilities in South Africa, less than 7% provide access to abortion services, and of the 505 facilities specifically designated to provide the services, only an estimated 197 are operational.

On 2 May 2022, Politico, a US news organisation, published a leaked draft of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case referred from Mississippi, that would overturn Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey and eliminate the US federal standard on abortion access.

Over the past few weeks, the Women’s Legal Centre has received requests for comment and input on this draft opinion prepared by US Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.

In essence, if the draft opinion is adopted officially, and the decisions in Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey are overturned, the right to abortion in America would need to be decided from state to state.

So, what will this mean for South Africans?

A good start is to note that our legal governance system is vastly different from that of the US. There will therefore be very little direct consequences from the American decision on South African law – a decision that, based on the draft opinion, appears to be inevitable.

However, our society, and thus our law processes and policies, are still not completely insulated from the influence of what happens in the world around us. American culture, of course, has an impact on what happens in the world, and its shift towards upholding and enforcing conservative, discriminatory views.


The impact overturning Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey will have on the South African womxn’s right to abortion

The current South African Legal Framework:

South African womxn, in their diversity, have a constitutionally recognised right to bodily autonomy, and to make decisions about their sexual and reproductive health.

Abortions are legal in South Africa but many people still die as a result of unsafe terminations

(Photo: plannedparenthoodaction.org / Wikipedia)

Freedom of choice, and the ability to make decisions based on one’s own circumstances, is a golden thread that runs through our Constitution and is guaranteed in section 12. This section provides for the right to freedom and security of the person, and section 12(2) specifically provides for the right to bodily and psychological integrity, which includes the right to make decisions concerning reproduction; and the right to security in and control over one’s body. These rights contained in sections 12(2)(a) and (b) expressly recognise and protect the right for one to make decisions in relation to reproduction, including the right to termination of pregnancy.

These rights are also strengthened by the protections of the rights to reproductive healthcare (section 27(1)(a)), the right to equality (section 9); the right to dignity (section 10); and the right to privacy (section 14).

To support the realisation of these rights, the Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act 92 of 1996 (CTOPA), was adopted. It regulates when, where and from whom womxn can access the right to terminate a pregnancy when they choose to do so.

Accordingly, from a formal equality perspective, our rights as womxn are strongly entrenched and secured within a legal framework, underpinned by the Constitution. Of far greater concern is the actual realisation of these rights and their enjoyment by the womxn who hold them. The issue is therefore whether it truly is accessible to the everyday womxn, if and when she should need it.

The practical accessibility of the right to abortion in South Africa

As part of the work done by the Women’s Legal Centre, we have, since the adoption of the CTOPA, been monitoring its implementation and have noted that a failing public healthcare system and a lack of political will are the main contributors to multiple intersecting barriers that prevent or hinder womxn’s access to abortion services.

Women have a right to an abortion in South Africa, which is protected by the Constitution. Yet, of the 3,880 health facilities in South Africa, less than 7% provide access to abortion services, and of the 505 facilities specifically designated to provide the services, only an estimated 197 are operational. (Photo: coe.int / Wikipedia)

South Africa’s failing healthcare system is of great concern in terms of access. The Covid-19 pandemic and ensuing health crises have placed additional pressure on the substandard state of healthcare. It is of little surprise to womxn that reproductive health rights have been relegated to the bottom of the list of priorities.

With these rights not being a priority to the state, more and more of the public designated abortion facilities have become dysfunctional. Issues related to staff and resource shortages have very quietly led to the effective closure of these facilities and womxn in more rural and remote areas are being left without the ability to exercise the right to choose.

Of the 3,880 health facilities in South Africa, less than 7% provide access to abortion services, and of the 505 facilities specifically designated to provide the service, only an estimated 197 are operational. These statistics predate the Covid-19 pandemic.

The issues above contribute to an environment where womxn face additional barriers, including a lack of information on basic things such as where to obtain free abortion services and what to expect in this process. Womxn also face active obstructors such as hospital and clinic staff who refuse to provide these services, or who actively misdirect or confuse womxn about information essential for them to exercise their rights.

A rise in conservative anti-rights efforts to obstruct womxn’s access to rights has also sprung up in the form of pregnancy crisis centres. These centres present as access points for information and services, but instead spread misinformation and enforce harmful stereotypes and fear. These all contribute to deterring womxn from accessing abortion services.

Section 12 of the Constitution provides for the right to freedom and security of the person, and section 12(2) specifically provides for the right to bodily and psychological integrity, which includes the right to make decisions concerning reproduction; and the right to security in and control over one’s body. (Photo: Leila Dougan)

Compounding these barriers, in 2020 the Department of Health released the National Clinical Guideline on the Implementation of the Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act which makes a provision for healthcare providers to refuse to provide abortion services on the basis of “conscientious objection”. A provision that is not aligned with the CTOPA and that has the effect of again limiting where and from whom womxn can access their right to abortions. This is again of particular concern when designated facilities are already understaffed and underresourced, if not closed entirely.

Issues related to staff and resource shortages have very quietly led to the effective closure of designated abortion facilities and womxn in more rural and remote areas are being left without the ability to exercise the right to choose. (Photo: EPA / Jon Hrusa)

These barriers also feed into an ever-growing illegal abortion service industry which runs rampant in a country where, in practice, womxn should not have to look outside the legal framework to exercise their right to choose.

Although the US case will have no direct implications on our legal framework, and our rights to abortion, it most certainly will contribute to the ever-growing list of barriers that womxn face in their lived realities.

So, what will the impact be?

Whenever conservative anti-rights rhetoric grows through anticipated victories, such as this draft opinion in the US, the impact is felt here in South Africa and across the globe. Harmful and discriminatory language about womxn who access abortion services, their bodily autonomy and how they are viewed in society enjoys greater prominence and acceptance in a society that upholds patriarchy. And as a country deeply rooted in patriarchal practices and views, we increasingly see the impact of rights denial and rejection.

As mentioned before, the stigma surrounding abortion is still an enormous challenge to South African womxn, and to making reproductive health rights a priority for our government.

Accordingly, the overruling of Roe v Wade, in the South African context, will be like adding fuel to a fire that has been quietly burning away womxn’s rights in South Africa. It legitimises patriarchal stereotypes of womxn in their diversity, entrenches stigmas that weigh down abortion rights, and will only serve to encourage the conservative anti-rights actors, resulting in more legal challenges to our abortion regulations in our courts and more efforts on the ground to frustrate access to existing abortion services. DM/MC

Charlene May and Khuliso Managa are attorneys at the Women’s Legal Centre. It is an African feminist legal centre that advances womxn’s rights and equality using tools such as litigation, advocacy, education, advice, research and training.

Global food threats: a chicken and egg story

“Temporary disruptions” carry a long term risk. But unwinding international supply chains could send farmers backward.

VANI SWARUPA MURALI

Export bans on poultry from Malaysia have a cause for concern in neighbouring Singapore 

(Roslan Rahman/AFP via Getty Images)
Published 3 Jun 2022 

A slew of countries have announced food export bans or higher food export taxes as a result of the war in Ukraine. The initial shortages in the global wheat supply following Russia’s invasion has now trickled into other food products. Headlines for recent export curbs have focused on India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Malaysia, but the challenge extends across the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa. The war in Ukraine has compounded what for many countries has been a difficult cropping season, with droughts or other extreme weather affecting yields – and this on top of already high prices due to Covid-related supply chain disruptions.

“Food protectionism” or “food nationalism” are increasingly buzzwords used to describe measures put in place to counter the effect of shortages, rising costs and higher domestic prices. The sudden shock to the supply chain has led to questions about whether a de-globalisation of food sources could be imminent, and how particular countries might cope?

Singapore, for example, faces a particular challenge, given the country sources approximately 90 per cent of its food from abroad. A stand-off with Malaysia in recent weeks has seen a third of poultry supplies at risk.

Countries that have implemented export restrictions cite reasons such as a need “to manage the overall food security of the country” to ensure domestic food supply. Redirecting food intended for export back to domestic markets could also help suppress local inflation. However, as of now, industry experts suggest that “prices are real high and they don’t seem to be going down any soon”.

Given vast parts of the world rely on food imports, protectionism could also widen the margins of global inequality as the richer countries benefit from the lower prices and recover quickly while others struggle.

Some countries, such as Malaysia, have also had to reconsider import rules on food products due to higher import prices against a weaker currency. Some import quotas have loosened. Concurrent issues such as higher global commodity prices, domestic supply chain issues and a weak currency have created a lasting effect on domestic food prices, suggesting there will be no quick fix to the problem.

The United Nations has urged countries to reconsider closing off the global food supply chain, declaring the trade of food “is the best way to ensure global food security and less-volatile prices”. While export bans could perhaps keep domestic inflation in check, they could also lead to farmers hoarding product until markets open again, risking spoilage, and leading to more volatile prices and a possible shift away from certain crops, thereby reducing domestic output.

Moreover, falling prices, while good for consumers, could also mean a fall in profit and a risk for many farmers of a return to poverty. Given vast parts of the world rely on food imports, protectionism could also widen the margins of global inequality as the richer countries benefit from the lower prices and recover quickly while others struggle.

For Singapore, as a net food importer, talk about long-term protectionist measures are considered to be a “lose-lose scenario for everyone”. The decision by neighbouring Malaysia to stop exporting as many as 3.6 million chickens each month, citing a need to stabilise domestic prices and production, has led to concern about panic-buying. Singapore’s government appears to be approaching the matter from a short-term point of view, suggesting that “temporary disruptions” might require consumers to switch to other meat products or frozen chicken varieties.

However, for the long run, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has emphasised that “Singapore has built food resilience with buffer stocks and diversified sources to cope with disruptions”. The country has diversified its sources by increasing the number of approved countries for food imports across various products such as eggs, poultry, and beef. Singapore wants to increase the capacity of its agri-food industry with the aim to produce 30 per cent of the country’s nutritional needs locally by the end of the decade.

Uzbekistan’s Soviet Legacy Lives on in Its Treatment of Journalists


Uzbekistan’s State Security Services threaten, intimidate, and pressure journalists to avoid certain topics and delete certain stories.

By Cheryl L. Reed
June 03, 2022

Credit: Catherine Putz
This is part one of a two-part investigation into the State Security Services’ increasing repression of Uzbekistan’s journalists.

TASHKENT, UZBEKISTAN — Tolib Rakhmatov was an investigative reporter for the popular Tashkent media platform Kun.uz when he was summoned in 2019 for his first meeting with the State Security Services (SSS) at Cafe Shum Bola. Rakhmatov, a middle-aged man with kind eyes and a quick wit, thought the restaurant was an ominous place for such a meeting. “Shum bola” means “naughty boy” in Uzbek.

“They said they just wanted to get to know me better,” he recalled recently. During his time at Kun.uz he was contacted five times by the SSS, he said. Each time he felt the officers were trying to intimidate him into quitting his job.

“They make indirect threats,” he added. “They say, ‘You don’t want your son or daughter to become crippled one day. You don’t want them crossing the street and something to happen to them.’”

Rakhmatov’s experiences with the SSS were similar to those recounted by more than 35 journalists, bloggers, human rights activists, and media watchers I interviewed in Uzbekistan from March until June this year. The Uzbekistan government welcomed me as an American journalist and U.S. Fulbright Scholar – a research grant from the U.S. State Department – to research the challenges facing journalists reporting about corruption and government malfeasance. I had previously interviewed nearly 100 journalists about obstacles to press freedoms in eight other post-Soviet countries.


Tolib Rakhmatov was a former investigative reporter with Kun.uz. He now covers Uzbekistani migrant workers abroad for www.migrant.mobi. Photo provided by author.

During the 26 years of former President Islam Karimov’s repressive regime, journalists were imprisoned and tortured. Since President Shavkat Mirziyoyev took over in late 2016, Uzbekistan has had a freer media. Currently, there are 10 bloggers in prison in Uzbekistan but no officially registered journalist is behind bars, according to human rights groups and media watchers.

Uzbekistan’s media is still crawling out from under the legacy of the Soviet era, when entertainment news dominated and government censors deleted what was perceived as too dangerous. Many journalists are still on the government payroll, working for state-owned and controlled TV, radio, newspapers, and websites. Other journalists and bloggers work as press agents for various government organizations. Even independent media take money from government organizations to report unlabeled advertorials. 

Journalism ethics are not well developed in the country, and understanding of conflict of interests is limited. Media editors and owners lack sophistication when it comes to the variety of ways stories can be reported. Many don’t understand or appreciate news analysis or investigative reporting. Journalism education is very basic and taught by many who were trained under the Soviets.

The only people who seem to be pushing the limits of the government’s tolerance are untrained bloggers who largely videotape in a shock and shame style. But these gonzo bloggers, who frequently take money to cover certain stories, are not protected by media laws.

Unlike Belarus and some other repressive post-Soviet countries where independent journalists band together and journalist groups aggressively fight for their rights, journalists in Uzbekistan are less collegial. Many are openly critical and suspicious of each other and of the union that is supposed to represent them.

One of the biggest problems cited by most Uzbekistani journalists is the SSS, who they say threatens, intimidates, orders them to delete stories, and demands they stop covering certain topics, such as high-level corruption within the government, the activities of wealthy businessmen, religious practices, or anything vaguely disrespectful to the president or his family. Despite repeated requests, the SSS refused to meet with me.

Such threats and intimidation stifle journalists from reporting about corruption and problems that the newly elected president says he needs to know about to make reforms. The result is a media that is timid and self-censoring, a populace that is afraid to speak out, and a country that promotes the façade of a free press when in reality it is a country that is entangled in propaganda.

“When the treatment becomes more harsh and more severe, people become more timid and more abiding authority, like North Korea,” explained Tashanov Abdurakhmon, chairman of Ezgulik, Uzbekistan’s only registered independent human rights group. “We are ill from these demands.”

I found only one journalist who claimed she could write whatever she wanted and the SSS wouldn’t bother her. When I asked what her secret was, she said: “The SSS killed my brother in 2015, eight of them went to prison. So now they leave me alone.”

Journalists say SSS pressure on the media has only intensified with the trifecta of controversial events: last October’s presidential election in Uzbekistan, the January protests in nearby Kazakhstan, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February.

“Media freedom has really gone down dramatically,” said Navbahor Imamova, a Voice of America reporter who has covered Central Asia for more than 20 years. “I’d say Uzbekistan has taken some 10 steps back. The security services have gotten much stronger.”

Navbahor Imamova is a former Uzbekistani state journalist who has worked for Voice of America covering Central Asia for more than 20 years. Photo provided by author.

Problems at Kun.uz

Rakhmatov left his job at Kun.uz on January 31 after he said he was told by owner Umid Shermukhammedov to stop reporting on stories about a land development case in Nazarbek involving a construction company owned by the brother of a deputy minister. Rakhmatov had written about the case as it wound through the court system. Then he says Shermukhammedov suddenly told him to stop. But when the case reached the Supreme Court, Rakhmatov wrote about the court ruling against the construction company.

“I thought it was safe to write about it,” Rakhmatov said. “We usually follow the principle that after a case comes to a logical conclusion that we write something about it. The Supreme Court decision was the final outcome.”

Four hours after the story was posted, it was removed, he said. The next day Rakhmatov was out of a job. He believes that someone in the government pressured Shermkhammedov.

“I was surprised because in the past Umid was quite free and open. And he was always very motivated about being brave in journalism,” Rakhmatov said. “I was quite disappointed.”

Shermkhammedov did not respond to repeated requests for an interview.

A month later, Kun.uz and other Tashkent media platforms came under fire from the SSS regarding their coverage of the Ukraine war.

“We tried to report both sides of the war,” explained Kun.uz Editor Dilshod Abdukadirov during an interview three weeks later. “The government said we need to take a more neutral position.” Although it was widely reported that Abdukadirov and Shermukhammedov were detained by the SSS for several hours on February 26 for their Ukraine coverage, Abdukadirov denied he’d ever been contacted by the SSS. Shermukhammedov even posted about the meeting on his Facebook, which was seen by dozens of reporters. He later deleted the post.

Dilshod Abdukadirov, left, is an editor at Kun.uz Here he is pictured with one of his reporters, Ilyos Safarov. Photo provided by author.

Abdukadirov promised to pose questions about the incident with Shermukhammedov and get back to me. Finally, after many Telegram and email exchanges over the course of two months, Abdukadirov wrote, “Umid does not want to talk about this topic.”

Rahkmatov was not surprised. “It’s normal to deny certain things,” he said. “They have to deny. They have to say everything is fine. In 2018, when the government put us offline and our website was blocked for 11 days, we told the public that it was a technical problem. But in fact, it was blocked.”

Since the end of February, Kun.uz, like other independent media, has published its most aggressive war coverage on its Telegram channel. In contrast, its website coverage has wavered between something equating neutral coverage andcarrying stories straight from the Kremlin’s news service – like a story in which Putin claims he is helping Ukrainians with its “special operations” and another incendiary story in which Putin claims the atrocities in Bucha were faked. That story carried the original headline “Bucha is fake,” but has now been changed so that Bucha is no longer mentioned in the headline. 

Dilshod Saikjonov is the first deputy director of the Agency for Information and Mass Media – the government’s media monitoring arm. He said he was not aware that the SSS had pressured Kun.uz to delete and alter its Ukraine coverage, even though the situation was highlighted by Reporters Without Borders (RSF). Uzbekistan recently boasted about its ranking in RSF’s latest World Press Freedom index: 133 out of 180 countries.

“Kun.uz and Gazetta.uz are such strong mass media, why would they need to delete material?” He said he had privately urged the top editors to “balance” their stories on the war “because we are friends,” he said. “We play football together.”

Saikjonov said he was not aware of any journalist being pressured by the SSS. “Yes, I had some calls from journalists in the past who said it was a real situation, but I didn’t know if they were exaggerating,” he said.

Komil Allamjonov, former press secretary for Mirziyoyev and now head of the Public Foundation for Support and Development of National Mass Media, said he was aware of what happened at Kun.uz and had seen Shermukhammedov’s Facebook post.

“Some people from certain services lack sophistication and proper skills to work with journalists,” Allamjonov said. “So probably Umid and Dilshod had to face this kind of situation when they faced a work of unsophisticated tactics and instruments.”

He added, “The majority of the security services are people of old traditions of the Soviet legacy. So they inherited these old methods, which were rude.”

Allamjonov believes that journalism is one of the most dangerous professions. But he says journalists in his country need to be passionate about justice, brave and courageous, and fight against “these dark forces.”

“No one,” he said, “is going to give you media freedom as a gift.”

Allamjonov wields enormous power from his perch at the foundation. His deputy is the president’s own daughter, Saida Mirziyoyev. Allamjonov warns journalists not to politicize media freedom because the president could change his mind and opt for a more repressive media policy, like the one in Singapore.

Abdurakhmon, Ezgulik’s chairman, says that there is no freedom of the press and speech in Uzbekistan if that freedom only derives from the whims of one man. “Sooner or later the president can change his mind,” he said. “Freedom of speech should just be and not be dependent on whether the president wants it.”

Tashanov Abdurakhmon, left, is the chairman of Ezgulik, the only human rights organizations that is registered in Uzbekistan. Bekzod Nurmatov is vice chairman of Ezgulik. Photo provided by author.

Old Soviet Methods

In some cases the SSS pressure forces journalists to change their beats and their media platforms. Alisher Ruziohunov has worked at a number of media platforms including Kun.uz, Gazetta.uz and Bugun.uz. He said he has been asked to meet several times with the SSS. Once he was asked to postpone a story about a popular Tashkent market the government wanted to move. The market, he said, was owned by the son-in-law of an SSS officer.

“We made a big coverage,” he said. “We were asked by the SSS to postpone this coverage until some time when people weren’t aware of what they were doing.”

Later he was working on a story about how houses were being demolished in Andijan. The SSS warned him his coverage needed to be “soft.”

Ruziohunov said he changed his beat from politics to economics solely to avoid SSS pressure. “I prefer covering economic news because there are no red lines. In political coverage, you can’t cover the family of the president. There’s no reason to become a good journalist if you can only do this up to a certain level.”

The last time Ruziohunov received a threat from the SSS was in December 2021. An SSS officer asked him to a café and pressured him to inform him about the stories he was working on.

“He threatened me that if I didn’t cooperate that I would never have another job, and my brother would have troubles,” he said. “When I said I didn’t care about those things, the man offered me money. I told him I didn’t want the money. When he realized I wasn’t going to do what he wanted, he said he was just kidding. But I know how they manipulate reporters.”

Last year on May 3 – World Press Day – Ruziohunov said he and several other journalists he trusted were invited to the home of Timothy Torlot, the ambassador of the United Kingdom to Uzbekistan. There is even a picture of Ruziohunov, wearing a dapper blue jacket, and several other journalists sitting in Torlot’s living room on the embassy’s Facebook page. Afterwards, he said, an SSS officer visited him. “The guy told me what I said and recounted the conversation,” he said. “I knew one of my friends had informed on me using old Soviet methods.”

GUEST AUTHOR
Cheryl L. Reed is an American author and journalist who is researching journalistic freedoms in post-Soviet states. She is currently a Fulbright Scholar in Central Asia. For more information, see www.cherylreed.com

Getting deglobalization right

Joseph E. Stiglitz

June 03, 2022 


The World Economic Forum’s first meeting in more than two years was markedly different from the many previous Davos conferences that I have attended since 1995. It was not just that the bright snow and clear skies of January were replaced by bare ski slopes and a gloomy May drizzle. Rather, it was that a forum traditionally committed to championing globalization was primarily concerned with globalization’s failures: broken supply chains, food- and energy-price inflation, and an intellectual-property (IP) regime that left billions without COVID-19 vaccines just so that a few drug companies could earn billions in extra profits.

Among the proposed responses to these problems are to “reshore” or “friend-shore” production and to enact “industrial policies to increase country capacities to produce.” Gone are the days when everyone seemed to be working for a world without borders; suddenly, everyone recognizes that at least some national borders are key to economic development and security.

For one-time advocates of unfettered globalization, this volte face has resulted in cognitive dissonance, because the new suite of policy proposals implies that longstanding rules of the international trading system will be bent or broken. Unable to reconcile friend-shoring with the principle of free and non-discriminatory trade, most of the business and political leaders at Davos resorted to platitudes. There was little soul searching about how and why things have gone so wrong, or about the flawed, hyper-optimistic reasoning that prevailed during globalization’s heyday.

Of course, the problem is not just globalization. Our entire market economy has shown a lack of resilience. We essentially built cars without spare tires – knocking a few dollars off the price today while paying little mind to future exigencies. Just-in-time inventory systems were marvelous innovations as long as the economy faced only minor perturbations; but they were a disaster in the face of COVID-19 shutdowns, creating supply-shortage cascades (such as when a dearth of microchips led to a dearth of new cars).

As I warned in my 2006 book, Making Globalization Work, markets do a terrible job of “pricing” risk (for the same reason that they don’t price carbon dioxide emissions). Consider Germany, which chose to make its economy dependent on gas deliveries from Russia, an obviously unreliable trading partner. Now, it is facing consequences that were both predictable and predicted.

As Adam Smith recognized in the eighteenth century, capitalism is not a self-sustaining system, because there is a natural tendency toward monopoly. However, since US President Ronald Reagan and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher ushered in an era of “deregulation,” increasing market concentration has become the norm, and not just in high-profile sectors like e-commerce and social media. The disastrous shortage of baby formula in the United States this spring was itself the result of monopolization. After Abbott was forced to suspend production over safety concerns, Americans soon realized that just one company accounts for almost half of the US supply.

The political ramifications of globalization’s failures were also on full display at Davos this year. When Russia invaded Ukraine, the Kremlin was immediately and almost universally condemned. But three months later, emerging markets and developing countries (EMDCs) have adopted more ambiguous positions. Many point to America’s hypocrisy in demanding accountability for Russia’s aggression, even though it invaded Iraq under false pretenses in 2003.

EMDCs also emphasize the more recent history of vaccine nationalism by Europe and the US, which has been sustained through World Trade Organization IP provisions that were foisted on them 30 years ago. And it is EMDCs that are now bearing the brunt of higher food and energy prices. Combined with historical injustices, these recent developments have discredited Western advocacy of democracy and international rule of law.

To be sure, many countries that refuse to support America’s defense of democracy are not democratic anyway. But other countries are, and America’s standing to lead that fight has been undermined by its own failures – from systemic racism and the Trump administration’s flirtation with authoritarians to the Republican Party’s persistent attempts to suppress voting and divert attention from the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the US Capitol.

The best way forward for the US would be to show greater solidarity with EMDCs by helping them to manage the surging costs of food and energy. This could be done by reallocating rich countries’ special drawing rights (the International Monetary Fund’s reserve asset), and by supporting a strong COVID-19 IP waiver at the WTO.

Moreover, high food and energy prices are likely to cause debt crises in many poor countries, further compounding the tragic inequities of the pandemic. If the US and Europe want to show real global leadership, they will stop siding with the big banks and creditors that enticed countries to take on more debt than they could bear.

After four decades of championing globalization, it is clear that the Davos crowd mismanaged things. It promised prosperity for developed and developing countries alike. But while corporate giants in the Global North grew rich, processes that could have made everyone better off instead made enemies everywhere. “Trickle-down economics,” the claim that enriching the wealthy would automatically benefit all, was a swindle – an idea that had neither theory nor evidence behind it.

This year’s Davos meeting was a missed opportunity. It could have been an occasion for serious reflection on the decisions and policies that brought the world to where it is today. Now that globalization has peaked, we can only hope that we do better at managing its decline than we did at managing its rise.

Copyright: Project Syndicate


JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ is the winner of the 2001 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. His most recent book is Globalization and its Discontents Revisited: Anti-Globalization in the Era of Trump.

UAE to Chair UN's Committee on The Peaceful Uses of Outer Space

Thursday, 2 June, 2022

Omran Sharaf seen at the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space meeting. (Asharq Al-Awsat)

Dubai- Asharq Al-Awsat

The UAE will chair the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS).

The 100-member state committee is one of the largest UN committees. It was established by the UN General Assembly in 1959 to govern the exploration and use of space.

It was tasked with reviewing international cooperation in the peaceful exploration and use of outer space, studying space-related activities, encouraging space research programs and studying and recommending policy and the legal infrastructure supporting space exploration.

Omran Sharaf, who will now chair COPUOS for a period of two years (2022-2023), serves as the project director of the Emirates Mars Mission (EMM) at the Mohammed bin Rashid Space Center in Dubai, UAE.

Sharaf was the first Emirati engineer to travel to Korea in the country’s technology transfer program, which saw him working on the development of the DubaiSat-1 and DubaiSat-2 remote sensing satellites.

During his time in Korea, Sharaf gained his Master's degree in Science and Technology Policy from the Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), South Korea, in 2013.

Sharaf said the space sector in the UAE is witnessing successive achievements.

He pointed out that it is a qualified sector, thanks to the future vision that prioritizes the development process, in light of the mass capacities and scientific expertise the UAE has in this field.

The UAE said winning the presidency is of great importance to it, stressing that this phase requires setting space policies.

World countries compete to launch dozens of satellites, thus the committee's role will be pivotal in building policies to ensure the sustainability of space and encourage adopting a regulatory framework calling for acting responsibly.

UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed said electing Omran to chair the committee is a new achievement for the state and reflects the world’s appreciation for its programs and contributions in the field of space.

“We wish Omran every success in leading this committee and implementing its goals and projects.”

Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, expressed his pride in the UAE and Omran, noting that the country’s youths have reached space, they lead global issues and run international institutions.

During its presidency of the intergovernmental organization, the UAE seeks to bolster the efforts of space and science diplomacy at the global level, promote fair and peaceful access to space for all world countries, and compliance with international legal frameworks and UN treaties governing the safety and sustainability of outer space among the member states.

It further aims to support and encourage knowledge transfer programs among member states as a way to accomplish tasks more efficiently and a tool to develop the global space economy and promote the exchange and development of new and innovative practices of the committee’s work system, in line with international law.

Sarah al-Amiri, Minister of State for Public Education and Advanced Technology and Chairwomen of the UAE Space Agency, said, “It’s a great honor for the Emirates to take the chair of COPUOS, particularly as we founded our space program on international partnerships and collaboration and continue to place these partnerships at the core of our space sector development.”

WAIT, WHAT?! 

Outrage as North Korea takes helm of world disarmament body


Countries use North’s elevation in rotating presidency to chastise Pyongyang over recent missile tests and feared preparation for fresh nuclear test

North Korea's ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Han Tae Song, appears on a screen in Geneva while chairing the Conference on Disarmament on Thursday.

 Photograph: Fabrice Coffrini/AFP/Getty Images

Agence France-Presse in Geneva
Fri 3 Jun 2022

North Korea skipped the diplomatic niceties for a combative tone as it took the helm of the Conference on Disarmament.

“My country is still at war with the United States,” declared Pyongyang’s ambassador, Han Tae-Song.

Around 50 countries have voiced their outrage that the nuclear-armed North Korea is being tasked with chairing the world’s most foremost multilateral disarmament forum for the next three weeks.

North Korea took over the rotating presidency of the Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament on Thursday, according to a decades-old practice among the body’s 65 members following the alphabetical order of country names in English.


North Korea fires suspected ICBM amid signs of preparation for nuclear test

But despite the automatic nature of North Korea’s presidency of the conference, dozens of non-governmental organisations had urged countries to walk out of the room in protest.

There was no dramatic exit, but many nations opted to send only lower-level diplomats, while the US, the EU, Britain, Australia and South Korea, among others, took the occasion to chastise Pyongyang over its numerous ballistic missile tests and feared preparation for a fresh nuclear test, the first since 2017.

“We remain gravely concerned about the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s reckless actions which continue to seriously undermine the very value of the Disarmament Conference,” said the Australian ambassador, Amanda Gorely, speaking on behalf of the group of countries.

The decision to remain in the room should not in any way be interpreted as “tacit consent” of North Korea’s violations of international law, she said.

Pyongyang’s ambassador, who opened Thursday’s meeting, held exceptionally in the UN’s distinctive human rights chamber in Geneva, merely responded: “The president takes note of your statement.”

In Washington, State Department spokesman Ned Price said that North Korea’s role called the body’s utility into doubt.

“It certainly does call that into question when you have a regime like the DPRK in a senior leadership post, a regime that has done as much as any other government around the world to erode the non-proliferation norm,” he said.

North Korea, one of the most militarised countries in the world, has carried out a number of missile tests since the beginning of the year.

The US and South Korea say it fired three missiles, including possibly its largest intercontinental ballistic missile, hours after Joe Biden closed a visit to the region late last month.


North Korea’s Covid outbreak likely ‘getting worse’, WHO says

The US and others have warned that Pyongyang is preparing its first nuclear test in five years.

In Thursday’s joint statement, Gorely urged North Korea to “observe a moratorium on nuclear test explosions”.

After repeatedly “taking note” as president of the criticism, Han, the North Korean ambassador, took the floor in his national capacity to insist on North Korea’s right to defend itself against US “threats”.

Pyongyang, he pointed out, remained officially at war with the US since the 1953 ceasefire that ended combat and split the Korean peninsula.

“No country has the right to criticise or interfere in the national defence policy” of North Korea, he said.

The Conference on Disarmament, which is not a UN body but meets at its headquarters in Geneva, is a multilateral disarmament forum that holds three sessions a year.

It negotiates arms control and disarmament accords and focuses on the cessation of the nuclear arms race.