PEOPLE BEFORE PROFITS‘Absolute robbery’: Gilead announces $3,120 Price Tag for COVID-19 drug developed with $70 million in taxpayer support

June 29, 2020 By Jake Johnson, Common Dreams


“Taxpayers provided funding for the development of this drug. Now Gilead is price-gouging off it during a pandemic. Beyond disgusting,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Consumer advocates reacted with disgust Monday to an announcement by Gilead Sciences that it will charge U.S. hospitals around $3,120 per privately insured patient for a treatment course of remdesivir, a drug which has proven modestly effective at speeding Covid-19 recovery times.

“Allowing Gilead to set the terms during a pandemic represents a colossal failure of leadership by the Trump administration.”
—Peter Maybarduk, Public Citizen

Peter Maybarduk, director of Public Citizen’s Access to Medicines Program, called Gilead’s pricing—which works out to around $520 per dose for non-government buyers like hospitals—”an offensive display of hubris and disregard for the public” and slammed the Trump administration for failing to ensure that the price of a drug developed with substantial taxpayer support is affordable for all.

Maybarduk pointed to Institute for Clinical and Economic Review research showing Gilead could still make a profit by pricing remdesivir at $310 per course.

“Gilead has priced at several thousand dollars a drug that should be in the public domain. For $1 per day, remdesivir can be manufactured at scale with a reasonable profit,” Maybarduk said in a statement. “Gilead did not make remdesivir alone. Public funding was indispensable at each stage, and government scientists led the early drug discovery team. Allowing Gilead to set the terms during a pandemic represents a colossal failure of leadership by the Trump administration.”

Public Citizen estimated in a May report that U.S. taxpayers contributed at least $70.5 million to the development of remdesivir.

US taxpayers spent $70,000,000 developing this drug. This is an absolute robbery. https://t.co/6qSMOlmqWF
— Public Citizen (@Public_Citizen) June 29, 2020

Shortly after Gilead’s announcement, the U.S. Health and Human Services Department said it reached an agreement with the pharmaceutical giant to purchase more than 500,000 treatment courses of remdesivir for American hospitals.
The Wall Street Journal reported that the United States is “the only developed country where Gilead will charge two prices”—one for government buyers ($390 per dose) and one for non-government buyers like hospitals ($520 per dose). The typical remdesivir treatment course consists of around six doses.

“Trump’s refusal to stop pandemic profiteering with a stroke of a pen is a green light to other manufacturers to exploit this tragedy.”
—Rep. Lloyd Doggett

Unlike the U.S., the Journal notes, the governments of other advanced nations “negotiate drug prices directly with drugmakers.”

Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), chair of the House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, said in a statement that “Trump’s refusal to stop pandemic profiteering with a stroke of a pen is a green light to other manufacturers to exploit this tragedy.”

Doggett said he is pressuring the Trump administration and Gilead to disclose the details of their agreement, including the sum the government paid for the 500,000 treatment courses of remdesivir.

On Twitter, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) condemned Gilead’s price-tag as “beyond disgusting.”

“Taxpayers provided funding for the development of this drug. Now Gilead is price-gouging off it during a pandemic,” said Sanders. “Coronavirus treatment must be free to all.”

Gilead’s $2,340 price for coronavirus drug draws criticism

By MARILYNN MARCHIONE

FILE - This is an April 30, 2020, file photo showing Gilead Sciences headquarters in Foster City, Calif. The maker of a drug shown to shorten recovery time for severely ill COVID-19 patients says it will charge $2,340 for a typical treatment course for people covered by government health programs in the United States and other developed countries. Gilead Sciences announced the price Monday, June 29 for remdesivir, and said the price would be $3,120 for patients with private insurance. It will sell for far less in poorer countries where generic drugmakers are being allowed to make it. (AP Photo/Ben Margot, File)
The maker of a drug shown to shorten recovery time for severely ill COVID-19 patients says it will charge $2,340 for a typical treatment course for people covered by government health programs in the United States and other developed countries.

Gilead Sciences announced the price Monday for remdesivir, and said the price would be $3,120 for patients with private insurance. The amount that patients pay out of pocket depends on insurance, income and other factors.

“We’re in uncharted territory with pricing a new medicine, a novel medicine, in a pandemic,” Gilead’s chief executive, Dan O’Day, told The Associated Press.

“We believe that we had to really deviate from the normal circumstances” and price the drug to ensure wide access rather than based solely on value to patients, he said.

However, the price was swiftly criticized; a consumer group called it “an outrage” because of the amount taxpayers invested toward the drug’s development.

The treatment courses that the company has donated to the U.S. and other countries will run out in about a week, and the prices will apply to the drug after that, O’Day said.

In the U.S., federal health officials have allocated the limited supply to states, but that agreement with Gilead will end after September. They said Monday that the government has secured more than 500,000 additional courses that Gilead will produce starting in July to supply to hospitals through September, and stressed that that does not mean the government actually was acquiring that much, just ensuring the availability.

“We should have sufficient supply ... but we have to make sure it’s in the right place at the right time,” O’Day said

In 127 poor or middle-income countries, Gilead is allowing generic makers to supply the drug; two countries are doing that for around $600 per treatment course.

Remdesivir’s price has been highly anticipated since it became the first medicine to show benefit in the pandemic, which has killed more than half a million people globally in six months.

The drug, given through an IV, interferes with the coronavirus’s ability to copy its genetic material. In a U.S. government-led study, remdesivir shortened recovery time by 31% — 11 days on average versus 15 days for those given just usual care. It had not improved survival according to preliminary results after two weeks of followup; results after four weeks are expected soon.

The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, a nonprofit group that analyzes drug prices, said remdesivir would be cost-effective in a range of $4,580 to $5,080 if it saved lives. But recent news that a cheap steroid called dexamethasone improves survival means remdesivir should be priced between $2,520 and $2,800, the group said.

“This is a high price for a drug that has not been shown to reduce mortality,” Dr. Steven Nissen of the Cleveland Clinic said in an email. “Given the serious nature of the pandemic, I would prefer that the government take over production and distribute the drug for free. It was developed using significant taxpayer funding.”

Peter Maybarduk, a lawyer at the consumer group Public Citizen, called the price “an outrage.”

“Remdesivir should be in the public domain” because the drug received at least $70 million in public funding toward its development, he said.

“The price puts to rest any notion that drug companies will ‘do the right thing’ because it is a pandemic,” Dr. Peter Bach, a health policy expert at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York said in an email. “The price might have been fine if the company had demonstrated that the treatment saved lives. It didn’t.”

While it may be a sticker shock for many, “from the health system perspective, if remdesivir can shorten duration of hospitalization by four days, then the medicine provides a reasonable value,” Dr. David Boulware, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota, said in an email.

O’Day said that shortening hospitalization saves about $12,000 per patient. Gilead says it will have spent $1 billion on developing and making the drug by the end of this year. Gilead shares rose 64 cents to $75.22 in late-morning trading.

The drug has emergency use authorization in the U.S. and Gilead has applied for full approval.

Jefferies pharmaceuticals analyst Michael Yee wrote to investors that Gilead’s price was a bit above what stock brokers were expecting. He said that at that price, analysts expect Gilead to make $525 million on remdesivir sales this year and $2.1 billion next year.

___

Marilynn Marchione can be followed on Twitter: @MMarchioneAP

___

AP Business Writer Linda A. Johnson contributed to this report.

___

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

‘Jackal’: Crowd heckles Italy’s far-right leader Matteo Salvini

Published on June 29, 2020 By Agence France-Presse

An angry crowd greeted Italy’s far-right leader Matteo Salvini during a visit to a town in the Naples region Monday, with some heckling and pelting him with eggs and water.

The confrontation took place when Salvini visited a neighborhood of Mondragone, the scene of tensions last week between some residents and foreign workers, some of whom have been infected by the coronavirus.

When Salvini arrived an hour later than scheduled there was a hostile crowd waiting for him, many of them shouting insults.

Salvini, wearing a face mask in the colors of the Italian flag, quickly lowered it to begin his speech, but could scarcely be heard over the heckling.

“Salvini is worse than the Covid,” some shouted, with others calling him a “jackal” or a “clown” and telling him to leave.

Salvini, as he tried to continue his speech from behind a police line, was forced to dodge eggs and water thrown from the crowd.

In brief comments to television crews at the scene, he denounced what he said were agitators who had come in from outside,

“We have to guarantee the rights of Italians, and expel foreigners without papers,” he told AFPTV.

“We need to invest more in the Naples region, in resources and in the forces of order,” he added.

He left the scene after half an hour, but promised to return at a later date.

Last Friday, riot police had to be sent to the town to restore order.

Around 700 foreign workers, most of them Bulgarian farm laborers, are squatting a group of five buildings there.

They have been under lockdown for a week after 43 people among them tested positive for the coronavirus, while medical staff carry out tests throughout the neighborhood.

But last Thursday, several dozen people broke the quarantine to stage a protest march in the town, leading to scuffles with local people who threw stones at them.

Television footage also showed several vehicles belonging to Bulgarians damaged, their windscreens smashed and the Bulgarian registered plates taken as trophies.

With the collapse of that administration last year and the coronavirus crisis this year his profile — and his standing in the opinion polls — has fallen.

© 2020 AFP

Big tobacco, big oil and Buffett join Fed's portfolio
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Federal Reserve bought $428 million in bonds of individual companies through mid-June, making investments in household names like Walmart and AT&T as well as in major oil firms, tobacco giant Philip Morris International Inc, and a utility subsidiary of billionaire Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway holding company.

The transactions disclosed Sunday are the first individual company bond purchases made by the Fed under new programs set up to nurse the economy through the coronavirus pandemic. The Fed also added $5.3 billion in 16 corporate bond exchange traded funds, including a newly added sixth high yield fund.

The initial round of purchases included some 86 issuers, about half of them contractually settled as of June 18 and some still underway, all bought on the secondary market.

That is a small slice of the more than 790 issuers whose bonds the Fed has said in a separate release were eligible for purchase.

But it was still a first foray into corporate bond purchases that spread broadly across the economy, touching firms like Gilead Sciences that are involved in developing treatments for the COVID-19 disease caused by the novel coronavirus, as well as major automakers. That included Ford Motor Co., whose credit was downgraded to junk status after the Fed announced its intent to buy corporate debt.

Both the Bank of Japan and the European Central Bank have programs to buy individual corporate bonds, but the Fed only added that to its arsenal in light of the Depression level risks posed by the pandemic. The aim is to ensure companies can continue to finance themselves, and not be forced out of business due to problems raising cash during a pandemic. The program is backed by investment capital from the U.S. Treasury to absorb any losses should corporations default.

The largest purchases were of bonds issued by AT&T and the United Health Group, with the Fed buying around $16.4 million of bonds from each.

Issuers in the energy industry accounted for about 8.45% of the bonds purchased, about a percentage point less than their representation in a broad market index that the Fed says its purchases are intended to track over time.


The Fed’s bond purchases and other emergency programs will be scrutinized by lawmakers at a Tuesday hearing before the House Financial Services committee with Fed chair Jerome Powell. Questions may focus on the individual bonds purchased, but also on the fact that support for the bond markets used by major firms is now up and running and getting billions of Fed support, while the Fed’s Main Street Lending Program for smaller companies has yet to make a loan.

The central bank’s programs overall have so far seen modest use. The central bank’s overall balance sheet has declined for the past two weeks, falling to $7.08 trillion more recently as foreign governments made less use of Fed dollar swap lines

Couple draw guns at crowd heading to St. Louis mayor’s home

Armed homeowners standing in front their house along Portland Place confront protesters marching to St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson's house Sunday, June 28, 2020, in the Central West End of St. Louis. The protesters called for Krewson's resignation for releasing the names and addresses of residents who suggested defunding the police department. (Laurie Skrivan/St. Louis Post-Dispatch via AP)
ST. LOUIS (AP) — A white couple who stood outside their St. Louis mansion and pointed guns at protesters who were marching toward the mayor’s home to demand her resignation support the Black Lives Matter movement and don’t want to become heroes to those who oppose the cause, their attorney said Monday.

Video posted online showed Mark McCloskey, 63, and his 61-year-old wife, Patricia, standing outside their Renaissance palazzo-style home Sunday night in the city’s well-to-do Central West End neighborhood. He could be heard yelling while holding a long-barreled gun. His wife stood next to him with a handgun.

Mark McCloskey told KMOV-TV that he and wife, who are personal injury lawyers, were facing an “angry mob” on their private street and feared for their lives Sunday night.

No charges were brought against McCloskeys. Police said they were still investigating but labeled it a case of trespassing and assault by intimidation against the couple by protesters in the racially diverse crowd.

However, Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner issued a statement later Monday characterizing what happened differently and saying her office was working with police to investigate the confrontation.

“I am alarmed at the events that occurred over the weekend, where peaceful protesters were met by guns and a violent assault,” she said. “We must protect the right to peacefully protest, and any attempt to chill it through intimidation or threat of deadly force will not be tolerated.”

Their attorney, Albert Watkins, told The Associated Press on Monday that the couple are long-time civil rights advocates and support the message of the Black Lives Matter movement. He said they grabbed their guns when two or three protesters — who were white — violently threatened the couple and their property and that of their neighbors.

“The most important thing for them is that their images (holding the guns) don’t become the basis for a rallying cry for people who oppose the Black Lives Matter message,” Watkins said. “They want to make it really clear that they believe the Black Lives Matter message is important.”

The marchers were angry at Mayor Lyda Krewson for reading aloud the names and addresses of several residents who wrote letters calling for defunding the police department. The group of at least 500 people chanted, “Resign, Lyda! Take the cops with you!” news outlets reported

Police said the couple had heard a loud commotion in the street and saw a large group of people break an iron gate marked with “No Trespassing” and “Private Street” signs. The video showed the protesters walking through the gate and it was unclear when it was damaged.

The McCloskeys’ home, which was featured in the local St. Louis Magazine after undergoing a renovation, was appraised at $1.15 million.

President Donald Trump retweeted an ABC News account of the confrontation without comment.

Krewson has faced demands for her resignation since a Facebook Live briefing on Friday in which the white mayor read the names of those who wrote letters about wanting to defund the police force. The video was removed and Krewson apologized the same day, saying she didn’t intend to cause distress.

The Rev. Darryl Gray, an organizer with ExpectUs, who used a megaphone to urge protesters to keep moving after the couple brandished firearms, blamed Krewson, saying she “threw gasoline on an already burning fire” by releasing people’s home addresses.

“In this climate of hatred and this climate of fear and the concern activists have for safety, we didn’t feel that this was the most prudent thing to do in this particular time,” Gray said. “It is a sign that she just does not know or does not care.”


The names and letters are considered public records, but Krewson’s actions caused a heavy backlash.

“As a leader, you don’t do stuff like that. ... It’s only right that we visit her at her home,” said state Rep. Rasheen Aldridge, a St. Louis Democrat, speaking into a megaphone at the march.

Protesters nationwide have been pushing to “ defund the police ” over the death of George Floyd and other Black people at the hands of law enforcement. Floyd, who was handcuffed, died May 25 after a white Minneapolis police officer pressed his knee on Floyd’s neck for nearly eight minutes.

Krewson, a longtime alderwoman, was elected St. Louis’ first female mayor in 2017 by pledging to work to reduce crime and improve poor neighborhoods. She and her two young children were in the car in front of their home in 1995 when her husband, Jeff, was slain during a carjacking attempt.

Homicides have spiked in recent years in St. Louis, which annually ranks among the most violent cities in the nation.
Full Coverage: Racial injustice

French ex-prime minister Fillon, wife found guilty of fraud

ANOTHER CROOKED LAWN ORDER CONSERVATIVE, 

SAY IT AIN'T SO

SYLVIE CORBET and NICOLAS VAUX-MONTAGNY

France's former Prime Minister Francois Fillon, right, and his wife Penelope wear protective masks as they arrive at Paris courthouse, in Paris, Monday, June 29, 2020. A Paris court is set to render or postpone a verdict in the fraud trial of former Prime Minister Francois Fillon on Monday. (AP Photo/Michel Euler)

LOOK NO HANDCUFFS NO PERP WALK
PARIS (AP) — Former French Prime Minister Francois Fillon was found guilty Monday in a fraud case of having used public funds to pay his wife and children more than 1 million euros ($1.13 million) since 1998 for work they never performed.

The couple’s lawyers immediately appealed Monday’s verdict from the Paris court.

Fillon, 66, was sentenced to five years in prison, three of which were suspended, and a 375,000-euro (more than $423,000) fine. He is also banned from seeking elected office for 10 years. He remains free pending appeal.

His 64-year-old wife, Penelope Fillon, was found guilty as an accomplice. She was given a three-year suspended sentence and fined the same amount.

In addition, the couple was requested to reimburse the National Assembly more than 1 million euros that correspond to the salaries and payroll charges that were paid. The penalty is suspended pending appeal.

The scandal broke in the French media just three months before the country’s 2017 presidential election, as Fillon was the front-runner in the race. It cost him his reputation. Fillon sank to third place in the election, which was won by Emmanuel Macron.

The Paris court considered that Fillon “elaborated and established an organization enabling to misappropriate money for his personal use.”

In a statement, the court said that “nothing concrete has been proven in court regarding the work of Madam Fillon.”

“She did not have any professional activity alongside her husband,” the court added. “Nothing justifies the paid salaries.”

Fillon and his wife have denied any wrongdoing.

Fillon’s lawyer Antonin Levy told reporters “there will be a new trial ... We will be able to get a full and serene debate that will finally allow justice to be made.”

Penelope Fillon’s role alongside her husband drew all the attention during the February-March trial, which focused on determining whether her activities were in the traditional role of an elected official’s partner — or involved actual paid work.

Prosecutors denounced “fraudulent, systematic practices.”

Fillon was accused of misuse of public funds, receiving money from the misuse of public funds and the misappropriation of company assets. His wife was charged mostly as an accomplice.

During the trial, Penelope Fillon explained how she decided to support her husband’s career when he was first elected as a French lawmaker in 1981 in the small town of Sable-sur-Sarthe, in rural western France.

Over the years, she was offered different types of contracts as a parliamentary assistant, depending on her husband’s political career.
Full Coverage: France

She described her work as mostly doing reports about local issues, opening the mail, meeting with residents and helping to prepare speeches for local events. She said working that way allowed her to have a flexible schedule and raise their five children in the Fillons’ countryside manor.

Prosecutors pointed at the lack of actual evidence of her work, including the absence of declarations for any paid vacations or maternity leave, as her wages reached up to nine times France’s minimum salary.

Francois Fillon insisted his wife’s job was real and said that, according to the separation of powers, the justice system can’t interfere with how a lawmaker organizes work at his office.

A former lawmaker, Marc Joulaud, also went on trial in the case for misuse of public funds after he allegedly gave Penelope Fillon a fake job as an aide from 2002 to 2007, while her husband was minister. He was found guilty and sentenced to a three-year suspended prison sentence.

In addition, charges also cover a contract that allowed Penelope Fillon to earn 135,000 euros in 2012-2013 as a consultant for a literary magazine owned by a friend of her husband — also an alleged fake job. The magazine owner, Marc de Lacharriere, already pleaded guilty and was given a suspended eight-month prison sentence and fined 375,000 euros in 2018.

Fillon, once the youngest lawmaker at the National Assembly at the age of 27, served as prime minister under President Nicolas Sarkozy from 2007 to 2012. He was also a minister under two previous presidents, Francois Mitterrand and Jacques Chirac.

He left French politics in 2017 and now works for an asset management company.

Trump’s attacks seen undercutting confidence in 2020 vote

By JILL COLVIN

In this June 23, 2020, file photo voting stations are set up in the South Wing of the Kentucky Exposition Center for voters to cast their ballot in the Kentucky primary in Louisville, Ky. Just over four months before Election Day, President Donald Trump is escalating his efforts to delegitimize the upcoming presidential election. Last week he made a startling, and unfounded, claim that 2020 will be “the most corrupt election in the history of our country." (AP Photo/Timothy D. Easley, File)

WASHINGTON (AP) — It was a startling declaration about one of the pillars of American democracy, all the more so given its source.

The president of the United States last week publicly predicted without evidence that the 2020 presidential election would be “the most corrupt election in the history of our country.”

“We cannot let this happen,” Donald Trump told an audience of young supporters at a Phoenix megachurch. “They want it to happen so badly.”

Just over four months before Election Day, the president is escalating his efforts to cast doubt on the integrity of the vote.

It’s a well-worn tactic for Trump, who in 2016 went after the very process that ultimately put him in the White House. He first attacked the Republican primaries (“rigged and boss controlled”) and then the general election, when he accused the media and Democratic rival Hillary Clinton’s campaign of conspiring against him to undermine a free and fair election.

“The process is rigged. This whole election is being rigged,” he said that October when polls showed him trailing Clinton by double digits as he faced a flurry of sexual misconduct allegations.

Then, as now, election experts have repeatedly discredited his claims about widespread fraud in the voting process.

In a country with a history of peaceful political transition, a major-party candidate’s efforts to delegitimize an election amounted to a striking rupture of faith in American democracy. But to do the same as president, historians say, is unprecedented.

“Never,” said presidential historian Douglas Brinkley when asked whether any past U.S. president had ever used such language. “What you’re seeing is someone who’s an autocrat or a dictator in action.”

This year, Trump has seized on efforts across the country to expand the ability of people to vote by mail. It’s a movement that was spurred by the coronavirus, which has infected more than 2.4 million people in the U.S. and killed more than 125,000 nationwide. The virus is highly contagious and especially dangerous for older people, who typically vote in higher numbers and have been advised by federal health authorities to limit their interactions with others.

There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud through mail-in voting, even in states with all-mail votes. Trump and many members of his administration have themselves repeatedly voted via absentee ballots. But that hasn’t stopped Trump from accusing Democrats of trying to “rig the election by sending out tens of millions of mail-in ballots, using the China virus as the excuse for allowing people not to go to the polls.”

“People went to the polls and voted during World War I. They went to the polls and voted during World War II. We can safely go to the polls and vote during COVID-19,” he said in his Phoenix speech.

Trump’s complaints come as he has been lagging in both internal and public polls. The criticism is seen by some as part of a broader effort by Trump to depress turnout by making it harder for people, especially in cities, to vote safely, and to lay the groundwork for a potential challenge to the results in November if he loses. Trump and his campaign vociferously deny this.

Julian Zelizer, a presidential historian at Princeton University, said Trump may be trying to preempt the sting of a humiliation if he fails to win a second term. But Zelizer said Trump also appears to be “setting up the foundation for taking action.”

“What I do think is very realistic is a replay of 2000,” he said, referring to the legal saga in which the Supreme Court stepped in to resolve a dispute over which candidate had won Florida. Republican George W. Bush’s ultimate win in the state gave him a general election victory over Democrat Al Gore.

If this year’s election is close, Zelizer said, Trump could turn to the courts “and wage a political campaign to say this is being stolen and tie up efforts to count the votes.”

Brinkley was even more alarmist, questioning whether Trump would vacate the office if he lost.

“Trump is laying down his markers very clearly that he’s not going to leave the White House. I think that he’s just setting the stage,” Brinkley said, to say ”‘I’m not leaving. It was a fraudulent election.’”

Even barring such an extreme move, Brinkley said the president’s rhetoric undermines public confidence in the electoral system. “It creates mayhem and it breaks the heart of what a democracy is.”

Americans already have widespread concerns about the security and integrity of elections. A February poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that only about one-third have high confidence that votes in the 2020 election will be counted accurately.

Americans’ support for mail-in voting has jumped amid concerns over the virus, with 6 in 10 now saying they would support their state allowing people to vote by mail-in ballot without requiring a reason, according to an April survey. Democrats are far more likely to support it than Republicans, a partisan split that has emerged since 2018, suggesting Trump’s public campaign may be resonating with his GOP backers.

White House officials and Trump’s campaign say he has raised the issue because Democrats are trying to use the virus as an excuse to tilt voting rules their way.

“I think the president is only talking about this because Democrats have been going around to try to change rules in their favor under the guise of the virus. ... This isn’t a fight he picked,” said Trump campaign political adviser and senior counsel Justin Clark. “The coronavirus does not give us an excuse to radically alter our way of voting.”

Officials noted Trump has voiced support for the use of absentee ballots when voters have a legitimate reason, although he has not said whether that includes fear of contracting the virus.

“Imposing a new voting system in a hurried fashion ahead of November only exacerbates the real, underlying concerns about the security of voting by mail without the proper safeguards,” said White House spokesperson Sarah Matthews. “All Americans deserve an election system that is secure and President Trump is highlighting that Democrats’ plan for mass mail-in system would lead to fraud.”

But Wendy R. Weiser, director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, said such concerns are “completely baseless,” according to study after study. While no system is immune to fraud, she said, expanded voting by mail is “clearly the safest and necessary response to a pandemic.”

Trump’s efforts to suggest otherwise are “extremely damaging to America, to our democracy, on multiple fronts,” she said, noting that foreign adversaries have long tried to undermine confidence in the American politician system.

“This,” she said, “is in some respects doing their work for them.”

Lebanon’s FM to summon US envoy over comments on Hezbollah

By BASSEM MROUE

Hezbollah and Amal supporters wave Hezbollah and Iranian flags as they shout slogans against Israel and U.S. during a protest in the southern suburb of Beirut, Lebanon, Sunday, June 28, 2020. The protest came hours after Lebanon's foreign minister summoned the U.S. ambassador to Beirut over comments, she made recently in which she criticized Hezbollah. The meeting between Foreign Minister Nassif Hitti and Ambassador Dorothy Shea is scheduled for Monday afternoon. (AP Photo/Hassan Ammar)
In this photo released on Thursday, June 11, 2020 by the Lebanese Government, President Michel Aoun, left, meets with U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Dorothy Shea, at the Presidential Palace in Baabda, east of Beirut, Lebanon. A Lebanese court issued a ruling Saturday barring local and foreign media in the country from interviewing the U.S. ambassador to Beirut for a year, calling a recent interview in which she criticized the powerful Hezbollah group seditious and a threat to social peace. (Dalati Nohra/Lebanese Government via AP)

BEIRUT (AP) — Lebanon’s foreign minister summoned the U.S. ambassador to Beirut over comments she made recently in which she criticized the militant Hezbollah group, state-run National News Agency reported Sunday.

In Hezbollah’s stronghold south of Beirut, some 500 protesters marched on foot and motorcycles through the streets chanting: “Oh America, you are the Great Satan.”

The agency gave no further details other than saying that the meeting between Foreign Minister Nassif Hitti and Ambassador Dorothy Shea is scheduled for Monday afternoon.

Local media said the minister will tell the ambassador that, according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, an ambassador has no right to interfere in the internal affairs of another country and should not incite the Lebanese people against one another.

On Saturday, a Lebanese judge banned local and foreign media outlets in the country from interviewing the U.S. ambassador for a year, saying that her criticism of Hezbollah was seditious and a threat to social peace.

The judge’s ruling came a day after Shea told Saudi-owned TV station Al-Hadath that Washington has “great concerns” over Hezbollah’s role in the government.

The move was harshly criticized by many in Lebanon, which enjoys one of the more freer media landscapes in the Arab world. Others, however, criticized Shea for comments deemed an interference in Lebanon’s internal affairs.

Since the ban by the judge was imposed Saturday, several local TV stations aired fresh comments from Shea in which she described the judge’s decision as “unfortunate.” She added that a senior Lebanese government official, whom she did not name, apologized to her.

“I was contacted yesterday afternoon by a very high-ranking and a well-placed official in the Lebanese government and this official expressed apologies, conveyed that this ruling did not have proper standing,” Shea told the local MTV station on Sunday. Shea added that the official told her that the government “will take the necessary step to reverse it.”

The court decision reflected the rising tension between the U.S. and Hezbollah. It also revealed a widening rift among groups in Lebanon, which is facing the worst economic crisis in its modern history.

Hezbollah legislator Hassan Fadlallah on Sunday called Shea’s comments “a flagrant aggression on the sovereignty of our country and its national dignity.” He called on the foreign ministry to force the ambassador to “respect international law.”

Lebanon is gripped by a deepening financial crisis, and talks with the International Monetary Fund for assistance has been complicated by political infighting. The local currency has lost more than 80% of its value in recent months.

Shea said Lebanon is reeling from years of corruption of successive governments and accused Hezbollah of siphoning off government funds for its own purposes and of obstructing needed economic reforms.

In southern Beirut, some protesters blamed American sanctions on Hezbollah and neighboring Syria for the crash of the currency, which is throwing more Lebanese into poverty.

“No matter how hungry we are, and how much in need we are, at least we have dignity,” said protester Ahmad Jawad referring to Hezbollah’s defiance of the U.S.

Hezbollah, the Iran-backed Shiite group, and its allies are dominant in parliament and back the current government. It is designated by Washington as a terrorist group and the U.S. has continued to expand sanctions against it.

However, Washington is one of the largest donors to the Lebanese army, making for one of the more complicated diplomatic balancing acts in the region.

Ethiopian monk said to be 114 years old survives coronavirus
June 27, 2020

Centenarian Tilahun Woldemichael crys as he prays to God after spending weeks in hospital recovering from the coronavirus, at his house in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Saturday, June 27, 2020. The Ethiopian monk believed to be 114 years old has survived the coronavirus and was discharged from a hospital on Thursday, having received oxygen and dexamethasone, a cheap and widely available steroid that researchers in England have said reduced deaths by up to one third in severely ill hospitalized patients. (AP Photo/Mulugeta Ayene)

ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia (AP) — An Ethiopian Orthodox monk whose family says he is 114 years old has survived the coronavirus.

Tilahun Woldemichael was discharged from a hospital on Thursday after almost three weeks. He received oxygen and dexamethasone, a cheap and widely available steroid that researchers in England have said reduced deaths by up to one third in severely ill hospitalized patients.

Ethiopia’s health minister has said the ministry recommends the emergency use of the drug for COVID-19 patients who require ventilation or oxygen.

Tilahun’s grandson Biniam Leulseged said he has no birth certificate to prove the monk’s age, but he showed a photo of him celebrating his 100th birthday.

“He was looking young back then, too,” Biniam told The Associated Press on Saturday.

He said he was emotional when his grandfather was taken to the hospital but “I am very happy because we are together again.”

Ethiopia has more than 5,200 confirmed cases of the virus.

Critics question `less lethal’ force used during protests

IN A DEMOCRACY YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO PROTEST

UNTIL THE COPS DECIDE YOU DON'T

By ACACIA CORONADO

This this photo provided by Howell family shows Justin Howel. When a participant at a rally in Austin to protest police brutality threw a rock at a line of officers in the Texas capital, officers responded by firing beanbag rounds ammunition that law enforcement deems “less lethal” than bullets. A beanbag cracked Howell's skull and, according to his family, damaged his brain. Adding to the pain, police admit the Texas State University student wasn't the intended target. (David Frost via AP)

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — When a participant at a rally in Austin to protest police brutality threw a rock at a line of officers in the Texas capital, officers responded by firing beanbag rounds — ammunition that law enforcement deems “less lethal” than bullets.

A beanbag cracked 20-year-old Justin Howell’s skull and, according to his family, damaged his brain. Adding to the pain, police admit the Texas State University student wasn’t the intended target.

Protesters took to the streets in Austin and across the nation following the May 25 police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. In some instances, police reacted with force so extreme that while their intent may not be to kill, the effects were devastating.

Pressure has mounted for a change in police tactics since Howell was injured. He was not accused of any crime. He was hospitalized in critical condition on May 31 and was discharged Wednesday to a long-term rehabilitation facility for intensive neurological, physical and occupational therapy. His brother has questioned why no one is talking about police use of less lethal but still dangerous munitions.


BEAN BAGS FIRED UNDER PRESSURE CAN BE LETHAL 

This still image taken from video provided by David Frost shows protesters running after police fire beanbag rounds in front of the Austin Police Department Headquarters on May 31, 2020 during a demonstration against police brutality in Austin, Texas. In some instances, police reacted with force so extreme that while their intent may not be to kill, the effects were devastating. (David Frost via AP)

“If we only talk about policing in terms of policies and processes or the weapons that police use when someone dies or when they are ‘properly lethal’ and not less lethal, we’re missing a big portion of the conversation,” said Josh Howell, a computer science graduate student at Texas A&M University.

The Austin Police Department said in a news release that, before June 1, its officers used Def-Tec 12-gauge beanbag munitions on protesters. According to the manufacturer’s website, they have a velocity of 184 mph (296 kph)

The growing use of less lethal weapons is “cause for grave concern” and may sometimes violate international law, said Agnes Callamard, director of Global Freedom of Expression at Columbia University and a U.N. adviser.

HOW IS THIS NON LETHAL 

From 1990 to 2014, projectiles caused 53 deaths and 300 permanent disabilities among 1,984 serious injuries recorded by medical workers in over a dozen countries, according to Rohini Haar, an emergency room doctor in Oakland, California, and primary author of the 2016 Physicians for Human Rights report

This still image taken from video provided by David Frost shows protesters carrying Justin Howel, injured during a protest against police brutality in front of the Austin Police Department Headquarters on May 31, 2020 in Austin, Texas. A beanbag cracked Howell's skull and, according to his family, damaged his brain. In some instances, police reacted with force so extreme that while their intent may not be to kill, the effects were devastating. (David Frost via AP)

Ishia Lynette, a spokeswoman for the Austin Justice Coalition, said her group had been organizing a rally with an expected 10,000 attendees, but that was canceled after Howell was shot. With anger flaring on both sides, the organization that advocates for racial justice feared confrontations could arise.

“I feel safe in some sense, but it is always in the back of my head, the what if? Other people can incite violence, whether that be other protesters or the police,” Lynette said.

The Austin City Council has since begun an overhaul of the Police Department, banning the use of less lethal munitions and tear gas in crowds participating in free speech, and prohibiting the use of chokeholds. The attack on Howell is one of more than 100 under investigation.

Lynette hailed the city’s efforts to change, but said more needs to be done. Her organization also has been calling for Austin Police Chief Brian Manley to resign.

“They recently banned chokeholds, rubber bullets, beanbags,” she said. “These are small things, but we need them to take more actions to not hurt any more protesters. Since then, I have seen videos of them operating in the same way. If they would uphold what they said, it is not enough, but it is a start.”

David Frost, who captured on video the moments after Howell was shot, said he saw protesters throwing fist-sized rocks and water bottles at the line of police on an overpass. Then he saw Howell fall. He was bleeding heavily and went into a seizure, Frost said.

As medical volunteers with red crosses on their arms helped Frost to move Howell to a safe place, officers again opened fire. Frost’s video shows the police firing towards them.

Manley said at a news conference that Howell was not the intended target, insisting that the officer was aiming for the person who he said attacked the police line near the Austin Police Department headquarters.

“One of the officers fired their less lethal munition at that individual, apparently, but it struck this victim instead,” Manley said. “Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and we hope his condition will improve quickly.”

Howell was not the first person at the Austin rallies to be injured by police. A day earlier, 16-year-old Brad Levi Ayala, who was watching a protest from a distance, was also shot in the head with a beanbag.

“We can’t really take comfort in the phrase ‘less lethal,’” Josh Howell said. “Because if what we mean is less lethal than a bullet, that’s not a high bar to clear.”

He declined to comment on the changes the city and police chief said they are making because he doesn’t live in Austin.

___

This story was first published on June 27. It was updated on June 29 to correct the name of a man who captured on video the severe injuring of a protester during a demonstration in Austin, Texas. His name is David Frost, not David Foster.

___

Acacia Coronado is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.

MAP OF COUNTRIES ACTIVE IN THE ARCTIC AS IT WARMS

FROM LE MONDE 

Inequitable healthcare, insufficient resources
Russian hospitals may not cope

Russia inherited enough hospital beds from the old Soviet health system to cope with Covid-19 patients, though not the medical personnel or critical supplies now needed. With the private sector growing, is state healthcare being dangerously hollowed out?

by Estelle Levresse

Pandemic: Russia’s health system has been neglected
v

Moscow’s tree-lined Rozhdestvensky Boulevard was almost deserted. Behind a barrier, a litter-picker was at work while another rested on a bench. These municipal employees in Day-Glo orange overalls were among the few Muscovites who could enjoy the tulip display. Russia’s capital normally returns to life in spring, but this year has stayed dormant: shops, restaurants and cafés closed, public spaces padlocked. People go out to buy food or walk their dogs, but this mega-city of 12 million, on lockdown since 30 March, is quiet. There are no children or old people in the streets, as they are forbidden to leave home except to go to the family dacha (1).

Russia managed to delay the coronavirus outbreak by a few weeks through early preventative action: it closed its land border with China on 30 January, banned Chinese nationals from entering the country soon after, quarantined citizens returning from high-risk countries, and began disinfecting public transport and taking the temperature of Moscow school pupils daily.

But the virus began to spread throughout the country. In May new infections rose steeply, with almost 31,000 registered during the long 1 May holiday weekend. Just before it, Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin was hospitalised with the virus, as were two other ministers and the president’s spokesperson.

By 19 May there had been 300,000 infections but only 2,837 deaths, which caused western media to speculate that the Russian statistics understated the true death rate by as much as 70% (New York Times and Financial Times, both 11 May). The Russian authorities acknowledged that a patient who tested positive for Covid-19 but died of another cause would not be included in their figures, but denied any manipulation. Even if revised upwards, Russia’s Covid-19 deaths remain below those of Italy, Spain and the US. But if the infection rate grows, will Russia’s medical infrastructure be able to cope?

Russia’s experience of fighting infectious diseases may help explain the authorities’ swift initial response. It dates from 1918 when the Narkomzdrav, the People’s Commissariat of Public Health, was created. The Narkomzdrav, led by medic Nikolai Semashko, developed the world’s first unitary national health system, known as the Semashko system: free, universal and founded on a multi-level organisation of care according to the severity of the condition (2).

Free district clinics

District polyclinics were the first link, offering outpatient treatment for common ailments and ensuring coordination within the system. In these free clinics, patients could see general practitioners and specialists such as ENT doctors, urologists and dentists. Semashko wrote, ‘The organisation of the health system on the district principle gives healthcare providers a chance to know their patients’ working and living conditions better, so the district doctor becomes the “local” doctor, a friend of the family’ (3). The family practice was the forerunner of similar systems later adopted in other countries.

Organisation on a district principle gives healthcare providers a chance to know patients' working and living conditions better, so district doctors becomes the ‘local' doctor, a friend of the familyNicolai Semashko

Particular attention was paid to infectious disease prevention. In 1922 Sanepid, the State Sanitary and Epidemiological Service, was created, with intervention teams that could be deployed nationwide, from factories to villages (4). Their vigilance, together with mass vaccination, allowed the USSR to eliminate tuberculosis and malaria. Average life expectancy in Russia, just 31 at the end of the 19th century, rose to 69 by the 1960s; the Soviets had closed the gap with western nations.

Today’s successor to Sanepid, Rospotrebnadzor (Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and Human Wellbeing) is in daily contact with the health ministry but reports directly to President Vladimir Putin, who is in charge of Russia’s overall anti-Covid-19 strategy. According to Ivan Konovalov, a researcher in the department of childhood infectious diseases at Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, this organisation has helped alleviate the burden on hospitals, using large-scale CCTV surveillance and policies that discriminate by age. On 23 March a mayoral decree in Moscow forbade anyone over 65 who suffers from a chronic illness to leave home. As a result, 85% of Russia’s Covid-19 patients are under 65 so on average experience less acute symptoms. Russia boasts of one of the lowest Covid-19 death rates in the world (0.9%, 25 April data), but this might be due to its comparatively low national life expectancy, which averages 72 years overall, 67.6 for men.

Russia’s mass testing strategy is another contributory factor. Rospotrebnadzor said it had carried out 2.5 million tests by 24 April, the second-highest figure in the world, which allowed early isolation and treatment, and brought down the percentage mortality rate by identifying people with asymptomatic forms.

Soviet-era hospital capacity

Russia retains significant hospital capacity from the Soviet era. This anomaly in a country that devotes just 3.5% of GDP to public health, compared to an OECD average of 6.5%, has been ascribed to organisational shortcomings from the 1960s. At that time, the health system began prioritising hospitals over primary care. A sharp increase in cardiovascular disease and cancers, poorly treated by the Soviet system because of a lack of investment in expensive technology, explains the fall in life expectancy by three years between 1965 and 1974. Judyth Twigg, a US expert on Russia’s health system, said, ‘To fulfil the objectives of the plan, there was a tendency to open as many beds as possible and hospitalise people for as long as possible. There was little regard for quality and innovation. Only quantity counted.’ Prevention, the strength of the Semashko system, was relegated to second place.

Despite a drastic reduction in numbers of healthcare institutions — the number of hospitals halved between 2000 and 2015 and the number of beds per 10,000 inhabitants was reduced by a quarter — Russia still has one of the highest beds-per-capita rates in the world, with 8.1 for every 1,000 inhabitants compared to six in France and 2.8 in the US, according to OECD figures. This capacity will be an asset during the pandemic, especially as Russia is also well equipped with ventilators and respiratory equipment — around 40,000 according to the authorities — but behind these figures the reality of healthcare provision is highly variable.

The system never really recovered from the collapse of the 1990s, when the brutal decline in economic and social conditions led to the re-emergence of tuberculosis and other previously eradicated infectious diseases. The introduction in 1993 of an Obligatory Medical Insurance scheme, which currently takes 5.1% of a worker’s net salary, as part of every employment contract has made it possible to improve the system over time, at the cost of widening inequalities in access. Consultations with a GP and hospital stays remain free, but prescriptions have to be paid for.

Regional inequalities have grown too. The restructuring that began to optimise expenditure in the 2000s led to rural hospital closures and the construction of hi-tech facilities in big cities. Many Russian healthcare workers complain on social media about a lack of equipment and medicines, outdated technology and low pay. In 2019 there were strikes and collective resignations in several cities, often with support from the Doctors’ Alliance. Last August, at a hospital in Pyatigorsk, near the Georgian border, A&E doctors resigned en masse.

Does Russia have the resources?

This anger is not confined to outlying regions. In Tarusa, a town of 10,000 inhabitants 150km south of the capital, healthcare workers say they lack such basics as disposable gowns and disinfectant. Twigg points out, ‘Putting someone on a ventilator requires not just a qualified doctor but also anaesthesiologists, lab technicians and, in particular, intensive care nurses. It’s not certain that Russia has such resources.’

Even if the system holds up against Covid-19, structural problems remain. Provision of primary care is being neglected. The number of district doctors nationally fell from 73,200 in 2005 to 60,900 in 2016. In 2017 just 13% of Russia’s doctors were GPs, compared to an average of 33% across the OECD (5). Russians are rejecting public polyclinics when seeking treatment. According to a study in August 2019, 57% of Russians self-medicate rather than go to the doctor.

The better-off are turning to a booming private sector. Since MD Medical Group opened its first private maternity hospital in Moscow in 2006, the big health companies have accelerated their growth, targeting the upper-middle class in big cities. In 2016 private healthcare providers’ share of the Obligatory Medical Insurance sector was 29%, compared to 16% just three years before. Medsi, owned by the Sistema holding company, already does eight million consultations a year in Russia and this year planned to open a 34,000 sq m multi-speciality medical centre in Moscow.

Igor Sheiman, a researcher at the Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences, has long advocated a return to basics of the Semashko system, based on affordable care and the central role of polyclinics. ‘Unfortunately, that’s not where efforts have gone,’ he concedes. He believes the 550bn roubles ($7.55bn) earmarked for the national health programme (one of 13 national priority projects for 2019-24) is not enough to modernise primary care. And these funds are at risk of cuts. The Russian government, obsessed with the stability of the rouble, is reluctant to increase its budget deficit and is only unwillingly dipping into its sovereign fund to finance emergency measures. The modernisation of the healthcare system may have to wait.

Estelle Levresse is a journalist based in Moscow

(1) See Christophe Trontin, ‘Russia’s vanishing summerfolk’, Le Monde diplomatique, English edition, August 2019.

(2) See Vladimir A Reshetnikov, Natalia V Ekkert, Lorenzo Capasso et al, ‘The history of public healthcare in Russia’, Medicina Historica, vol 3, no 1, 2019.

(3) Ibid.

(4) See Roger I Glass, ‘The Sanepid service in the USSR’, Public Health Reports, vol 91, no 2, 1976.

5) Health at a Glance 2019, OECD Indicators.

African Americans revive alliance with Palestinians
‘When I see them, I see us’


A short video from 2015 linked African Americans and Palestinians from the occupied territories, reviving an empathy dormant for decades, which began when Palestine became part of the struggle against colonial dominance and land rights.

by Sylvie Laurent
FEBRUARY 2019


Before the fall: President Jimmy Carter and First Lady Rosalynn Carter congratulate Andrew Young on becoming UN Ambassador in 1977. Credit Bettmann · Getty Images

‘When I see them, I see us’ is a short video that shows in quick succession faces of people united by the messages they hold up to the camera: ‘We are not collateral damage, we have names and faces’. There is footage from Ferguson, Missouri, and shots of Palestinians in the occupied territories with placards reading ‘Black Lives Matter’ while African Americans protest against the racist oppression of Palestinians. There is a single target, the US firm Combined Systems Inc, which supplies products such as tear gas both to the Ferguson police and to the Israeli forces in Gaza and the West Bank.

The three-minute video, produced in 2015, was immediately picked up by social networks. Besides unknown protestors, black activist Angela Davis, who recently published a collection of essays (1), philosopher Cornel West, actor Danny Glover (who once played Nelson Mandela), singer Lauryn Hill and writer Alice Walker all appear. Noura Erakat, the human rights lawyer who came up with the idea, was well aware of their impact. The film is a declaration of solidarity between African American activists and Palestinians (2), who were both suffering from state violence at the time although their relationship goes much further back.

The year 1967, with the Six Day war and Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, was also crucial for the American civil rights movement, marking the turning point from the non-violent stance of its Christian base to radical demands for justice. The Black Power movement reverted to the third world internationalism and anticolonialism of earlier black activists, whether communist, like Paul Robeson, or nationalist, like Marcus Garvey and Malcolm X, who visited Jerusalem in 1957 and Gaza in 1964, ahead of a transnational and cosmopolitan liberation struggle. In his 1964 essay Zionist Logic, he denounced the ‘camouflage’ of Israeli ‘colonialism’, disguising violence as benevolence with the strategic support of the US. He called it ‘dollarism’.
Right to land and freedom

The most important radical groups, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and the Black Panthers, also condemned Israel and the US. Young Black Liberation activists moved away from African American sympathy for Israel as the Holy Land and a refuge for a people once enslaved and persecuted. African Americans had cherished the biblical metaphors of Exodus since the 17th century, and the establishment of a Jewish state had seemed providential. James Baldwin wrote in 1948: ‘The more devout Negro considers that he is a Jew, in bondage to a hard taskmaster and waiting for Moses to lead him out of Egypt’ (3). No one could better understand the Jews’ search for a land of freedom than an African American. Equally, when in exile he visited Palestine in 1961, Baldwin expressed empathy for any people seeking a homeland, and understood the meaning of dispossession and forced displacement.

We are not anti-Jewish and we are not antisemites. Only we do not believe the leaders of Israel have a right to this land H Rap Brown

Israel’s 1967 occupation of more Palestinian land ended Zionist feelings among activist African Americans. Having once identified themselves with the Jews in their servitude, they now felt closer to the Arabs. While Martin Luther King had spontaneously hailed the founding of Israel, his mentors, Mahatma Gandhi and Kwame Nkrumah, Ghana’s revolutionary leader, had publicly condemned Zionism in the name of their anticolonial struggles. In 1977 SNCC activists, King’s rebellious heirs, published a call for solidarity with the Palestinians.

The anti-imperialism of the new black activists expressed solidarity with non-whites in the third world. This generation saw themselves as prisoners in a domestic colony, and the more nationalistic demanded a bi-national solution within the US. This produced what the historian Alex Lubin called ‘an Afro-Arab political imaginary’. The Black Panthers contacted the Palestine Liberation Organisation, which saw the link between Palestine and the anticolonial, antiracist and anticapitalist struggle, as legitimate.

Both the Black Panthers and the SNCC were immediately accused of antisemitism. Spokespeople for both organisations, aware of some antisemitic trends among activists, clarified their position; SNCC chairman H Rap Brown declared in 1967, ‘We are not anti-Jewish and we are not antisemites. Only we do not believe that the leaders of Israel have a right to this land’ (4). In 1970 the Black Panther leader Huey Newton also denounced extremist remarks by activists and defended revolutionary internationalism, hostile to white supremacy, but not to Jews. He reasserted the right to self-determination of all peoples oppressed by militarism and Israeli-American ‘reactionary nationalism’ (5).
‘Thinking our emancipation for us’

The coalition between African Americans and Jews, which had played a determining role during the civil rights period (1954-68), was endangered. This was an important turning point. From the creation of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in 1909 to Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel marching alongside Martin Luther King, the progressive Jewish elite had played a major role in the Black Liberation struggle. The majority of students who took part in the Freedom Summer of 1964, a voter registration drive in Mississippi to encourage African Americans to sign up to vote, were Jewish.

That relationship had been strained, notably by accusations of paternalism by educated Jews. But the Palestinian issue marked the break in relations. In 1967 the African American writer Harold Cruse challenged the premise of an alliance between the equally oppressed. In The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual (1967), Cruse argued that Jews held power and used it, including for ‘thinking our emancipation for us’. Where was that empathy when it came to denouncing the Israeli occupation of Palestine? What was the Jewish position on Zionism in the rightwing review Commentary? Cruse said African Americans in search of justice should think about the wisdom of their partnership with American Jews.

The mention of Commentary highlights the gradual shift in views of leftwing American Jewish intellectuals, including Norman Podhoretz, from the end of the 1960s. They ended all national support for African Americans, and unconditionally supported Israel internationally. Trying to reconcile this, they claimed that the US social, liberal and universalist model, which had enabled Jews to become Americanised, was threatened by those who wanted to destroy racism and domination in both countries.

This made UN General Assembly resolution 3379, adopted in 1975 and condemning Zionism as ‘racism and racial discrimination’, controversial in the US. The US ambassador to the UN, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, was outraged, although he was aware of the mechanisms of state discrimination. In 1965, as an academic close to Lyndon Johnson, he had produced the Moynihan Report calling for ambitious social policies favouring African Americans excluded from social structures. He eventually became a neoconservative and an ardent defender of Israel.

To understand why the Palestinian question resonates with African Americans, we need to look at the balance of power within the US after the civil rights movement, when the protagonists reviewed issues rooted in history: foremost were the imperial nature of the American republic and the exclusion of minorities of colour from citizenship. Declaring support for Palestine proclaimed the right to dissent from US power, which, after confiscating land and rights from African Americans, Mexicans and Native Americans, replicated that domination in the Middle East. From 1968 American Jews and Arabs, aware of that similarity with US history, committed to their own movements for political assertion inspired by the American civil rights movement. Rabbi Meir Kahane, founder of the Jewish Defence League in 1968 and future leader of Israel’s far right, raised the idea of ‘Jewish power’.
‘Israeli apartheid’

The apartheid regime in South Africa led to mobilisation on US campuses and in black working-class neighbourhoods. South Africa, already a symbol of colonial domination, bought weapons from the US and Israel, pushing Israel further towards the oppressors. There was talk of ‘Israeli apartheid’ (6), and Palestinians became members of a diaspora of the dispossessed. As in South Africa, Palestinian activists demanded boycotts, condemnation and an end to investment by all US institutions, from local universities to the State Department.

In 1979 President Jimmy Carter forced civil rights activist Andrew Young to stand down as US ambassador to the UN for having met PLO leaders. Irritated by Young’s hostility to his pro-Israel policies, Carter made African American leaders angry. James Baldwin wrote in The Nation on 29 September 1979: ‘The state of Israel was not created for the salvation of the Jews; it was created for the salvation of Western interests ... The Palestinians have been paying for the British colonial policy of divide and rule and for Europe’s guilty Christian conscience for more than thirty years.’ Since this was more a domestic matter than geopolitical, many African Americans — including the Reverend Jesse Jackson, another civil rights veteran and a rising figure in the Democratic Party — brought up the role of American Jews in Young’s forced resignation. Accusations of antisemitism resurfaced, and Jackson’s comments about New York’s Jews (as Israel-fixated and dominant in ‘Hymietown’) did nothing to help. Jackson, a strong advocate of a broad pan-minority coalition, struggled to heal this divide, and failed. When Louis Farrakhan, the black leader of the Nation of Islam, whose antisemitism had been well known since the 1970s, lent his support, African Americans’ anti-Zionist stance was fatally discredited.

In the 1990s the radical African American movement lost power, and its relationship with the Palestinians ran out of steam. The leaders’ focus on democratic self-restraint, the breakup of the remaining Black Panthers, and hopes for peace in the Middle East after the 1993 Oslo accords ended the criticisms of imperialism that had marked the US liberation movement.

Solidarity with Palestinians only resurfaced after the 2015-16 Ferguson riots, when there was anger over police crimes against unarmed young black men. The Black Lives Matter movement took up the SNCC’s torch and linked racial issues with the logic of world domination. Social media helped revive solidarity: one Facebook group is called Blacks for Palestine (B4P). In 2017 the anti-racism group Dream Defenders organised a trip for black artists to the occupied territories. There have been conferences on US university campuses, where calls to boycott Israel have triggered controversy (7).

Such actions involve only a few, but a new generation links both groups’ struggles. Vic Mensa, a rapper from Chicago, travelled to the occupied territories in 2017 and wrote about it in Time (8). He described the mirror effect of seeing a young Palestinian frisked by an Israeli soldier; his relief at not being the suspect was followed by the realisation that ‘for once in my life I didn’t feel like the nigger.’


Sylvie Laurent
Sylvie Laurent is a research associate at Harvard and Stanford, a lecturer at Sciences Po Paris and the author of King and the Other America: The Poor People’s Campaign and the Quest for Economic Equality, University of California Press, Oakland, 2019.
Translated by Krystyna Horko


Angela Davis, Freedom is a Constant Struggle: Ferguson, Palestine, and the Foundations of a Movement, Haymarket Books, Chicago, 2016.


(2) ‘When I see them, I see us’, Black Palestinian Solidarity.


(3) James Baldwin, ‘The Harlem Ghetto’, V Commentary 165, 169 (1948).


(4) Quoted in Douglas Robinson, ‘New Carmichael Trip’, The New York Times, 19 August 1967.


(5) Huey P Newton, ‘On the Middle East’, in To Die for the People, Random House, New York, 1972.


(6) See Alain Gresh, ‘Palestine: the view from South Africa’, Le Monde diplomatique, English edition, August 2009.


(7) See Alain Gresh, ‘The truths that won’t be heard’, Le Monde diplomatique, English edition, September 2018.


(8) Vic Mensa, ‘What Palestine taught me about American racism’, Time, New York, 12 January 2018

A superpower undermined by social decay
The cultural sources of black radicalism


by Achille Mbembe

June 1992, online exclusive


‘Malcolm X’ by Spike Lee.
cc.VDO Vault

America is acting surprised at the violence of the recent riots in Los Angeles and at the immense anger that has been expressed, not only by African Americans but by other minorities (Latinos, Asians), too. Unable to look beyond the mostly reassuring image provided by Martin Luther King (a man whom it once had no qualms murdering), over the past twenty years America has chosen not to interest itself in the cultural work unfolding in the ghettos, whose political impact now flows well beyond the confines of black spaces. Indeed, here is one of the nation’s paradoxes: a minority of the population, practically stripped of its rights, can be credited with crucial innovations in the fields of culture, sports and the arts. It thus manages to exercise an influence that is disproportionate to its economic and material means, and to its objective political weight.

Here is one of the nation’s paradoxes: a minority of the population, practically stripped of its rights, can be credited with crucial innovations in the fields of culture, sports and the arts

To understand the deep roots of the new cultural radicalism in people’s minds, it is important to note what distinguishes it from other cultural currents within black communities and the way in which it defines itself with regard to great contemporary societal and political struggles. It especially sets itself apart from the ‘buppie’ (black upwardly mobile professional) wave — that ambitious group which, over the course of the years after desegregation (1965), proved itself determined to reap the fruits of integration by any means necessary. Big names of the black media elite (Bill Cosby, Michael Jackson, Prince, Oprah Winfrey, Eddie Murphy) fit within this trend, as well as those of sports (Michael Jordan, ‘Magic’ Johnson, Carl Lewis). Such artists and cultural figures have been co-opted into the dominant system and wield almost complete financial control over their product, even if the channels of its distribution still evade them.

The logic of co-option has spread to other domains. On a political level, thanks to multiracial coalitions, black mayors have been elected to head up several important cities (David Dinkins in New York, Coleman Young in Detroit, Andrew Young then Maynard Jackson in Atlanta, Tom Bradley in Los Angeles, Wilson Goode in Philadelphia). The same holds true in academic and intellectual fields: a black university elite has increasingly taken its place within institutions once exclusively controlled by whites, notably in law and social theory in general, as in the case of Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and Orlando Patterson at Harvard, Stephen Carter at Yale and the African American intellectuals gathered around the journal Reconstruction (1).

Although it is itself subject to subtle forms of racism and discrimination, this co-opted elite ultimately conceives of its future as being within the system and tries to escape traditional definitions of blackness, while insisting on the multicultural foundations of the American nation. Politically, its debates are closely related to the issue of civil rights and the advantages and pitfalls of affirmative action (2). It is also in these settings that most black neocons can be found, of which Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court justice, is the prototype.

The principal troops of the new black radicalism are recruited elsewhere, of course, in a trend known as b-boy. Its two primary supports are music and film, the visual language of images and oral language. A pure product of the ghetto, this trend marvellously combines the most explosive elements of urban poverty, street knowledge and the immense potential for anger, which, up until now, has neither been annexed nor politically exploited by any traditional institutional force. Its best-known musical form is rap (to rap literally means to cut, to strike, to bump, to put back in one’s place). It was around 1979 that the mainstream media discovered this art form, made of rapid street dialogue that is chanted and strongly rhythmical. This was back in an era when graffiti covered the walls of major cities and breakdance still took pride of place on the sidewalks. It was not until 1982, and the release of Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five’s single ‘The Message’, that explicitly political rappers appeared.

From then on, the nebula of rap never stopped gathering power. It was able to take advantage of parallel events in the political sphere and shifts that occurred in ghetto culture. For example, Jesse Jackson’s two runs for the Democratic nomination in 1984 and 1989 spurred on the political awakening of a rap generation. The 1983 election campaign, with its overtones of the crusades, was the same, and saw the arrival of Harold Washington in Chicago’s mayor’s office; then, in 1984, there were the great campaigns for Boycott and Sanctions of South African goods.

Many incidents tinged with racism – and the system’s inability to sanction it – contributed to the radicalisation of this generation and to the emergence of new leaders (usually at neighbourhood level) who had more or less broken with the traditional black political establishment, which was accused of colluding with a system in which the right to vote does not appear to guarantee change, and whose racist structures have not fundamentally altered despite formal desegregation. That was the case in New York when, in 1986, a young black man was killed following a full-on manhunt by a gang of white thugs at Howard Beach, or later when, during the summer of 1989, Yusef Hawkins was shot down in the Italian neighbourhood of Bensonhurst. The names of Al Sharpton, C. Vernon Mason and Alton Maddox belong to this period.

The link to the legacy of the 1960s was no longer mediated by the figure of Martin Luther King, but by the heroes of insubordination banished from the United States’ collective memory (Malcolm X, the Black Panthers)

The power of rap’s appeal can also be explained by the fact that over the last ten years, influential intellectual currents have developed. They were, for the most part, facilitated by new cultural intermediaries, keen not so much to articulate the anxiety rising from the ghettos as to participate in academic debates from non-Western perspectives. This current, called ‘Afrocentrism’ (3), reigned supreme in Black Studies departments and aims to reclaim the question of African identity and the contribution of black people to universal history separate from Eurocentric views that have long obfuscated it. Such critical revisiting rests on the theory of the African origins of Egyptian civilisation, among others, and on the fact that Greek civilisation also borrowed the majority of the elements that made it great from Egypt (4). It is hard to comprehend the political impact of these debates without taking into account the fact they have a direct influence on the very definition of the American nation and of the respective places of its cultural components.

At the beginning of the ’80s, the nebula of rap also benefited from renewed creativity in the production of urban symbols and symbols of identity. In this respect, we note, for example, the proliferation of jeeps and other cars driving at high speed, music blaring out of boom boxes from 1987 on. T-shirts splattered with slogans such as ‘Black by popular demand’, or ‘It’s a black thing, you wouldn’t understand’ spread out of black universities. The famous slogan ‘No justice, no peace’ that was ‘discovered’ by the mainstream media after the LA riots also dates back to this period.

In parallel, we witnessed the growing rediscovery of Malcolm X. As early as 1986, you could see kids reading his autobiography in the New York subway and in public places. The writings of Elijah Muhammad, notably his Message to the Blackman, also enjoyed increased favour, while Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan was more and more often invited to speak on campuses by black student groups. The link to the legacy of the 1960s was now no longer mediated by the figure of Martin Luther King, but by the heroes of insubordination banished from the United States’ collective memory (Malcolm X, the Black Panthers). Most of their ideas concerning self-defense, economic emancipation and the rediscovery of the self and of one’s cultural identity echo the feeling that the black race has been subjected to a genocide and that it should, in the words of Malcolm X, defend itself, ‘by all means necessary.’

These themes were taken up and popularised in music, with most records selling millions of copies. So, when the band Public Enemy released ‘Bring the Noise’ in 1986, the song opened with Malcolm X’s voice declaring, ‘Too black, too strong’. The same band later stood out with two more hits: It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back and ‘Welcome to the Terror Dome’. KRS-One directly attacked the criminal justice system in 1987’s By All Means Necessary. As for the band Niggaz With Attitude (NWA), it denounced the deterioration of towns and police violence in ‘Fuck tha Police’. Family structures didn’t escape criticism either. Most black young people in the ghetto had simply never experienced the family as represented in reassuring Bill Cosby series. This is the point the band MAAD drove home in ‘Fuck My Daddy’, in which life in prison is an important subject, as is daily life on the streets, in the underground worlds of drugs and cocaine. The band Mad Mutherfuckin’ Congatas also describes with candour and brutal honesty how ‘living hard and dying hard’ is the fate of young people in the ghetto. As for Niggaz4Life, he affirms, ‘Niggas know how to die/Niggas don’t know nothin’ else, but dyin’/Niggas dream ’bout dyin’’ (5).
It is no exaggeration to say that a parallel language has developed alongside conventional US English since the era of slavery

Conventional and puritanical language is done away with around issues of sex and drugs. Creative freedom is expressed through the use of graphics, excessive profanity, tales of blood, violence, and crime. This is the case for example with Puff the Buddah or NWA hits such as ‘I’d Rather Fuck You’ or ‘Findum, Fuckum and Flee’, ‘She Swallowed It’, ‘Just Don’t Bite It’, or ‘One Less Bitch’. Why this return to the word ‘nigga’? ‘Because police always wanna harass me/ Every time that I’m rollin’/ They swear up and down that the car was stolen/Make me get face down in the street/And throw the shit out my car on the concrete/In front of a residence/A million white motherfuckers on my back like I shot the President,’ replies one of the members of NWA.

This same reality feeds the cinematic work of artists like Spike Lee, Van Peebles, John Singleton and Matty Rich (6). The accounts listed above coexist with more about the violence of the ghetto, self-destructive behaviour, sexuality, new forms of phallocratic mentality and, above all, the police brutality and exclusion built into the American system. The project of rap and of the new black cinema is to create heroes for the ghetto and of the ghetto. But, in truth, the influence of hip-hop now extends to almost all components of black American culture. This is especially the case in the sphere of everyday speech, and it is no exaggeration to say that a parallel language has developed alongside conventional US English since the era of slavery, with its own turns of phrase and expressions, grammatical constructions, intonations, curses and ways of naming people, objects and things. This language is largely not understood by Americans of European descent and absent from the dominant modes of communication. It is this language that is taken up by rap and enriched, in order to set down — in a new context — the old problem of black emancipation in a society whose power and wealth structures have remained, for the most part, racist. That is also the case in the realms of style, hairstyle, painting, dance and theatre.

The new ‘intellectuals’ who articulate these discourses define themselves as ‘real niggaz’. Mixing anger and sarcasm, they are not immune to a form of neomaterialist nihilism and consumerism that the capitalist system can, in any event, accommodate.


Achille Mbembe
Translated by Lucie Elven.