Where in the world will you find 'forever chemicals'? Everywhere, new analysis suggests.

Mike Snider, USA TODAY
Wed, February 22, 2023 

"Forever chemicals" are not only enduring, but they're also pervasive.

A new analysis finds that more than 330 species of animals across the globe – from polar bears to squirrels – carry in their bodies a class of chemicals called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also called PFAS.

Known as "forever chemicals," because they do not break down as many others do, the substances have been linked in humans to risks for cancer, low birthweights, weakened childhood immunity, thyroid disease and other health problems.

Research has already shown that 99% of Americans have PFAS in their bodies. But this report released Wednesday by the Environmental Working Group shows more than 120 different forever chemicals were found in the blood serum or bodies of birds, tigers, monkeys, pandas, horses, cats, otters and other mammals.

Ohio derailment: EPA steps up cleanup oversight at Norfolk Southern train site

Catalytic converter thefts are up: How to protect yours from being stolen

The EWG, a nonprofit that tracks governmental action on environmental issues, collected the findings of more than 100 studies in the last five years to create a map showing where researchers have found forever chemicals in animals across the world. The chemicals were found on every continent except Antarctica – however, no tests have been conducted there.

The map also incorporates another EWG analysis released last month, which found freshwater fish contaminated with PFAS in almost every state.

Most people in the U.S. have been exposed to PFAS, the Environmental Protection Agency says. That means the chemicals are found in the blood of virtually everyone, including newborn babies.

“PFAS pollution is not just a problem for humans. It’s a problem for species across the globe," said David Andrews, a senior scientist at EWG, in a statement.

"PFAS are ubiquitous, and this first-of-its-kind map clearly captures the extent to which PFAS have contaminated wildlife around the globe."

(To see interactive map, go to ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_in_wildlife/map)

A screenshot of an interactive map shows where PFAS chemicals have been found in wildlife across the world. The interactive map can be found at ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_in_wildlife/map

What are PFAS and what products are they in?

There are about 12,000 different kinds of PFAS and they're used in all kinds of commercial, consumer and industrial products, the Environmental Protection Agency says. They are used in water-resistant clothing and carpeting, paint, cleaning products, and fire-fighting foams.

The Food and Drug Administration allows some to be used in cookware, food packaging and food processing equipment.

Last year, the EPA issued a new health advisory for drinking water concentrations of two of the most commonly noted PFAS chemicals – perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, which is found in Teflon; and perfluorooctane sulfonate, or PFOS. Both chemicals were used to make consumer goods but were phased out of production in the 2000s.

How do PFAS get into the air, water, animals and fish?

All PFAS include a carbon-fluorine molecule bond, one of the strongest known in chemistry. That makes them good for nonstick cookware, for instance, but also makes them virtually indestructible because they do not fully degrade in the environment or within living tissue.

PFAS were also used in stain-resistant and water-resistant compounds to protect clothing, fabrics, upholstery, shoes and other products.

A March 2022 study from Consumer Reports found PFAS in many takeout food wrappers and packages. It also noted a specific concern: packaging in landfills can eventually contaminate the water and soil, and if incinerated, can spread in the air.

EWG’s research has found PFOS levels in fish so high that even infrequent consumption would significantly increase the chemical's levels in people.

A 2019 study suggested cardinals around Atlanta were being exposed to "forever chemicals" or PFAS fromsoil, groundwater and air, with 12 different PFAS found in their blood serum.

What are the health risks of PFAS?

Studies have linked PFOA to kidney and testicular cancers, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, and other serious ailments in highly contaminated communities such as Parkersburg, West Virginia.

Very low doses of PFAS in drinking water have been linked to immune system suppression including reduced vaccine efficacy and an increased risk of certain cancers, studies have found. PFAS are linked with reproductive and developmental problems as well as increased cholesterol and other health issues, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

"Exposure to high levels of PFAS poses a health risk for both humans and animals," said Dr. Patricia Fair, a professor of public health at the Medical University of South Carolina, in Charleston, who was given an early look at the study and provided a comment in its release. "Many wildlife species, particularly fish, are an essential part of the diet of people serving as major sources of these chemicals."

'Forever chemicals': EPA finds no safe level for toxic 'forever chemicals'

PFAS foam floats along Van Etten Creek after being dumped from a storm pipe of water treated at a granular activated carbon GAC plant from the former Wurtsmith Air Force Base in Oscoda on Wednesday, March 13, 2019.

What are state and federal officials doing about PFAS?

Last June, the EPA issued a new drinking water advisory warning that negative health effects could occur at levels of PFOA and PFOS near zero and below the agency's ability to detect. The advisory set the suggested concentration of PFOA at 0.004 parts per trillion (ppt) and 0.02 ppt for PFOS; the previous 2016 advisory set levels of 70 ppt for both chemicals.

By the end of the year, the EPA is expected to issue an official rule taking its findings into account and that would make its advisory enforceable.

At least 31 states are expected to consider about 260 bills on toxic chemical policies in 2023 – and at least 28 specifically considering PFAS-related policies – according to Safer States, a nationwide environmental health alliance.

Seventeen states are also pursuing litigation against the makers of PFAS chemicals found to be contaminating water supplies, the group says.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration has allocated $5 billion over five years from the infrastructure package to help communities reduce PFAS in drinking water, including funds for water quality testing.

“Too many American communities, especially those that are small, rural or underserved, are suffering from exposure to PFAS and other harmful contaminants in their drinking water,” said EPA administrator Michael Regan said in announcing the effort Feb. 13.

The support to these communities is "really important," Sarah Doll, national director of Safer States, told USA TODAY. "Because the Biden administration is starting to push to regulate at least these two PFAS out of any enormous class (of chemicals), it's telegraphing that this is coming and forcing communities that haven't already started to look (for PFAS), to look and to do the testing."

But some criticize the administration from moving too slowly. Biden said it would be a priority while campaigning, said Scott Faber, the EWG's senior vice president of government affairs.

In the meantime, "millions of Americans are drinking water contaminated with toxic forever chemicals and thousands of communities are downwind and downstream of polluters that are dumping and pumping PFAS into our air and water," Faber said in a media briefing earlier this month.

Signs from the Michigan Department of Community Health warn to not eat fish from Clark's Marsh in Oscoda, Michigan on the grounds of the decommissioned Wurtsmith Air Force Base due to unsafe levels of PFCs in fish and the surface water. The water tested at least 5,000 ppt for total PFAS due to the contamination at the former base.

Dig deeper

3M will stop making forever chemicals. What to know about their health risks


Testing for 'forever chemicals' lacking for tribal water systems


High levels of toxic ‘forever chemicals’ found in deer and fish


North Carolina: Are there PFAS in Asheville's water supply?


Wisconsin: 'Forever chemicals' standards in groundwater moves forward


Oregon: Drinking water systems mostly free from 'forever chemicals'


California: 3M sued over ‘forever chemicals’ that taint water

Contributing: Kyle Bagenstose, Marina Pitofsky, Scott Gleeson; The Associated Press.

Follow Mike Snider on Twitter: @mikesnider.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Animals have toxic 'forever chemicals' called PFAS in bodies: Report

Animals full of PFAS 'forever chemicals' have been found on every continent except Antarctica, new report finds

Morgan McFall-Johnsen
Wed, February 22, 2023 a

One study found PFAS in Florida's manatees.

James R.D. Scott/Getty Images

Animals, birds, and fish across the planet are contaminated with forever chemicals, a new report found.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) pose health risks to humans, and could also harm animals.

A map of 125 peer-reviewed studies reveals the widespread contamination of wildlife on Earth.

Animals are contaminated with hazardous forever chemicals on every continent except Antarctica, according to a new report.

Creatures ranging from tigers and polar bears, to red pandas and voles, to plankton in the sea, are likely accumulating per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) by eating fish, drinking water, or simply breathing air, and it could put them at risk.

PFAS can be found in tons of manufactured goods, from food packaging and clothing, to firefighting foam and (formerly) Teflon pans.

Though they're useful for resisting water, heat, and stains, PFAS do not break down in the environment, earning them the "forever chemicals" nickname.

Rainfall and soil across the planet may contain unsafe levels of the substances.

A red panda cub photographed in Seattle, Washington. In China, these animals have been found to contain PFAS.

Elaine Thompson/AP

That has led to widespread contamination of living creatures, according to a report published Wednesday by the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit specializing in research and advocacy on household chemicals.

Researchers there gathered 125 peer-reviewed studies that tested wildlife for PFAS over the last five years. Not a single study in the assessment failed to detect PFAS in the animals, birds, or fish tested, according to David Andrews, a senior scientist at EWG.

Locations where PFAS-contaminated wildlife have been documented.

Many of the studies were testing near a known PFAS site, such as a firefighting base or industrial facility.

But often, Andrews said, those studies couldn't find an uncontaminated animal population to serve as a control group — a baseline far from the site for comparison.

"This is really a global contamination issue, and it's likely impacting wildlife everywhere," he told Insider.

Wildlife worldwide struggle against habitat loss, climate change, and sometimes poaching. The new report suggests that contamination from forever chemicals may pose yet another threat to many species' survival.

PFAS could pose a threat to animals' health

Polar bears in the Arctic also had PFAS in a study.

Mathieu Belanger/Reuters

The impacts of PFAS on animals' health are not well-studied, but for humans, research has linked exposure to the chemicals with some cancers, thyroid disease, decreased fertility, developmental delays, liver damage, high cholesterol, and reduced immune responses.

As a result, the US Environmental Protection Agency has deemed the two most notorious PFAS as "hazardous substances" and is working on rules for reducing their presence in drinking water.

Andrews fears animals across the globe could face similar health risks to PFAS-drinking humans.

Some research hints at this. One study in North Carolina found alligators with high blood levels of PFAS showed signs of weakened immune systems.

An alligator swallows a catfish, which could be full of PFAS.

Getty Images

More research is needed to understand the stakes.

Just as studies in rats can't predict human health outcomes, studies in alligators can't predict polar bear health outcomes.

"There's definitely some uncertainty and likely some variation between species in terms of how these chemicals are causing harm," Andrews said. "That is also a unique aspect of these chemicals: how many different parts of the body and our biology they can impact and cause harm to."

Phasing out forever chemicals is a slow process so far

US Environmental Protection Agency officials listen to members of the public comment during a PFAS Community Stakeholder Meeting, in Horsham, Pennsylvania.

AP Photo/Matt Rourke

US manufacturers have already phased out a few PFAS, but many of the thousands of varieties are still in use. Andrews called for replacing them with alternative substances.

At the same time, industrial facilities are burping PFAS into the air and leaking them into waterways. Cleaning up these emission sites is key to stopping more forever chemicals from building in the environment.

Last month the European Union released a proposal to ban the production, sale, and use of 10,000 PFAS. The proposal is currently under assessment.

In the US, the EPA expects to publish a national drinking-water regulation for PFAS by the end of 2023, including an enforceable maximum contamination limit.

"It will take regulatory action to move the entire market and country away from dependence on these chemicals," Andrews said.

Wildlife species worldwide exposed to ‘forever chemicals,’ survey shows



Sharon Udasin
Tue, February 21, 2023 

Wildlife from around the world — from polar bears, to monkeys, to dolphins — may be exposed to cancer-linked “forever chemicals,” a new survey has found.

A comprehensive map curated by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) provides a window into just how many kinds of animals, including some that are endangered or threatened, may be contaminated by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

Hundreds of studies have already identified these so-called forever chemicals in wildlife populations around the world, but the new map aims to consolidate that research into one interactive, accessible venue, according to EWG.

David Andrews, a senior EWG scientist, expressed his initial surprise at lack of any unified database for the “incredible amount of research that’s been done globally, documenting PFAS contamination in wildlife.”

“Everything from studies of crocodiles in South Africa, ticks in New York State and along the East Coast and scorpions in the Midwest,” Andrews told The Hill, listing animals whose exposure levels have been tested.

While the most common type of animals to appear on the map are fish, the data also includes many birds, as well as both land and aquatic mammals, according to Andrews.

The work builds upon an EWG study released in January that showed the extent to which PFAS are contaminating U.S. freshwater fish from coast to coast, the group explained.

In humans, scientists have linked PFAS exposure to many illnesses, such as kidney cancer, testicular cancer and thyroid disease. True to their nickname, forever chemicals are notorious for their ability to persist in the body and in the environment.

Known for their presence in both industrial discharge and jet fuel firefighting foam, these synthetic substances are also found in common household products, including nonstick pans and waterproof apparel.

Among the more than 330 species identified on the EWG map are polar bears, tigers, monkeys, pandas, horses, cats, otters, squirrels and other small and large mammals. Also exposed are many types of fish, birds, reptiles, frogs and other amphibians.

“From country to country, and across continents, PFAS pollution is everywhere,” a statement from EWG said. “No matter the location, no matter the species, nearly every time that testing is done we find contamination from these toxic chemicals.”

The researchers emphasized that the map is by no means an exhaustive list of all studies on animal exposure to PFAS and that it doesn’t reflect the totality of contamination worldwide.

But it does show that more than 120 different types of PFAS compounds — of which there are thousands — have been found in the animals that have been studied.

Although definitive health impacts have thus far only been demonstrated in humans, EWG researchers noted that science suggests that wildlife could suffer from similar effects.

Such consequences could be of particular concern for threatened species, who are already contending with problems like habitat loss and ecosystem destruction, according to EWG.

The map depicts how global PFAS exposure knows no limits — geolocating studies of birds, beluga whales, polar bears, dolphins and seals in places as remote as the Arctic archipelago of Svalbard and on the shores of Greenland.

“It highlights the extent that these chemicals can be transported,” Andrews said.

The contaminants also show now respect for international boundaries. Tilapia and perch that inhabit the Nile River — which runs through a variety of countries — had measurable levels of PFAS in multiple studies.

“A lot of this is cross-border, and as far as we know, pretty much everywhere you test for PFAS contamination, you will find it,” Andrews said.

While the pollution is pervasive and reaches almost every corner of the world, Andrews stressed the importance of acting on the issue at the national level.

“No one country can fix this problem,” he said. “But at the same time, countries like the United States can take a leading effort in researching, identifying alternatives and moving the market away from the chemistry.”

 The Hill.

EPA set to clean up Smokey Mountain Smelters Superfund site south of downtown Knoxville

\\

The former Smokey Mountain Smelters site, now a Superfund site for EPA cleanup at 1508 Maryville Pike, photographed on Friday, Feb. 10, 2023.

Anila Yoganathan, Knoxville News Sentinel
Wed, February 22, 2023

The Environmental Protection Agency is set to start work this month on the final phase of the cleanup of a contaminated former industrial site near downtown Knoxville.

The EPA will be in Knoxville on Feb. 13 for a public meeting to tell residents about the next steps in its cleanup of the Smokey Mountain Smelters Superfund site in South Knoxville.

The meeting will be 6-7:30 p.m. Feb. 13 at the South Knoxville Community Center, 522 Maryville Pike.

What is this site?

Located at 1508 Maryville Pike, the Smokey Mountain Smelters site is within 75 feet of Montgomery Village, a low-income apartment community, which includes recreational areas and a daycare center, according to the EPA. There also are single-family homes in the area.

From the 1920s to '60s, the site housed different agricultural chemical and fertilizer companies. Starting in 1979, Rotary Furnace Inc., also known as Smokey Mountain Smelters, operated there until 1994.

The operators used to recover aluminum by melting down metals, according to a 2011 Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation fact sheet about the site.

Local and state officials began focusing on the operation in the 1980s, according to the EPA. The site was used as a landfill for years even after Tennessee's Division of Solid Waste Management told Smokey Mountain Smelters the site was not suitable as an industrial landfill.

During the same period, Knox County's Air Pollution Control department cited the company for multiple air quality violations, while residents also filed complaints.

The operators ended up leaving "hazardous materials" above and below ground at the site before abandoning it, according to TDEC.

Why is it labeled a Superfund site?

Waste left at the site includes materials that could release ammonia gas when wet, as well as a contaminated lagoon and old equipment.

In 2010, the EPA put the site on the Superfund's National Priorities List due to contaminated surface water, sediment and soil.

More on the EPA:EPA rule prompted by Kingston coal ash spill might be revised to include older landfills

"Superfund" was an act created by Congress in 1980 to regulate cleanups of contaminated sites that have popped up over the years as we learn more about environmental safety and implement stricter regulations.

The Superfund program:

Forces companies or parties responsible for contamination to do the cleanup or pay the government to do it.

If the responsible party no longer exists, such as a dissolved business, the EPA is given the funds and retains the authority to clean up the site.

The goal is to protect human health and the environment while returning the site's condition to the point it can be used again in some form.

For the Smokey Mountain Smelters site, the EPA has worked with the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation to clean up parts of the site as more specific plans were put in place and money became available.

Cleanup work has included removing materials, capping some waste with a temporary cap, repairing fencing and demolishing buildings.

What's the state of the site?

Between TDEC and the EPA, multiple investigations and assessments have been conducted on the site since at least 1997, in addition to the incremental clean up.

From the EPA's assessments:

Human exposure to any dangerous material at the site is under control, though the EPA does not have sufficient data to determine if "the migration of contaminated groundwater" has been "stabilized."

The site is not yet ready for use.

New developments in East TN:What you need to know about the nuclear fuel facility proposed for Oak Ridge

What will the cleanup involve?

President Joe Biden's Bipartisan Infrastructure Law will pay for the cleanup. Work is scheduled to start this month and to be finished by November.

The EPA says there will be increased traffic from heavy equipment in the area, but wants residents to know the contractors on site will keep noise pollution and dust to a minimum.

There are four phases to the cleanup plan:

Starting in February: The site will be prepared for cleanup including building of temporary workstations, clearing of the area and combining soil from two waste piles into one.

From March to June: Soil will be excavated and put into a containment area before an engineered cap is installed on top to prevent stormwater transferring the contamination to other locations. The wetlands and surrounding tributary beds will be restored during this phase.

From February to the end of May: Groundwater at certain locations will be injected with a fungicide. The bacteria reduces "contaminants in the groundwater and immobilizes metals."

From June to November: A report on the remedial action will be created and reviewed.

How can I attend the public meeting?

Residents can attend the meeting in person at the South Knoxville Community Center or online by pre-registering for the Zoom link here: https://usepa.zoomgov.com/meeting/register/vJItc-qhrzgiEuWwiSCdIew3silEl6FFdJ0

More information about the Smokey Mountain Smelters site and its history can be found here: https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.Stayup&id=0406753#Stayup

Anila Yoganathan is a Knox News investigative reporter. You can contact her at anila.yoganathan@knoxnews.com, and follow her on Twitter @AnilaYoganathan. Enjoy exclusive content and premium perks while supporting strong local journalism by subscribing at knoxnews.com/subscribe.

This article originally appeared on Knoxville News Sentinel: Final phase of Superfund cleanup set to start near downtown Knoxville

New emergency bid to appeal, block huge Nevada lithium mine



 Melissa Boerst, a Lithium Nevada Corp. geologist, points to an area of future exploration from a drill site at the Thacker Pass Project in Humboldt County, Nev., on Sept. 13, 2018. Conservationists are seeking an emergency court order to block construction of a lithium mine near the Nevada-Oregon line. The new request filed Tuesday, Feb. 21, 2023, in federal court in Reno comes after a judge there directed the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to revisit part of its approval of the plans but allowed construction to go forward in the meantime. 

(Suzanne Featherston/The Daily Free Press via AP, File)


SCOTT SONNER
Tue, February 21, 2023 at 1:38 PM MST·5 min read

RENO, Nev. (AP) — Conservationists are seeking an emergency court order to block construction of a Nevada lithium mine after a U.S. judge directed a federal agency to revisit part of its approval of the plans but allowed construction to go forward in the meantime.

Four environmental groups want U.S. District Judge Miranda Du in Reno to temporarily halt any work at a subsidiary of Lithium Americas’ mine near the Oregon border until they can appeal her ruling earlier this month to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

They filed on Tuesday a formal notice of their intent to appeal to the San Francisco-based circuit court and an emergency motion for injunction in Reno pending the appeal. An Oregon tribe that filed a new, separate lawsuit to block the mine last week joined the notice of appeal.

“This mine should not be allowed to destroy public land unless and until the Ninth Circuit has determined whether it was legally approved,” said Talasi Brooks, a lawyer for the Western Watersheds Project.

Du gave the U.S. Bureau of Land Management until the end of Wednesday to respond to the motion or reach an agreement with the conservation groups to postpone any construction until she rules on their request for an emergency injunction.

“Based on the urgency implied by environmental plaintiffs' representation that Lithium Nevada intends to start construction on February 27 ... the court sets an expedited briefing schedule,” she wrote in a brief order late Tuesday.

The company said last week that construction at the Thacker Pass Lithium Mine was “imminent” after Du ruled Feb. 6 the bureau had acted legally — with one possible exception — when it approved plans for the mine in January 2021.

A spokesperson for Lithium Americas said Tuesday they were confident the appellate court would uphold the project's approval.

“Since we began this project more than a decade ago, we have been committed to doing things right," Tim Crowley, the company spokesperson, said in an email to The Associated Press. "The recent U.S. District Court ruling definitively supported BLM’s consultation process, and we are confident the ruling will be upheld.”

Du’s earlier ruling was the latest in a series of high-stakes legal battles pitting environmentalists against so-called “green energy” projects the Biden administration is pushing over the objections of conservation groups, tribes and others.

The White House says the mine planned by Lithium Nevada Corp., a subsidiary of Lithium Americas, is critical to ramped-up efforts to produce raw materials for electric vehicle batteries. Opponents say it would harm wildlife habitats, degrade groundwater and pollute the air.

“It symbolizes BLM’s wrecking ball approach to 'green’ energy on public lands,” Katie Fite of WildLands Defense said Tuesday.

Du ordered the bureau Feb. 6 to go back and determine whether the company had established valid mining rights on 1,300 acres (526 hectares) of neighboring land, where it plans to bury millions of tons of waste rock that would be removed from the open pit mine deeper than the length of a football field.

But she stopped short of granting the opponents' request at that time to block any work at the site until the validity of the claim was established under the Mining Law of 1872 on the adjacent lands about 200 miles (322 kilometers) northeast of Reno.

“There's no evidence that Lithium Nevada will be able to establish valid mining claims to lands it plans to bury in waste rock and tailings, but the damage will be done regardless,” Brooks said in a statement Tuesday announcing the filing of the emergency request for an injunction.

Du said in her Feb. 6 ruling it was a rare instance where it was proper to stop short of vacating an agency's approval of an overall project to allow the bureau to re-examine the adequacy of one element of the plan — the disposal of the waste rock.

She made clear her ruling incorporates part of a recent ruling by the 9th Circuit in a fight over the 1872 law in an Arizona case that could prove more onerous to mining companies that want to dispose of their waste on neighboring federal lands.

In that case, the San Francisco-based appellate court upheld an Arizona ruling that the Forest Service lacked authority to approve Rosemont Copper’s plans to dispose of waste rock on land adjacent to the mine it wanted to dig on a national forest southeast of Tucson. The service and the Bureau of Land Management long have interpreted the mining law to convey the same mineral rights to such lands.

General Motors Co. announced Jan. 31 it had conditionally agreed to invest $650 million in Lithium Americas in a deal that will give the company exclusive access to the first phase of the Thacker Pass mine. The equity investment in two phases was contingent on the project clearing legal challenges in court in Reno.

Lithium Americas said last week that Du's Feb. 6 ruling satisfied the completion of the first phase and that as a result, GM had purchased 15 million common shares of Lithium Americas at $21.24 per share on Feb. 16 for a total of $320 million.

Lithium Americas estimates that the mine can support production of up to 1 million electric vehicles annually. The company expects production to begin in the second half of 2026.

In the Feb. 6 ruling, Du also denied for the third time relief sought by Native American tribes who argued it could destroy a sacred site where their ancestors were massacred in 1865. Last week, three tribes filed a separate lawsuit claiming that the bureau has misrepresented its claims that it's met its legal obligation to consult with tribes about potential impacts to historical and cultural values near the mine site.

SUFFERED IMAGE SLAUGHTER BY REAGAN

Column: Jimmy Carter was an underrated president

The easy shorthand about him — lousy president, outstanding former president — is misleading.

Jonathan Alter
Tue, February 21, 2023

President Jimmy Carter at the White House in 1977. 

(Library of Congress/Marion S. Trikosko/Handout via Reuters)

One day in Atlanta, I asked Rosalynn Carter if her husband was stubborn. It was a trait that both helped and hurt him as governor of Georgia and president of the United States in the 1970s.

I expected Rosalynn, who has known Jimmy for more than 90 years and been married to him for nearly 77, to try to spin me.

Instead, she just nodded and laughed.

As Jimmy Carter’s epic journey is almost at a close at age 98, it’s a good time to begin a long-overdue reassessment of this misunderstood man and his much-maligned presidency. In researching his life for five years and questioning him closely about it, I was struck by the gap between the perception of his career and the reality of the historical record.

The easy shorthand about him — lousy president, outstanding former president — is misleading. In fact, Carter was an underrated president and a slightly overrated ex-president, in large part because he had much less power after leaving office to change the lives of people around the world.

Carter and his running mate, Walter Mondale, at the 1976 Democratic National Convention in New York City. (PhotoQuest/Getty Images)

As president, Carter was a political failure, crushed by Ronald Reagan when he ran for reelection in 1980. But in many areas he was a substantive, even visionary success, far ahead of his time. In one term, he won approval of more major legislation than any president since Franklin Roosevelt, except Lyndon Johnson — more than two-term presidents Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. (Carter was helped by the fact that his party controlled Congress for his full four years.)

Take the environment. Carter imposed strong new pollution controls and the first fuel-economy standards. He established the Superfund, which has cleaned up thousands of toxic waste dumps across the country. And with the enactment of the Alaska Lands Act, he doubled the size of the national park system. He forged the nation’s first comprehensive energy policy, which included the first federal funding for green energy. To symbolize this change, Carter in 1979 placed solar panels on the roof of the White House, which were later taken down by Reagan.

Shortly before Carter left office, the White House issued a report on global warming with the same carbon emission goals as were adopted 35 years later at the 2015 Paris Climate Accords. If reelected, he had planned to have electric cars on the road by the mid-1980s.

Elsewhere on the domestic side, Carter carried out the first civil service reform in 100 years. He established two new Cabinet departments (Energy and Education) and FEMA. He signed the major ethics legislation that made Donald Trump’s first impeachment possible. He deregulated airlines (which allowed for cheaper fares on major routes), trucking (which spurred the just-in-time delivery that undergirds the economy) and utilities (incentivizing them to use clean energy). He curbed redlining, which had impoverished broad swaths of urban America. He brought the first genuine diversity to the federal workforce and appointed more women and African Americans to the federal bench than all of his predecessors combined, times five, though he never had a Supreme Court appointment.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whom he appointed to the appellate court, later said: “People often ask me, ‘Well, did you always want to be a judge?’ My answer is that it just wasn’t in the realm of the possible until Jimmy Carter became president and was determined to draw on the talent of all of the people, not just some of them.”

Carter with Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin during the signing of the Camp David Accords in the White House in 1978.

 (Jimmy Carter Library/National Archives/Handout via Reuters)

In foreign policy, Carter is most remembered for the humiliation of the Iran hostage crisis, which, along with high interest rates and inflation and an intraparty challenge for the Democratic nomination from Ted Kennedy, led to his defeat in 1980.

But the crisis didn’t end badly — the hostages all came home safely just as Carter left office — and much of the rest of Carter’s foreign policy was historic.

The 1978 Camp David Accords, made possible by his much-derided attention to detail, is arguably the most successful peace treaty since the end of World War II. Israel and Egypt fought four wars in the previous 30 years but have not fired a shot in anger against each other in the four decades since.

Richard Nixon opened the door to China, but Carter walked through it. By establishing full diplomatic relations with China (which Gerald Ford, his 1976 opponent, would likely not have been able to do), Carter launched the world’s most crucial bilateral relationship and made possible, for better or worse, the growth of the global economy.

In the face of fierce opposition, Carter won approval of the Panama Canal Treaties, which prevented — by the Pentagon’s estimate — the deployment of 100,000 troops to protect the Canal Zone in what would have been a Vietnam War-style conflict in the Western Hemisphere.

Carter and his wife, Rosalynn, at a 2019 basketball game between the Atlanta Hawks and the New York Knicks. (Dale Zanine/USA Today Sports via Reuters)

Perhaps most important, Carter’s human rights policy, while hypocritical in some respects, set a new global standard for how governments should treat their own people, helped dozens of nations establish democracies and — by the account of many Republicans — used soft power to help win the Cold War.

Carter made plenty of mistakes as president. His stubbornness harmed efforts to achieve health care reform. He let the Shah of Iran into the U.S. for medical treatment, which precipitated the seizure of the hostages at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. He imposed a grain embargo and boycott of the 1980 Olympics in an unpopular and ineffective response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. And he mismanaged his relationships inside the Democratic Party.

But most of the criticism of his presidency is, in hindsight, overblown. Now that his long life approaching its end, it’s time to begin the overdue assessment of an honest and decent man who was a better president than most remember.

Jonathan Alter is the author of “His Very Best: Jimmy Carter, a Life.”

THIRD WORLD U$A

Biden administration: We bent the curve on homelessness. Here's how we made progress.

Jeff Olivet
Tue, February 21, 2023 

Until you turn off the faucet, a bathtub will never be empty. Until we prevent homelessness from happening in the first place, it will not end in the U.S.

That’s why the Biden-Harris administration’s new homelessness plan goes further than previous federal efforts to prevent homelessness before it happens.

The faucets that contribute to homelessness are criminal justice systems that punish people who have nowhere to live but the streets and make it harder for people to get housing and jobs, foster care systems that fail young people when they age out, health care systems that don’t provide insurance and treatment to all who need it, and a housing supply that doesn’t provide enough homes that people can afford. Unfortunately, there are many more faucets.

We know how to get people out of homelessness. Every year – thanks in part to the long-standing, bipartisan “Housing First” policy – the United States helps more than 900,000 people get back into homes. But for every person who gets housing, another loses housing.

Increase in homelessness is starting to slow

After the Bush and Obama administrations embraced a Housing First policy, homelessness in America began to decline. But in 2016, that progress stopped, and homelessness rapidly rose in the years that followed.

Fortunately, we have begun to slow the rapid rise in homelessness – and we did it during a global pandemic and economic crisis. The number of Americans without a home remained largely flat from 2020 to 2022, proving that we can make progress even during the most difficult times.

'Literally hand them a lifeline': Medicaid expansion is a compassion test many 2024 Republican presidential hopefuls fail

Habitat for Humanity: Jimmy Carter's greatest accomplishments have been in health and welfare

With billions of dollars in new funding from the Biden-Harris administration, communities flattened the curve by investing in evidence-based solutions. President Joe Biden signed the American Rescue Plan, which included one of the largest-ever investments in homelessness.

Through these investments, we have reduced homelessness among veterans, families and youth, and turned our attention to eliminating encampments and other forms of unsheltered homelessness.

But flattening the curve is not enough.

The Biden administration’s new plan, “All In,” aims to reduce homelessness 25% by 2025 and charts a course to end it altogether. Our plan lays out dozens of strategies and hundreds of actions to urgently address basic needs of people in crisis, expand housing and support, and build better systems to prevent homelessness – with an evidence-based, all-hands-on-deck approach based on what people who have experienced homelessness say they need and want.

A woman pushes a cart past a tent along the sidewalk on Dec. 20, 2022, in Salt Lake City.

This is an ambitious goal, but homelessness is a life-and-death crisis. Mayors, housing and service providers, and citizens who see their neighbors on the streets know that people are dying from drug overdoses and untreated mental illness, from extreme heat and cold that homes would have protected them from, and from health problems that are worsened by living outside.

Homelessness is a tragedy – not a crime. Let’s treat it like one.

Housing is start of the path to better quality of life

At the root of our plan is the understanding that without a home, every other aspect of a person’s life suffers. How can you improve your health when a good night of sleep is so crucial to it? How can you get a job without a place to store all the documents you need to apply? How can you stay out of jail when having a home is a condition of your parole?

Where's compassionate leadership?: My colleague was stabbed. Homelessness and peril are much closer to home than you think.

Speak up: Good prevails when good people refuse to be silent. When we represent, my mom would say.

Housing is the immediate solution to homelessness – but not the only solution. We must also help people fix their health, employment, legal and other problems that made them lose their homes in the first place.

In a nation where so many live paycheck to paycheck and one crisis away from homelessness, the Biden administration’s plan will work to make systems work for the people who have been left behind. With rents rising – even a full-time salary on minimum wage can’t cover a two-bedroom in any state – and with a shortage of 7 million homes, we will build more housing and make it more affordable.

With people of color more likely to experience homelessness, we will dismantle systems that discriminate against them. We also will make health care (including mental health and substance use treatment), job training and other support easier to get.

I want to live in a country where no one experiences the tragedy and indignity of homelessness – and everyone has a safe, stable, accessible and affordable home. I believe our plan can make that happen.

I ask those who seek to ascribe blame for the crisis of homelessness to join us in finding common ground, continuing to invest in effective solutions and working creatively to fix systems and prevent homelessness before it happens.

Jeff Olivet is executive director of the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, which works with the White House, 19 federal agencies and communities to set and coordinate the nation’s homelessness strategy.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: US homeless population surged under Trump. Here's how we slowed it

America’s productivity engine is sputtering. Fixing it is a $10 trillion opportunity


U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Asutosh Padhi, Olivia White
Mon, February 20, 2023 

Since 2005, productivity growth has been lackluster, averaging 1.4% a year, compared to the post-World War II average of 2.2%.

That is a problem. Increasing productivity–economic output per unit of input–maintains U.S. competitiveness and improves our quality of life. It is also essential to meet challenges like inflation, debt loads, entitlements, and the energy transition.

Regaining historical rates of productivity growth could generate a total of $10 trillion for U.S. GDP by 2030, or $15,200 per U.S. household that year.

It won’t be easy–but productivity is growing fast in some sectors and geographies. Since 2007, the information sector has grown at 5.5% annually. North Dakota’s economy has grown at nearly 3.5% and Washington’s at 2.3%. We need to improve productivity more broadly.

To get the U.S. economic engine humming, we need to overcome four challenges.

Workforce shortages and skills gaps

There are two separate but linked workforce challenges. One is the lack of workers. U.S. workforce participation rate has fallen to 62.3%, down from 67% in the late 1990s. Only part of this is due to an aging population: More than 5 million Americans are not in the workforce but say they want to work.

The second challenge is that too many current workers do not have the skills they will need to succeed. Skilled talent is essential to productivity growth. In the last 30 years, firms that have invested in people have seen outsized returns. But re-skilling is a process, not a result. As technology changes, so do the skills people need. Hiring for skills rather than credentials–and dropping degree requirements as some states have done–could expand the qualified pool.

Digitization without a productivity dividend

When it works, the link between digitization and productivity is profound: From 1989 to 2019, there was a strong correlation between sectors’ productivity growth and their level of digitization.

Information, finance, and wholesale trade, for example, have all seen rapid productivity growth since 2005, and all are highly digitized. It goes in the other direction, too: the construction industry is the second-least digitalized sector, and has seen next to no productivity growth for a generation. Digitization also helps individual firms grow more productive. In manufacturing, for example, leading firms are more than five times as productive as the laggards.

However, many firms that have invested in digitization are not seeing the benefits. Our research from 2022 showed that most organizations achieved less than a third of the impact they expected from digital investments. Too often, they fail to make the complementary changes across strategy, processes, and training needed to extract full value from digitization.

Leaders distinguish themselves by setting bold business goals enabled by technology. They redesign operational processes rather than augment existing ways of doing business. And perhaps most importantly, they don’t forget the human element: They support individuals and teams to work together effectively in these new models.

Underinvestment in intangibles

Technology by itself is just boxes and bytes: developing it and then putting it to work requires investments in research, intellectual property, and skilled people.

Such expenditure creates a productivity “J-curve” in which the initial benefits may be small (or even negative) but long-term value is substantial. But not all firms invest in the first place. Our research has found that productivity-leading firms invest more than twice as much in intangibles.

Government has a role to play, too, by clarifying and simplifying regulations, and easing constraints on new investments.

Geographic haves and have nots

“The future is already here–it’s just not evenly distributed,” noted William Gibson. And that is true for U.S. productivity. Some states have performed well above average over the last generation. But too many others have below-average productivity and are slipping.

Within states, too, some cities and regions have fallen behind. Such areas often see more than their share of social ills such as lower life expectancy. Even cities with high productivity, such as San Francisco, have not succeeded in distributing gains evenly. Broadly improving productivity is a social as well as an economic issue.

Restoring U.S. productivity growth to its historical rate is not impossible. We’ve done it before. From 1980 to 95, productivity growth was at 1.7%, then accelerated to 3% for the next decade.

Revving up U.S. productivity should be seen a national imperative. We need it to address workforce shortages, manage the energy transition, raise incomes, improve competitiveness–and enhance the lives of all Americans.

Asutosh Padhi is a senior partner in McKinsey & Company’s Chicago office and managing partner for North America. Olivia White is a director of the McKinsey Global Institute in San Francisco.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

In Vermont, a School and Artist Fight Over Murals of Slavery

Jenna Russell
Tue, February 21, 2023

Sam Kerson, who painted the murals at Vermont Law and Graduate School 30 years ago, at his studio in Trois-Rivieres, Quebec, Canada, Feb. 11, 2023. 

(Nasuna Stuart-Ulin/The New York Times)

SOUTH ROYALTON, Vt. — For years, when students at Vermont Law and Graduate School came to Shirley Jefferson with objections to the murals in the student center, and their depictions of Black people that struck some as racist caricatures, the longtime Black administrator urged those protesting to move on.

Jefferson, 69, is no stranger to racism, nor to protest. Born in segregated Selma, Alabama, in 1953, she helped integrate her high school, marched for civil rights and graduated from Vermont Law in 1986, later returning to work in admissions and alumni affairs. Still, hoping to avoid division, she advised the students to focus on their studies.

“I told them, ‘You all did not come here to fight over a mural, you came to get educated,’ ” Jefferson recalled one recent afternoon, her Southern accent still evident after more than two decades in northern New England.

Then came the summer of 2020, and for Jefferson and many others, a renewed commitment to confront embedded racism and insensitivity, even where it might be unintended. “When George Floyd was killed, all of a sudden I said to myself, ‘That mural has got to go,’ ” she said. “I called the dean, and he said OK.’’

That might have been that, if not for one complication: The artist who painted the murals 30 years ago as a condemnation of slavery, Sam Kerson — who is white — fought back against the plan to erase his work.

When his attempt to reclaim the murals failed — the paintings could not be removed from the walls without destroying them — Kerson sued to stop the school from permanently covering them, pointing to an obscure federal law that protects artists from certain types of “modification” of their art. After a two-year journey through the courts, the case landed last month before the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in New York, where the two sides presented arguments Jan 27.

“It’s a major work, it’s my life, and it’s important that it be there,” Kerson, 76, said in an interview. “It’s historically important in what it says about Black people rising up to resist, and it’s important as a record of what we said in 1993.”

Preserving the artworks is also important, he said, “because there continues to be slavery in the world.”

The two murals, each 24 feet long, depict the brutality of slavery, with scenes including a slave market, a slave owner wielding a whip and an attacking dog. They also show white Vermonters protesting slavery and helping people escape to freedom via the Underground Railroad. Bold and colorful, in a style more expressive than realistic, the works were inspired by Mexican muralists such as José Clemente Orozco, whose murals at nearby Dartmouth College also once sparked calls for their removal.

For now, the law school has covered the paintings with white panels, suspended just above their surface so as not to damage them, pending the outcome of the court appeal.

The case echoes other recent debates around the country, as artworks in common spaces are reassessed in light of changing attitudes — and as courts struggle to reconcile the rights of artists with those of art owners, and of people exposed to such works.

To Justin Barnard, an attorney representing the law school, the matter is simple: “If you own a painting, of course you have the right to decide whether or not to display it.”

The case turns on language in the federal law that says artists can seek to prevent modification of their work if the change would harm their “honor or reputation.” The law school says that covering the murals, even permanently, is not a modification if it leaves no mark.

Kerson maintains that damage will be done to his reputation. “He must suffer the indignity and humiliation of having a cover put over his art,” his lead attorney, Steven Hyman, told the appeals court last month.

Similar sagas elsewhere have come to varied ends.

School leaders at the University of Kentucky decided last year to relocate a 1934 mural that caused years of campus debate, a retrospective of Kentucky history that includes depictions of enslaved people working in a field. (In a twist, a Black artist who was invited to create an adjacent work in response to the mural said her art should also be removed if the school chose to “censor” the older work.)

In San Francisco, school leaders opted to keep a controversial 1930s mural on view at a public high school after art historians protested plans to remove it and alumni sued to save it. The mural, which chronicles the life of George Washington and includes scenes of enslaved people, was painted by artist Victor Arnautoff, described by the school’s alumni association as “an avowed leftist” and social realist who sought to show Washington’s ties to “the sins of early America.”

Kerson, a native of western Massachusetts who lived in Vermont for decades before moving to Quebec 20 years ago, has also been influenced by the social realist movement, which seeks to draw attention to oppression. Founder and artistic director of Vermont-based Dragon Dance Theatre, known for its puppetry, he has created murals and other art projects in Mexico, Nicaragua and Europe, often in collaboration with local artists.

After envisioning a pair of murals that would describe the horrors of slavery and celebrate Vermont’s abolitionist history, Kerson said he searched the state for a place with the right set of walls and a mission that would complement his theme. The tiny, progressive law school on the banks of the White River seemed a perfect setting, he said, and its leaders in the early 1990s welcomed the project to the second floor of its student center, an airy, quiet space used for study and meetings.

It did not take long for some students to feel uneasy with the paintings. Soon after she started working at the law school, in 1999, Jefferson began hearing occasionally from students who were troubled by the murals’ style and content, particularly Black figures that some found cartoonish or reminiscent of earlier racist iconography. Removal of the paintings was discussed in 2013, and again in 2014, when plaques were added to explain the subject matter.

It was not until 2020 that Jefferson, now an associate professor and vice president, concluded that “the mural was part of the problem and inconsistent with the Law School’s mission no matter if the intentions that led to its creation were good,” she wrote in a statement to the U.S. district court in 2021.

To the artist, the discomfort was an affirmation.

“Of course the images are disturbing,” Kerson wrote after the district court’s ruling in 2021 affirmed the law school’s plan to cover his work. “These images represent human suffering, and if you do not find them disturbing, you are not looking at them.” He added: “We appreciate that the students who are complaining are also seeing the murals.”

Known for its programs in environmental law and restorative justice, Vermont Law has prioritized diversity in its small enrollment — a challenge in a rural state that remains among the whitest in the country. Its efforts have slowly yielded results: In 1993, when the murals were painted, students of color made up 10% of the graduating class; last year, they were 25%, according to the school.

Concern about the murals is not universal among the 500 students on campus, especially now that the art has been covered. In interviews, some members of the National Black Law Students Association at the school expressed frustration with those who see the murals as a “Black issue.” Some faulted the administrators who allowed them to be painted in the first place. Others criticized the artist for pushing back in court.

“If someone is saying to you, ‘How you’re depicting me is racist,’ for you to live in your own ignorance, and further aggravate the situation — now you’re showing us who you are,” said Yanni DeCastro, a second-year student from New York City’s Queens.

“We need to stop protecting white fragility,” said another student, Anisa Rodriguez, from Orange, New Jersey.

Rodriguez and other Black students noted, however, that they have larger concerns about the school than what is painted on the walls, such as the diversity of faculty and curriculum. “The mural is covered, but what’s really changed?” she said. “What is the plan to ensure that students of color feel safe and welcome?”

Although the legal battle offers a teachable moment, it also intrigues some art law experts, including Megan Noh, a partner at New York law firm Pryor Cashman. She said the case is unusual in raising a question about the law school’s right to free expression, and whether that right would be violated by an order to display the mural.

Hyman, a self-described “old liberal,” said he was astonished — and deeply troubled — when the Vermont chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, an organization dedicated to preserving personal liberties, filed a court brief in support of the law school’s right to cover the mural. The brief argued that “an entity’s display of an artwork amounts to that entity’s own speech,” which should not be compelled by the courts.

“We are in a sensitive time with regard to racial justice, but we still need to have a fundamental belief in the concept of free speech and thought,” Hyman said, “and in the idea that we will be better by having discourse than by covering it up.”

After the appeals court rules, the last recourse for either side to continue the case would be a petition for review by the Supreme Court.

Whatever the outcome, some Black students said, it will not bridge the gap between the artist’s experience and their own.

“What is real to me is a painting to you,” said Maia Young, a second-year student from Houston. “The artist was depicting history, but it’s not his history to depict.”

© 2023 The New York Times Company

WAR CRIMINAL

Henry Kissinger at 100: history will judge the former US secretary of state's southern African interventions to be a failure

Peter Vale, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for the Advancement of Scholarship, University of Pretoria, and Visiting Professor of International Relations, Federal University of Santa Maria, Brazil, University of Pretoria

THE CONVERSATION 

Tue, February 21, 2023 

Former American Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in 2019.

 (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Henry Kissinger, who sexed up the art of diplomacy in the eight years between 1969 and 1977, will turn 100 in May this year.

Given his age, and his long influence on global affairs, several “anticipatory obituaries” have been written. Some laud Kissinger’s role in the shaping of East-West relations while he was in office as US Secretary of State. And many in their commentary on the decades beyond continue to call him a “statesman”.

Radical critics have pointed to Kissinger’s ruthless methods – like encouraging the coup in Chile in September, 1973 – and called for him to be put on trial for “war crimes”.

Traditionally, diplomacy was staid – a near-hidden enterprise for grey-suited men who (mostly by intuition) understood the grave matters of war and peace. Kissinger turned it into a site of celebrity, the jet-set and expert opinion. The world watched where he went.

Kissinger’s diplomatic achievements were quite astonishing – the recognition of China (1971/72) by the US was simply breathtaking. But domestically more important was America’s withdrawal from Vietnam (1973) and the Nixon administration policy of détente (easing of hostility) with the Soviet Union, which led to a series of strategic arms limitation talks.

These helped to secure Kissinger’s global brand. But his track record in the global south – especially in Africa – is dismal.

Not a little of Kissinger’s fame – or infamy, depending on the particular issue at hand – was facilitated by “shuttle diplomacy”, a tactic first used in the Yom Kippur War of 1973. In an effort to mediate between the warring Egypt and Israel, Kissinger very publicly jetted between the two countries.

A year later, a form of shuttle diplomacy was necessary in southern Africa as it became plain that Kissinger had misread the region’s place in world affairs and its politics.

This was evident from a 1969 leaked policy document which had set out America’s approach to regional affairs. The policy recommended that the US “tilt” towards the region’s white-ruled and colonial regimes to protect US economic (and strategic) interests.

As the grand narrative of Kissinger’s life story is written, his southern African interventions must be judged a failure as he neither ended colonialism nor minority rule in the region.

White minority rule

Famously, Kissinger’s doctoral thesis at Harvard was on the diplomacy of the Congress of Vienna (1814-1815). He argued that “legitimacy” in international affairs rested on establishing a balance between powerful states rather than promoting justice.

But 19th century Europe was no guide to managing 20th century southern Africa, when the legitimacy of states was seized with liberation rather than the niceties of big power diplomacy.

In April 1974, a coup in Lisbon had signalled an end to Portuguese colonialism in Africa. This exposed the vulnerability of white rule in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) and South African controlled South West Africa (now Namibia). Although hidden at the time, it is nowadays clear that the events in Lisbon helped to prime the fire that was to come to South Africa.

With the stability of the “white South” under threat, US policy required rethinking.

It was Cuba’s intervention in Angola that helped Kissinger reframe Washington’s approach to the region in Cold War terms. South Africa and the United States supported the rebel Unita movement to fight the government of the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) which was allied to Soviet Union.

It required drawing the apartheid regime closer while, simultaneously, urging change in Zimbabwe and Namibia.

The shuttle started with a speech in Lusaka, Zambia, which put pressure on white-ruled Rhodesia to accept the idea of “majority rule”. More gently, Kissinger asked South Africa to announce a timetable to achieve “self-determination” in Namibia. Kissinger then travelled to Tanzania to make a similar address.

A series of high-profile meetings followed with apartheid’s then prime minister, John Vorster. These took place in Germany and Switzerland. The record of these encounters make interesting reading. Over dinner on 23 June 1976, the ice was broken over a racist joke which established a bonhomie between a dozen white men who deliberated on the future of a sub-continent of black people for two hours.

The apartheid regime had catapulted directly into Kissinger’s star-studded orbit.

An official record of the talks suggests the South African delegation appear dazed. Were they overwhelmed by the occasion, or were they reeling from the events the previous week in Soweto, when apartheid police killed unarmed school children protesting against the imposition of the Afrikaans language as a medium of instruction?

For their part, the American side seemed keen to learn – at an early moment in the proceedings, Kissinger declared that he was “trying to understand”; at another, he was being “analytical”.

True to diplomatic form, apartheid was not discussed even though some attention was given to South West Africa. The discussion remained focused on Rhodesia.

Eventually a strategy was agreed: Vorster would get the recalcitrant Rhodesians to agree on majority rule; Kissinger would get the Zambians and the Tanzanians to support the deal; movement on the Namibian issue would be slower.

The high moment of the entire exercise was Kissinger’s September 1976 visit to Pretoria. By happenstance, Rhodesia’s prime minister, Ian Smith, was scheduled to be in town to watch a rugby match.

The New York Times reported that Kissinger was received with a small guard of honour – of black soldiers – at the Waterkloof Air Base when his plane landed. And Kissinger and his entourage – including the all-important press – set up camp in Pretoria’s Burgerspark Hotel.

For four days an increasingly isolated and internationally condemned South Africa basked in the spotlight of world attention – undoubtedly, it was the high point of apartheid’s diplomacy.

The drama of the weekend turned less on whether Kissinger met black leaders who were critical of apartheid – the activist editor Percy Qoboza was the only one – than on whether Kissinger, as an envoy of the US, could meet directly with Smith, whose regime was not internationally recognised.

In the event the two men met for four hours on the Sunday morning, and a deal was sealed. A tearful Smith, then prime minister, announced that Rhodesia would accept the principle of majority rule.

But the follow up processes were fumbled. The illegal regime limped on for another four years.

Kissinger had two further visits to South Africa. One was in September 1982 when he delivered the keynote address at a conference organised by the South African Institute of International Affairs. The second was when (with others) he unsuccessfully tried to solve the crisis over Inkatha Freedom Party leader Mangosuthu Buthelezi’s rejection of South Africa’s interim constitution in April 1994.

Kissinger’s interest in southern Africa in the mid-1970s was predicated on the idea that balance would return if the interests of the strong were restored. He failed to understand that the struggle for justice was changing the world – and diplomacy itself.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. The Conversation is trustworthy news from experts. Try our free newsletters.

It was written by: Peter Vale, University of Pretoria.

Read more:


Fences: August Wilson’s play powerfully affirms the value and struggles of black life


Are calls to cancel two Palestinian writers from Adelaide Writers’ Week justified?


Calls for peace in Ukraine a year after Russia’s full-scale invasion are unrealistic

GOOD NEWS

It could take a decade to undo damage to the Republican Party caused by Fox News promoting election fraud claims, says former GOP official

Fox News pundits are using white supremacist language tied to 'The Great Replacement' conspiracy theory

Tom Porter
Mon, February 20, 2023 

A sign held up at the "Fox can't handle the truth" protest outside Fox News headquarters on June 14, 2022 in New York City.

Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

Georgia's former Lt. gov., Geoff Duncan, discussed Dominion's Fox News lawsuit.

He accused the network of pushing election fraud claims that had damaged the GOP.

Dominion's Fox News lawsuit alleges the network made claims that its executives knew were false.

Republican former Lt. gov. of Georgia Geoff Duncan said it would take a decade to undo the damage to the GOP caused by Fox News in allegedly promoting conspiracy theories about the 2020 election.

Speaking on CNN's 'State of the Union' Sunday, Duncan, who is an analyst on the network, addressed claims in a lawsuit released last week by election machines company Dominion.

Dominion is suing Fox News for $1.6 billion, arguing it promoted baseless claims that the company was involved in a vast conspiracy to deprive Donald Trump of victory in the 2020 presidential election.



A group of conservative campaigners last year claimed Dominion had changed its voting machines to deny re-election to Trump. There has been no evidence for voting fraud in the presidential election.

The lawsuit claims that top network hosts and executives believed the claims to be be false, and in some cases privately mocked them, yet promoted them anyway in an apparent bid to retain the loyalty of its large audience of Trump supporters.

Duncan said that in pushing the false narrative, Fox News was pandering to its audience's prejudices for the sake of the bottom line.

"What happened on Fox News was hard for the Republican party, right?" said Duncan. "It allowed, it might take a decade to unwind some of those, the fanning of the flames of all these conspiracy theories, and it was painful to watch and listen to."

He said that the news media must find a better balance between the for-profit business model and news that's in the public interest.

Dominion claims the weight of evidence it has compiled is so great that it should be awarded a summary judgement before the case even goes to to trial.

The network in a statement said that its right to broadcast the information was protected by the First Amendment.

"There will be a lot of noise and confusion generated by Dominion," said a spokesperson, "but the core of this case remains about freedom of the press and freedom of speech, which are fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution."

"Dominion has mischaracterized the record, cherry-picked quotes stripped of key context, and spilled considerable ink on facts that are irrelevant under black-letter principles of defamation law."

Duncan served under Republican Georgia Gov Brian Kemp, who was attacked by Trump and his allies for refusing to back their bid to overturn the 2020 election. Duncan has previously criticised Trump and his allies for promoting false election fraud claims.