AMERIKA IS A SICK COUNTRY

The Trump Administration Won A Legal Fight To Slash Federal Payments To Hospitals During The Coronavirus Pandemic


The DC Circuit ruled the administration could cut a Medicare reimbursement rate by nearly 30% for hospitals that serve patients with low incomes.

Zoe Tillman BuzzFeed News Reporte
Reporting From Washington, DC
Posted on July 31, 2020

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court ruled on Friday that the Trump administration didn't violate federal law when it scaled back a billion-dollar drug reimbursement program that benefitted public and not-for-profit hospitals serving patients with low incomes.

The legal fight predated the coronavirus pandemic, but the stakes of the case became higher this year as hospitals have lost tens of billions of dollars as nonessential services and elective surgeries were put on hold.

Starting in 2018, the Department of Health and Human Services slashed the reimbursement rate paid to certain hospitals for outpatient drugs prescribed to elderly and disabled patients covered by the Medicare program. Under what's known as the 340B program, these hospitals buy drugs at a discounted rate, and then file claims with the federal government for reimbursement.

Hospitals participating in the program collectively have earned billions of dollars annually through the program because of the difference between what they paid and the higher reimbursement rate paid out by the government.

The Trump administration argued hospitals shouldn't be earning a windfall from the discounted drug rates and approved a plan to cut the reimbursement rate by approximately 30%. The hospitals argued that Congress intended to give hospitals a way to put the money they saved by paying a discounted rate for drugs back into services for poor and underserved communities.

A federal district judge in Washington, DC, sided with the hospitals, writing in a December 2018 opinion that the rate cut's “magnitude and its wide applicability inexorably lead to the conclusion” that the agency “fundamentally altered” what Congress intended. The lower rate has been in effect notwithstanding the judge's decision, though — he declined to block it while the litigation was pending, writing that forcing the government to pay back hospitals in the meantime was "likely to be highly disruptive."

HHS estimated that the rate change would save the Medicare program $1.6 billion in 2018 alone, and that money would be distributed back to hospitals through increases in other Medicare-related reimbursements.

Hospitals that participated in the 340B program argued they would still lose money even if the agency redistributed the money. Some hospitals filed affidavits in court saying they would lose millions of dollars each year.

In a 2–1 decision written by Judge Sri Srinivasan, the DC Circuit on Friday reversed the district judge's decision, finding that the Trump administration's decision to reduce the rate "rests on a reasonable interpretation of the Medicare statute."

Congress gave HHS two options for how to set the rate, using either an average of what hospitals were actually paying for drugs, or what the drugs cost in the marketplace. HHS had been using the average drug cost information because it didn't have survey data on what hospitals were paying, and the hospitals argued the law didn't allow HHS to use that data to make such a substantial cut. The hospitals also argued that a 30% cut was too big to qualify as an "adjustment" under the law.

Srinivasan wrote that Congress hadn't "unambiguously" prohibited HHS from using average drug costs to come up with a reimbursement rate to match what hospitals were paying for the drugs, even if they didn't have the actual purchase data. The hospitals' position would make Congress's decision to give the department an alternative way to calculate the reimbursement rate "superfluous," the judge wrote.

Srinivasan was joined by Judge Patricia Millett. Judge Nina Pillard dissented, writing that she agreed with hospitals that the Medicare law could only adopt "large reductions" if it had the specific survey data of what hospitals were paying for the drugs. She also wrote that the record showed Congress anticipated hospitals would earn revenue through the program.

"The net effect of HHS’s 2018 and 2019 OPPS rules is to redistribute funds from financially strapped, public and nonprofit safety-net hospitals serving vulnerable populations — including patients without any insurance at all — to facilities and individuals who are relatively better off. If that is a result that Congress intended to authorize, it remains free to say so. But because the statute as it is written does not permit the challenged rate reductions, I respectfully dissent," Pillard wrote.

Representatives of HHS and the Justice Department, as well as the American Hospital Association, one of the hospital groups that led the challenge, did not immediately return a request for comment.


MORE ON THIS
The Trump Administration Wants To Cut Back A Billion-Dollar Healthcare Program. Hospitals Say Now Is A Really Bad Time.

Zoe Tillman · May 27, 2020

Hospitals Expect To Lose More Than $200 Billion Because Of The Coronavirus

Venessa Wong · May 6, 2020

Zoe Tillman is a senior legal reporter with BuzzFeed News and is based in Washington, DC.

HEY AMERIKA
We Know Too Much About Marijuana for It To Be Illegal
By Richard Cowan
07/14/20 

We Know Too Much About Marijuana for It To Be Illegal Photo: CBDCoupons.com

I won’t try to be subtle about this. When I say that we know too much about marijuana for it to be illegal, I am trying to make two points.

First and foremost, I am astonished that people in democratic countries that proclaim their commitment to individual rights at every possible occasion, have — for decades — accepted the legal argument that citizens should be arrested for using a plant because it might not be “harmless.”

Prohibitionist propaganda is often introduced with the statement that “marijuana isn’t harmless… like we all thought back in the Sixties.¨ Of course, if we all thought it was harmless then, why was it illegal?

Well, very simply, nothing is harmless for everyone, under all circumstances and at all doses, and, for many reasons, harmlessness is not a criterion for legalizing anything. Obviously, many things that everyone recognizes as potentially deadly… alcohol, tobacco, motorcycles, rock climbing, etc., are legal. Some people even say that guns are not harmless.


Ironically, cannabis is one of the few substances which does not have a possible lethal dose. Too much aspirin can cause fatal internal bleeding and even too much water can be deadly by upsetting the body’s electrolyte balance.

And of course, think of the children! But think of all the things that are legal for adults, but not for children. Are we to treat adults like children? And shall we start with guns?

On the other hand, would anyone argue that being arrested was harmless? But we have arrested over twenty million Americans in the last fifty years for marijuana possession. I also hope that we have discovered that “no-knock warrants” are not harmless.

In addition, the suppression of research on the medical uses of cannabis has certainly not been harmless, and that continues to be US policy. When we consider how much we have learned despite the government blocking research, I think that marijuana prohibition has killed a huge number of people, under medical supervision, of course.

See: People are lining up to grow marijuana for research. Trump’s Justice Department won’t let them.

My second point is that despite the government's blocking research — while claiming we need more research — we actually know far too much for marijuana to be illegal .


What do we know?
We know there is no lethal dose, while many legal drugs have killed millions of people. Why would there need to be more controls on cannabis than on alcohol, tobacco or over-the-counter pharmaceuticals ?
We know that most of the cannabis consumed even today continues to be contraband with unknown potency and purity.
We know that even black market marijuana used by people with seriously damaged immune systems does not seem to have caused significant problems, but it would be ethically impossible to do research to test that.
We know that despite decades of prohibition, marijuana is easily available for “children”, but it would be ethically impossible to do research on any deleterious effects of cannabis on children. Do they have problems because they used cannabis, or did they use cannabis because they have problems?
We know that in The Netherlands that the legal age to buy cannabis is eighteen, and that the Dutch argue that one of the advantages of allowing retail marijuana sales is called “separation of the markets” for hard and soft drugs. When someone goes into a Dutch “Coffeeshop” they will never be offered hard drugs. Consequently, the Dutch also have a much lower hard drug use and overdose rate than the US. Again, so much for the so-called “Gateway Theory”. Marijuana prohibition is the “Gateway” to hard drugs.
We know that although cannabis has been available over the counter in The Netherlands for over forty years, it ranks fourth in cannabis use in Europe, after France, Spain and Italy. It has always been behind the US and Canada.
We know that Dutch Coffeeshops and American marijuana dispensaries do not cause the problems that are associated with alcohol venues.
We know that legalizing marijuana does not cause the social or medical problems cited by prohibitionists, nor does prohibition prevent the problems it is supposed to suppress. In fact, there is remarkably little correlation between marijuana use and the laws against it.

SEE: Use See Prevalence of cannabis use in the last year in Europe as of 2018*, by country and Netherlands vs US

The Dutch model’s imperfections can also offer lessons for us, because it is a relic of the 1970s. The supply is still in the black market, so it has no quality controls. Weed and hash are sold out of open bins under less than perfect sanitary conditions, although there have not been any reported health problems.

For reasons of public safety and economic recovery we need to end marijuana prohibition now.
No “Special Commissions” or regulatory schemes are needed. Just get out of the way.
And stop pretending that we need the government to help us be free.
There is no justification for special taxes, because marijuana does not increase social or medical costs compared to alcohol or tobacco.
Disadvantaged neighborhoods don’t need “social justice” permits to allow a few lucky winners to charge higher prices and taxes on marijuana users because everyone was victimized by the Drug War. They need small eateries and other places to offer legal employment.
Social clubs for younger marijuana users should be organized by activists so the patrons are not preyed upon by “gangstas” who might draw them into the hard drugs scene or other criminal activity.
We need cannabis venues in “neutral” territories where different ethnic groups can meet peacefully.

The Drug War has become a war of all against all, and it has corrupted the police, politicians, the media and even (especially?) the medical profession.

So, let us be free. Let us live in peace. Is that asking too much? (Well, apparently.)
Richard Cowan is a former NORML National Director and co-founder of CBDCoupons.com.

Richard Cowan

I won’t try to be subtle about this. When I say that we know too much about marijuana for it to be illegal, I am trying to make two points.

First and foremost, I am astonished that people in democratic countries that proclaim their commitment to individual rights at every possible occasion, have — for decades — accepted the legal argument that citizens should be arrested for using a plant because it might not be “harmless.”

Prohibitionist propaganda is often introduced with the statement that “marijuana isn’t harmless… like we all thought back in the Sixties.¨ Of course, if we all thought it was harmless then, why was it illegal?

Well, very simply, nothing is harmless for everyone, under all circumstances and at all doses, and, for many reasons, harmlessness is not a criterion for legalizing anything. Obviously, many things that everyone recognizes as potentially deadly… alcohol, tobacco, motorcycles, rock climbing, etc., are legal. Some people even say that guns are not harmless.

Ironically, cannabis is one of the few substances which does not have a possible lethal dose. Too much aspirin can cause fatal internal bleeding and even too much water can be deadly by upsetting the body’s electrolyte balance.

And of course, think of the children! But think of all the things that are legal for adults, but not for children. Are we to treat adults like children? And shall we start with guns?

On the other hand, would anyone argue that being arrested was harmless? But we have arrested over twenty million Americans in the last fifty years for marijuana possession. I also hope that we have discovered that “no-knock warrants” are not harmless.

In addition, the suppression of research on the medical uses of cannabis has certainly not been harmless, and that continues to be US policy. When we consider how much we have learned despite the government blocking research, I think that marijuana prohibition has killed a huge number of people, under medical supervision, of course.

See: People are lining up to grow marijuana for research. Trump’s Justice Department won’t let them.

My second point is that despite the government's blocking research — while claiming we need more research — we actually know far too much for marijuana to be illegal .

What do we know?
We know there is no lethal dose, while many legal drugs have killed millions of people. Why would there need to be more controls on cannabis than on alcohol, tobacco or over-the-counter pharmaceuticals ?
We know that most of the cannabis consumed even today continues to be contraband with unknown potency and purity.
We know that even black market marijuana used by people with seriously damaged immune systems does not seem to have caused significant problems, but it would be ethically impossible to do research to test that.
We know that despite decades of prohibition, marijuana is easily available for “children”, but it would be ethically impossible to do research on any deleterious effects of cannabis on children. Do they have problems because they used cannabis, or did they use cannabis because they have problems?
We know that in The Netherlands that the legal age to buy cannabis is eighteen, and that the Dutch argue that one of the advantages of allowing retail marijuana sales is called “separation of the markets” for hard and soft drugs. When someone goes into a Dutch “Coffeeshop” they will never be offered hard drugs. Consequently, the Dutch also have a much lower hard drug use and overdose rate than the US. Again, so much for the so-called “Gateway Theory”. Marijuana prohibition is the “Gateway” to hard drugs.
We know that although cannabis has been available over the counter in The Netherlands for over forty years, it ranks fourth in cannabis use in Europe, after France, Spain and Italy. It has always been behind the US and Canada.
We know that Dutch Coffeeshops and American marijuana dispensaries do not cause the problems that are associated with alcohol venues.
We know that legalizing marijuana does not cause the social or medical problems cited by prohibitionists, nor does prohibition prevent the problems it is supposed to suppress. In fact, there is remarkably little correlation between marijuana use and the laws against it.

SEE: Use See Prevalence of cannabis use in the last year in Europe as of 2018*, by country and Netherlands vs US

The Dutch model’s imperfections can also offer lessons for us, because it is a relic of the 1970s. The supply is still in the black market, so it has no quality controls. Weed and hash are sold out of open bins under less than perfect sanitary conditions, although there have not been any reported health problems.

For reasons of public safety and economic recovery we need to end marijuana prohibition now.
No “Special Commissions” or regulatory schemes are needed. Just get out of the way.
And stop pretending that we need the government to help us be free.
There is no justification for special taxes, because marijuana does not increase social or medical costs compared to alcohol or tobacco.
Disadvantaged neighborhoods don’t need “social justice” permits to allow a few lucky winners to charge higher prices and taxes on marijuana users because everyone was victimized by the Drug War. They need small eateries and other places to offer legal employment.
Social clubs for younger marijuana users should be organized by activists so the patrons are not preyed upon by “gangstas” who might draw them into the hard drugs scene or other criminal activity.
We need cannabis venues in “neutral” territories where different ethnic groups can meet peacefully.

The Drug War has become a war of all against all, and it has corrupted the police, politicians, the media and even (especially?) the medical profession.

So, let us be free. Let us live in peace. Is that asking too much? (Well, apparently.)
Richard Cowan is a former NORML National Director and co-founder of CBDCoupons.com.

How To Improve Public Trust And Its Impact On US Healthcare System

By Richard J. Gannotta
07/14/20 

This pandemic has revealed serious gaps in the nation's healthcare delivery system. The need to thoroughly assess those gaps with a subsequent plan of corrective action should be part of our collective response.

The idea of the public trust is rooted in our democracy and constitutional framework. It can be described as the empowerment given to elected officials and leaders by the citizenry to maintain and advance the requisite components of a civil society.

These institutional structures may vary, but the trust that we have in them to fulfill their charter and the confidence given to their leadership is rarely questioned or reviewed by those that depend on it most.

Fact to power

In the case of the public’s health, there are a number of agencies, federal and state, that are charged with the health and welfare of society, from the NIH to public hospital systems.

Chief among the agencies tasked and trusted with leading the response to the COVID-19 pandemic is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). If ever there was a moment in time for an agency to demonstrate its value, this pandemic was it for the CDC.

Instead, a flurry of inconsistent sound bites which echoed party lines left “fact”— the domain and purview of science in what many would consider a “post-fact” world — to be filled in large part by state leaders, specifically governors, of the hardest-hit regions in the country.

Both responses strengthened partisan divides and further diminished trust in the government's ability to effectively respond to the pandemic.

Behind the COVID-19 curtain

As it emerged, the velocity of the virus, its virility, and clinical presentation quickly overcame the clinical capabilities, surge capacities, and infrastructure of the most advanced health systems.

RELATED STORIES
WHO Team Begins Investigation Into Coronavirus Origins

This is an image showing the logo for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia, Oct. 5, 2014. Photo: Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images

Clinician efforts and hospital responses, though heroic, were hampered by longstanding gaps in our healthcare delivery system, gaps that desperately needed to be filled to meet the challenge of the pandemic. The lack of coordination between hospitals, the under-resourcing of the safety-net hospitals, and the shortage of essential medical supplies and clinical technologies such as ventilators and personal protective equipment all revealed how tenuous the system is.

We know that COVID-19 mortality and morbidity is disproportionately high in elderly individuals with underlying health conditions and individuals of color who have historically faced inequities in receiving healthcare services and who are now at even greater risk. Early data suggests that in many states although individuals of color are in the minority, they account for a majority of the COVID-19 cases.

Furthermore, the need for social distancing has eliminated formal and informal support systems and access to community resources, all fundamental elements necessary for a healthy population and thriving community.

Healthcare delivery

Although the pandemic has revealed serious gaps in our current healthcare systems’ ability to respond, the inequities, failures, and shortcomings experienced by those most vulnerable to it were not created by the virus. They are the culmination of a failure of the compact, that public trust so necessary for the advancement of a civil society for all.

In addition, those who operate within the health sector, high performing delivery systems, and private sector innovators swim upstream against a current of regulation and misaligned incentives. These incentives rarely put our patients and communities in the center and fail to recognize the reality that our health system is a vital component of the public trust, not unlike public safety and education.

The need to objectively and thoroughly assess the response to both the pandemic and the inequities in policy and care delivery with a subsequent plan of action should be part of our nation’s response. Such an analysis can inform the development of new policies and procedures so that the impact of future events is mitigated.

Consider a Marshall Plan for healthcare

Much like the Marshall Plan sought to aid Western Europe’s economic recovery after World War II, we should establish a comparable initiative to address the inequities revealed by the COVID-19 pandemic and to accelerate the implementation of any remedies. Where the Marshall Plan intervened in Europe’s blighted economy due to bombed out factories, we can address job loss with new models for business growth in communities hit hardest. And where that historical plan attempted to rectify gaps in world trade, we can address gaps in new ways to educate, learn, and share knowledge.

The Marshall Plan is thought by many to be the most effective foreign aid program the United States has ever deployed. Perhaps, we have something to learn from history.

(Richard J. Gannotta is a senior lecturer of Health Administration at NYU’s Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service)

Racism In US: Democratizing Political Power Is Necessary To Guard Against Abuse In The Incarceration System

FELLOW WORKERS

 REMEMBER!

WE ARE IN HERE FOR YOU

YOU ARE OUT THERE FOR US

IWW 1919

By Adam Eichen AND Evelyn Li
06/13/20

What To Know So Far About George Floyd Death: Tens Of Thousands Protest Police Brutality And Racism

KEY POINTS
As many Americans take shelter from the pandemic in the comfort of their homes, over two million individuals are trapped in the U.S. incarceration system, all but lying in wait for the virus to infect them. 

Voting alone will not end the cruelty of our incarceration system or ensure, once and for all, that Black lives actually matter.
Democracy vouchers change the incentive structure of fundraising by making every American a potential donor, greatly expanding who has power.

The murder of George Floyd has prompted rightful fury and mass protest across the country. Police brutality against communities of color has persisted for far too long, and meaningful reform—not mere platitudes and the promise of future action—is now required.

Unfortunately, the systemic racism and brutality of the criminal justice system extend far beyond police misconduct. Despite our self-identification as a country teeming with liberty, we harshly cast those incarcerated—who are disproportionately people of color—to the margins and subject them to a range of indignities, from physical abuse to essentially unpaid labor. Nothing has highlighted this marginalization more graphically than the COVID-19 outbreak. As many Americans take shelter from the pandemic in the comfort of their homes, over two million individuals are trapped in the U.S. incarceration system, all but lying in wait for the virus to infect them.

Horror stories of infected cruise ships may have captured the public imagination, but incarcerated individuals have it far worse. Social distancing is nearly impossible in jails and prisons. While cruise ship cabins typically comprise over 70 square feet of space per person, correctional facilities can provide as little as 25 square feet per person and dozens may share the same toilets and showers with severely restricted access to hygiene products.
Much attention has rightfully been paid to cities with COVID-19 hotspots. But few know that there are more COVID-19 cases connected to the Marion Correctional Institution in central Ohio than any other institution in the United States. By late April, nearly 80 percent of those incarcerated had tested positive. And Cory Dodrill, who is serving time at the facility, told NPR that there is hardly concern for those who get sick: “[Several older men with COVID-19] didn’t get any help until either they were hyperventilating, struggling to breathe, or falling out of their rack screaming for help.” According to data from the New York Times, six more of the top ten clusters of cases in the United States are connected to prisons or jails.

COVID-19 outbreaks are particularly worrisome in prisons and jails. The ACLU reports that an astounding 40 percent of incarcerated individuals have at least one chronic health condition, increasing the risk of complications from the virus. And the percentage of people in state prison who are 55 years of age and older has grown dramatically since 2000.

Why many turn a blind eye to this suffering is a complicated question.

The United States has a long history of prisoner mistreatment, so there is a degree to which this situation has been normalized. And our culture’s belief that incarceration is punishment not rehabilitation—inflamed by politicians using racially-charged tough-on-crime rhetoric to stoke fear and resentment—is certainly a major factor. But so too is the way we systematically remove political rights from incarcerated individuals.

For example, all but two states have restrictions on voting rights for those who have been convicted of felonies. Some, for example, reinstate voting rights upon release from prison. Others restore the franchise only after the terms of a sentence are fully completed, which can encompass probation and parole. A group of states go even further, barring some or all of those convicted of felonies from ever voting again—unless reprieve is granted. (Maine and Vermont allow those incarcerated to vote.) In all, millions of Americans are disenfranchised due to a felony conviction. And for those that retain their voting rights, like those in local jails, it can be very difficult to obtain a ballot, so few actually vote.

Voting alone will not end the cruelty of our incarceration system or ensure, once and for all, that Black lives actually matter. But in a democracy, the right to vote is a recognition of personhood—of the worthiness to have some control over one’s future. It signals whose opinions matter and who counts.

Incarcerated Americans living in unsafe conditions currently have no power to protect themselves, for, in addition to having had their freedom revoked, they have no representation. By expanding our democracy to empower all voices, those most at-risk will have at least some avenue to be heard and our society may be able to prevent future tragedies within the incarceration system.

So in addition to fighting for early release and making incarceration conditions more humane, we must also end felony disenfranchisement laws—something that should not be controversial given their deep Jim Crow era roots. We likewise need to ban prison gerrymandering, the practice of counting incarcerated individuals at their prison’s address for redistricting purposes instead of where they lived prior to incarceration, which artificially inflates the political power of white, rural areas across the country.

On top of this, we must immediately expand outreach to formerly incarcerated people who are currently eligible to vote but have not registered. This would involve educating these citizens about their rights, helping them navigate the complex voting laws, and, in states with post-incarceration enfranchisement, distributing voter registration applications upon release. Those who have experienced the inner workings of the incarceration system understand the concerns of those currently within it and can play a vital role in our political discourse. Additionally, wherever there are eligible incarcerated voters, voter registration forms should be made available and easily returnable (the registration process could even be made automatic). Vote-by-mail ballots—with resealable return envelopes and pre-paid postage—can then be mailed to those who are registered.

So too can we empower those incarcerated through democracy vouchers, a novel form of public campaign financing that gives every registered voter money that they can allocate to eligible political campaigns. In our current campaign finance system, those who can contribute become the most powerful constituents. Democracy vouchers change the incentive structure of fundraising by making every American a potential donor, greatly expanding who has power.

Some may be uncomfortable with the proposals outlined above, particularly the final one. But the murder of George Floyd and the COVID-19 crisis have laid bare uncomfortable truths about American life and the cruelties and racism of the criminal justice system. Expanding political representation, democratizing political power, and continuing to protest to overhaul inhumane policies are the least we can do to safeguard against the atrocities defining the status quo.

Adam Eichen is an Author and Campaigns Manager at EqualCitizens.US

Evelyn Li is a Fellow at EqualCitizens.US

'Year Of The Rat' Throws A Curveball At China's Communist Party Leadership

By Kalpit A Mankikar
06/02/20 

The year 2020 is designated in the Chinese Zodia as the ‘Year of the Rat,’ which is said to come laden with bad omens, calamities and mishaps. And true to style, the year started with the coronavirus pandemic that has already destroyed the China's growth story. The lockdowns brought industries to a grinding halt during January-February and the country's economy contracted 6.8% in the first quarter.

China faces more than one challenge. Externally, it will have to manage its tensions with the U.S. where President Trump is blaming Beijing for the rising death toll from COVID-19. As of June 2, the U.S. has recorded more than 105,000 deaths from the virus, which is higher than the U.S. fatalities during Vietnam War. Domestically, the country will have to chart out a recovery plan in the aftermath of the COVID-19 outbreak, and manage the rising aspirations of its youth who have tasted prosperity after decades of planned growth.

China’s rulers are acutely aware of the what the pushback from the U.S. can bring. Washington plans to cancel visas of thousands of Chinese graduate students with alleged ties to the People’s Liberation Army. If these students are expelled from American soil, it may affect several research projects. Already Flagship telecom company Huawei’s supply lines to semiconductor makers are being throttled as Trump restricts its access to U.S. technnology. Trump has also barred a federal retirement fund from investing in Chinese equities.

The United States Senate has cleared legislation that will mandate Chinese companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges to provide information about their finances and ownership to auditors. If signed into law, it could force many Chinese firms to delist from the New York Stock Exchange and the Nasdaq. Additionaly, China’s banks may face the heat of sanctions over with the new national security law that Beijing is pushing for Hong Kong.

The Chinese economy remains dependent on the global financial system, which is dominated by America. China’s leaders face probably the biggest challenge they have ever faced as the U.S. chokes trade, technology access, human capital development and finance — in short, all the essential ingredients that have helped the country record galloping growth over the last four decades.


China's huge economy has been hammered by the coronavirus outbreak Photo: AFP / NOEL CELIS

On the domestic front, there is some reason for cheer. Wuhan — where the coronavirus is believed to have originated — reported no new cases for the first time as on May 31. Between May 15 and May 26, as many as 9 million of Wuhan’s residents were tested. In other parts of China (excluding Hong Kong), only 16 new cases were reported on May 31. China has slowly eased many of the restrictions on businesses and travel. But deeper problems remain. Business owners say they are bracing for tough times ahead as household incomes have plummeted. In the coming months, China’s leaders have to deal with the same problems that other national leaders also face, but made more complex by the sheer size of the the economy and its growth model: how to revive the economy, while at the same time guard against the coronavirus coming back.

In a one-party system, there is an unwritten compact between the government and its people: where the subjects relinquish their freedoms in return for material prosperity and steady economic growth underwritten by the state's growth model. Until now, Chinese leaders have had a good record on that front, with more than 850 million people pulled out of poverty since the 1978 reforms.

However, the per capita income of Chinese citizens is just a quarter of their counterparts' in high-income nations, and more than 350 million Chinese earn less than $5.5 a day. In other words, despite the gargantuan economy, 350 million-odd Chinese live below the upper-middle-income poverty line. While income inequality has improved since 2010 (after China displaced Japan to become the world’s second-largest economy), it still remains relatively high. Immediately after becoming president in 2012, Xi Jinping had set a 2020 deadline to eradicate absolute poverty. According to the State Council Leading Group Office of Poverty Alleviation and Development, approximately 82 million people were lifted out of poverty between 2012 and 2018.

How to handle the economy seems to be top of the minds of China’s rulers. During the ‘Two Sessions’ (meeting of China’s legislative and deliberative bodies) last week, Premier Li Keqiang announced the largest-ever rescue package for businesses (4 trillion yuan, or $559 billion) and a nearly 3.6 trillion yuan ($506 billion) stimulus package. The ‘Two Sessions’ is an eagerly awaited event as it indicates the path ahead for China’s economy and the GDP growth target. This year, for the first time since 2002, the government has not announced any growth target for the economy. Instead, on May 31, state-controlled media published a 2019 speech by President Xi, which just said the country had doubled the size of its economy between 2010 and 2020.

Premier Li admitted that employment is the “biggest issue,” and the challenge of eradicating deprivation may get increasingly “heavier since people may slip back into poverty” due to the fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic. In April, the International Monetary Fund estimated that China's growth rate would be a mere 1.2% this year.

Chinese leaders' thinking is reflected in what Premier Li said: “China has a workforce of 900 million — there are 900 million mouths waiting to be fed if there are no jobs, but 900 million pairs of hands to generate wealth if there are jobs.” That approach, which has worked so well all these years, may not deliver in the post-COVID-19 world. China’s economic model depends heavily on consumption in the West. But purchase orders from Western companies are drying up as coronavirus craters national economies and wipes out jobs by the millions. And that is affecting jobs at China’s factories. The economies of Beijing's top trading partners — U.S., South Korea and Germany — have all been devastated by the pandemic.

In addition to that, a record 9 million young people are set to graduate from China's colleges this month. On the uber-competitive campuses of China, teachers prod their pupils to do their best as good scores can land a dream job. A dark joke at the universities is that the Chinese characters for graduation ( 毕业 ) look very similar to the characters for unemployment ( 失 业 ). Bright and promising students usually get placements during the campus recruitments that take place around the spring holidays (Jan-Feb). But when the government shuttered universities to limit the spread of the contagion this year, it also abruptly halted the hiring process. These youth now face the devastating reality that they will enter the job market at a time when recruiters are freezing hiring or even downsizing. Economists estimate that China's urban unemployment rate may touch 10% in 2020.

The Communist Party, which prizes social stability and is intuitively aware of the expectations of the nation’s burgeoning educated class, has embarked on damage control. But discontent is already brewing, as shown by the trading community hitting the streets recently in Wuhan, demanding reduction in rentals. The government is also trying to offset the loss of jobs by creating more vacancies in the civil service, with a tour of duty to the rural hinterlands added.

The government is leaning on its state-owned entities to tide over the crisis. The Chinese government’s control over businesses is unrivalled: it manages 51,000 state-owned enterprises (SOEs) collectively worth $29 trillion that have around 20 million people on their payrolls. It is now nudging these SOEs to ramp up hiring. Sops are also being dangled before private firms to recruit more graduates.

Historically, a lack of demand and a recession have been usually followed by a full-blown war, like it happened in 1939 in Europe. With similar economic conditions back again, the world's fate will largely depend on how successfully China will respond to the U.S, and its own internal challenges in the coming months.

(Kalpit Mankikar is a journalist who has completed his China studies from the London School of Economics and Political Science.)

Facebook's Move Against Huawei Is Symbolic But Toothless

By Leo Sun
06/10/19

Facebook (NASDAQ:FB) will no longer allow Huawei to pre-install its core app, Messenger, Instagram, or WhatsApp on its smartphones, according to Reuters. The decision comes after several other companies -- including Intel, Qualcomm, and ARM Holdings -- cut ties with Huawei amid the Trump Administration's escalating war against the Chinese tech giant.

In mid-May, the Trump Administration placed Huawei on an "entity list" of companies that are barred from buying American technologies without the government's approval. The ban on Huawei was suspended for 90 days to allow companies to fulfill security and contractual obligations, but Huawei could still be permanently cut off from American technologies if a trade deal isn't reached.

Facebook's decision to stop Huawei from pre-installing its apps initially sounds important, but it's ultimately toothless when you consider a few key issues.

A symbolic move with no real bite

Facebook isn't blocking Huawei users from using its apps, it's only preventing Huawei from pre-installing the apps on new phones, which means that customers simply need to install the apps from an app store like Alphabet's (NASDAQ:GOOG) (NASDAQ:GOOGL) Google Play or Huawei's AppGallery.

Google plans to cut new Huawei devices off from Google Play and other Google services when the 90-day extension ends in mid August. However, Huawei users can still download and install Facebook's flagship apps from the AppGallery, which is pre-installed on all Huawei devices.

Huawei controls 23% of the global smartphone market, according to IDC. But its biggest market is China, where it's the top player with a 28% market share, according to Counterpoint Research. Yet Facebook, Messenger, Instagram, and WhatsApp are all blocked in China -- so the impact there is non-existent.

Meanwhile, users in Huawei's other top markets, like Europe and Latin America, simply need to install Facebook's apps on new phones. Therefore, Reuters' claim that Facebook's decision "dampens the sales outlook" for Huawei greatly exaggerates the impact of a move that really has no bite.
A setback for Facebook's Chinese ambitions

Facebook's main platforms are all blocked in China, but it took baby steps back into the market last year with experimental apps like the photo-sharing app Colorful Balloons, a VR partnershipwith Xiaomi, and the launch of a Chinese subsidiary.

However, Facebook's latest move against Huawei indicates that protecting its business in the U.S. and other markets matters more than its long-term aspirations in China. It's unclear if Chinese regulators will retaliate against Facebook's limited presence in China, but they'll likely shoot down any efforts to relaunch its apps.

Is Facebook trying to curry the U.S. government's favor?
Facebook currently has 2.4 billion monthly active users (MAUs) on its main platform, 1.3 billion MAUs on Messenger, a billion MAUs on Instagram, and 1.6 billion MAUs on WhatsApp.

Based on the size of that ecosystem, Facebook doesn't rely on smartphone makers pre-installing its apps to gain or lock in users. That's generally what underdogs do -- for example, Microsoft partnered with various Android OEMs in recent years to pre-install its apps on phones as alternatives to Google's apps.

However, Facebook's ecosystem is still being scrutinized by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. The FTC, which was already probing Facebook's privacy and security issues, was recently assigned to oversee a potential antitrust probe of the social network. It could be toughfor the FTC to build an antitrust case against Facebook, because it still has meaningful competitors in the social networking and advertising markets.

Nonetheless, it's still in Facebook's best interest to stay in the government's good graces, so making a symbolic stand against Huawei might convince the Trump Administration to stop targeting Facebook, Google, Apple, and Amazon with FTC or DOJ probes. It just won't actually hurt Huawei or prevent its smartphone users from accessing its apps.
John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods Market, an Amazon subsidiary, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Suzanne Frey, an executive at Alphabet, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Teresa Kersten, an employee of LinkedIn, a Microsoft subsidiary, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Randi Zuckerberg, a former director of market development and spokeswoman for Facebook and sister to its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Leo Sun owns shares of Amazon, Apple, and Facebook. The Motley Fool owns shares of and recommends Alphabet (A shares), Alphabet (C shares), Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Microsoft. The Motley Fool owns shares of Qualcomm and has the following options: long January 2020 $150 calls on Apple and short January 2020 $155 calls on Apple. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

This article originally appeared in The Motley Fool.

Amid Pandemic, Mopeds Have A Moment In Car-loving US

By Thomas Urbain and Peter Hutchison
08/01/20

Long associated with narrow, cobbled streets in Europe and congested Asian megacities, scooters are now becoming a common sight in car-loving America as commuters shun public transport because of the coronavirus pandemic.

New Yorkers turned to the turquoise-blue rental mopeds of ride sharing company Revel in huge numbers in recent weeks, while scooter retailers are reporting a big uptick in sales.

"I decided a few months ago during all this craziness to start running a scooter," said 30-year-old Alan Taledia, who bought a 150 cc Vespa.

"I don't have to do any public transportation, so it's better for me. I feel more comfortable," the insurance worker added.

A Revel ridesharing moped is seen parked in midtown New York City July 28, 2020, after the company announced today it is suspending its service in New York City following the death of a second rider in Queens Photo: AFP / TIMOTHY A. CLARY

Sales of motorcycles and electric two-wheelers -- popular amongst the Big Apple's army of food delivery drivers -- are also booming as residents plump for cheaper alternatives to four wheels.

Andrew Hadjiminas -- president of a Vespa, Piaggio, Aprilia and Moto Guzzi retailer in Brooklyn -- says the store has sold more than 200 vehicles in the last three months.

"We are experiencing a positive sales growth over last year," he told AFP.

"As people start to think about their commute and mobility during and after this pandemic, they are searching for ways to get around that are safe and fun," Hadjiminas added.

At Unik Moto in Long Island City, demand has tripled compared to July 2019, with some weeks seeing about 20 scooters being sold, according to general manager Chris Benson.

Chris Benson, general manager of the Unik Moto shop in Long Island City on June 30,2020 Photo: AFP / Thomas URBAIN

The shop, which has struggled to keep its inventory stocked, mainly sells models by the Taiwanese manufacturers Sanyang Motor company and Kymco.


"There was a big boom, up to now," Benson told AFP.

Riding in America's most populated city, where car ownership is high and traffic can be bumper-to-bumper, comes with risks though.

Revel, which has done much to popularize mopeds, paused its New York services this week following the deaths of two riders, including a 26-year-old CBS reporter, in separate crashes.

Scooters are seen in the Unik Moto shop on July 30, 2020 in Long Island City Photo: AFP / Thomas URBAIN

Revel, founded by two American entrepreneurs, launched a pilot program in 2018 with 68 electric mopeds in Brooklyn.

Before suspending operations on Tuesday, its New York fleet had grown to 3,000 vehicles, each with a top speed of 30 mph, clocking 100,000 miles (160,000 kilometers) a day.

There were just over 4,000 trips on Revel scooters in the two weeks before New York City shut down in March, the company said.

In the last fortnight of June, rides were up to almost 18,000 daily, a spokeswoman for Revel said.

Critics, though, say the near silent vehicles are a safety hazard, pointing out that they are often driven by inexperienced riders.

The company requires that users have a valid driver's license to book a moped, but doesn't ask them to take a test.

Revel has suspended 2,000 riders in the past six weeks for violating safety guidelines, such as refusing to wear the helmets that are provided with each trip.

The spokeswoman said Revel is toughening its safety measures, including riders having to confirm that they are wearing helmets and safety exam built into its smartphone app.

Its operations are continuing in Washington, Austin and Oakland and the service is launching in San Francisco in August.

Revel riders hope they will be able to scoot around New York's streets again soon.

"It's unfortunate that there's always people who want to ruin the service for everyone," said Emma Rogers, a comedian.

"It's all electric so it's good for the environment. (And) I wouldn't say it's more dangerous than a bicycle or a car."

Copyright AFP. All rights reserved

Brazilian Amazon Fires Surge In July

By Joshua Howat Berger
08/01/20 

VIDEO
Jair Bolsonaro Is Brazil’s Version Of Donald Trump

The number of forest fires in the Brazilian Amazon last month rose 28 percent from July 2019, satellite data showed Saturday, fueling fears the world's biggest rainforest will again be devastated by fires this year.

Brazil's national space agency, INPE, identified 6,803 fires in the Amazon region in July 2020, up from 5,318 the year before.

The figure is all the more troubling given that 2019 was already a devastating year for fires in the Amazon, triggering global outcry.

That has put pressure on Brazil, which holds around 60 percent of the Amazon basin region, to do more to protect the massive forest, seen as vital to containing the impact of climate change.


The fires are largely set to clear land illegally for farming, ranching and mining.

Activists accuse Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, a far-right climate change skeptic, of encouraging the deforestation with calls to open up the rainforest to agriculture and industry.

Under international pressure, Bolsonaro has deployed the army to fight the fires and declared a moratorium on burning. But activists say that does not go far enough to address the roots of the problem.

Fires rose 77 percent on indigenous lands and 50 percent on protected nature reserves from July 2019, environmental group Greenpeace said, showing how illegal activities are increasingly encroaching on those areas.

On July 30 alone, satellites detected 1,007 fires in the Amazon, INPE said.

That was the worst single day for fires in the month of July since 2005, said Greenpeace.

"More than 1,000 fires in a single day is a 15-year record and shows the government's strategy of media-spectacle operations is not working on the ground," Greenpeace spokesman Romulo Batista said in a statement.

"On paper, the fire moratorium prohibits burning, but it only works if there is also a response on the ground, with more patrols. Criminals aren't known for obeying the law."

Instead, the Bolsonaro administration has slashed the budget, staff and programs of environmental authority IBAMA.

"Everything that was working was thrown out the window," Erika Berenguer, an Amazon ecologist at Oxford and Lancaster Universities, told AFP.

The number of forest fires in the Brazilian Amazon in July 2020 rose 28 percent from the same month a year ago, satellite data show Photo: AFP / CARL DE SOUZA

Fire season in the Amazon typically runs from around June to October.

But fires are just part of the deforestation picture.

The rest of the year, ranchers, farmers, miners and land speculators are clearing forest and preparing to burn it.

The first six months of 2020 were the worst on record for deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon, with 3,069 square kilometers (1,185 square miles) cleared, according to INPE data -- an area bigger than the nation of Luxembourg.

If a significant portion of those felled trees burn in 2020, the result could be catastrophic, experts warn.

"I think August will be the make-or-break month," said Berenguer.

Last year, the number of fires surged nearly 200 percent year-on-year in August, to 30,900, sending a thick haze of black smoke all the way to Sao Paulo, thousands of kilometers away, and causing worldwide alarm.

The number of fires has fallen since then, under increased scrutiny and pressure -- including from companies and investors worried about the impact on Brazil's brand.

But Berenguer said it was a matter of time before the newly deforested land went up in flames in the name of farming and ranching.

"It's an economic investment to deforest. It's expensive.... You need heavy machinery: bulldozers, tractors, people, diesel," she said.

"You don't deforest to leave all those trees on the ground. You need to burn it, because you need to recover your investment."

Furthermore, US space agency NASA warned last month that warmer ocean surface temperatures in the North Atlantic mean the southern Amazon is facing a major drought this year.

It said that made "human-set fires used for agriculture and land clearing more prone to growing out of control and spreading."

"Conditions are ripe," it said.

Exacerbating the situation this year, experts say the resulting smoke risks causing a spike in respiratory emergencies in a region already hit hard by COVID-19.

Brazil has more infections and deaths from the new coronavirus than any country except the United States: more than 2.6 million and 92,000, respectively.

Copyright AFP. All rights reserved.

Arrested Zimbabwean Author, Booker Nominee Tsitsi Dangarembga Freed


By Fanuel JONGWE
08/01/20

Zimbabwean top writer and Booker Prize nominee, Tsitsi Dangarembga was freed on bail on Saturday following her arrest during anti-government protests a day earlier.

Dangarembga, 61, was charged with incitement to commit violence and breaching anti-coronavirus health regulations after staging a two-women demonstration in Harare which coincided with the second anniversary of President Emmerson Mnangagwa's disputed election.

She was arrested in the upmarket Harare suburb of Borrowdale alongside another protester and hauled into a truck full of police armed with AK-47 rifles and riot gear.

Police had banned the protests called by opposition politician Jacob Ngarivhume, head of a small party called Transform Zimbabwe, against alleged state corruption and the country's slumping economy.
The government had denounced the protests, calling them an "insurrection".

The Cambridge-educated author's arrest came days after her latest novel, "This Mournable Body", entered the long list for the Booker Prize.

"I'm happy to be out in the fresh air," Dangarembga told AFP as she left the magistrates' court.

"It's a whole experience, something I've never gone through," she said.

She said while the constitution provides for peaceful demonstration, "it seems impossible to do that practically because you run the risk of being arrested if you do it".

Eleven other people arrested on Friday, including Fadzayi Mahere, a lawyer and spokeswoman for the main opposition, the Movement for Democratic Change-Alliance, were also released on Saturday.

Mahere live-streamed via Facebook images of riot police scaling metal barriers into a suburban eatery to which she had retreated after her protest.

Mahere, 34, walked out of court all the more defiant.

"We should continue to stare the beast in the face. Fear is not an option. We can't be afraid to speak out against poverty, injustice and corruption," she told AFP.

Zimbabwean novelist Tsitsi Dangarembga holds a placard during an anti-corruption march along Borrowdale road, in Harare; she was arrested and freed on bail the following day Photo: AFP / ZINYANGE AUNTONY

The magistrates' court released the two women on ZW$5,000 (US$65) bail and ordered them to return on September 18.

On Friday, police and soldiers manned road blocks and checkpoints in Harare after earlier warnings of a tough response to "deal decisively with any individuals or groups fomenting violence".

The warning and the heavy security presence on the streets effectively thwarted the planned nationwide street protests.

Only a handful of people appeared to brave the ban.

Dangarembga was arrested carrying placards calling for reforms and the release of Hopewell Chin'ono, a prominent journalist arrested last week under the government crackdown.

She leapt to prominence in 1988 with "Nervous Conditions", a coming-of-age story about a girl's battle to escape poverty and gain an education. The book became an instant classic.

Earlier in the week police published a list of more than a dozen wanted suspects who included opposition labour and rights activists.

Amnesty International has condemned the crackdown on protests and dissent.

"This latest witch-hunt and repression of peaceful dissent is a continuation of what we have seen in the country in recent years, including the abductions and arbitrary arrests of those who are critical of the government," said Muleya Mwananyanda, Amnesty International's deputy director for Southern Africa.

"The brutal assault on political activists and human rights defenders who have had the courage to call out alleged corruption and demand accountability from their government is intensifying," she said.

Copyright AFP. All rights reserved.

UAE Starts Up First Arab Nuclear Plant
CLIENT STATE OF SAUDI ARABIA 

THEY CAN HAVE ONE, BUT IRAN CAN'T

By Shatha Yaish
08/01/20 

The oil-rich United Arab Emirates on Saturday announced the startup of its Barakah nuclear power plant, scoring another first for the Arab world.

The announcement, coinciding with the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha, comes hot on the heels of the UAE's launch of the Arab world's first probe to Mars.

"UAE first nuclear reactor at the Barakah Nuclear Energy Plant has achieved first criticality and successfully started up," tweeted Hamad Alkaabi, the country's representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

"This is a historic milestone for the nation with a vision set to deliver a new form of clean energy for the nation," he tweeted in English, along with a photograph of technicians raising their arms in celebration.

The UAE premier and ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al-Maktoum, tweeted that work at Barakah had "succeeded in loading nuclear fuel packages, carrying out comprehensive tests and successfully completing the operation".

"Congratulations on realising this historic achievement in the energy sector & marking this milestone in the roadmap for sustainable development," Sheikh Mohammed said.

The UAE has substantial oil and gas reserves but has made huge investments in developing alternatives, including solar energy and now the Barakah nuclear power plant Photo: Barakah Nuclear Power Plant / -

The UAE started loading fuel rods into the reactor at Barakah in February, after regulators gave the green light for the first of the plant's four reactors, opening the way for commercial operations.

The plant on the Gulf coast west of Abu Dhabi had been due to go online in late 2017 but faced a number of delays that officials attributed to safety and regulatory requirements.

The Nawah Energy Company said at the time that Unit 1 would begin commercial operations after a "series of tests" leading to the start-up process.

During the process, the unit would be synchronised with the power grid and the first electricity produced.

The UAE has substantial oil and gas reserves, but with a power-hungry population of 10 million it has made huge investments in developing clean alternatives, including solar energy.

Barakah, which means "blessing" in Arabic, is a regional first -- Saudi Arabia, the world's top oil exporter, has said it plans to build up to 16 nuclear reactors, but the project has yet to materialise.

Barakah was built by a consortium led by the Korea Electric Power Corporation at a cost of some $24.4 billion.

Barakah nuclear plant in the Gharbiya region of Abu Dhabi on the Gulf coastline west of the United Arab Emirates capital Photo: Barakah Nuclear Power Plant / -

When fully operational, its four reactors have the capacity to generate 5,600 megawatts of electricity, around 25 percent of the nation's needs. The remaining three reactors are almost ready for operation.

As well as generating competitively priced electricity, the UAE also hopes the nuclear plant will elevate its status as a key regional player, building on its success as a hub for tourism, banking and services.

The fourth largest crude producer in the OPEC cartel, the country was built on oil and sits on a huge, recently discovered gas field.

Nevertheless, it is spending billions to develop enough renewable energy to cover half of its needs by 2050.

"This is part of the UAE's drive to diversify its energy economy, reduce dependence on fossil fuels and project its image as a regional leader in science and technology," a Gulf analyst told AFP.

On July 20, the first Arab space mission to Mars, an unmanned probe dubbed "Hope", blasted off from Japan on a mission to reveal more about the atmosphere of the Red Planet.

The Barakah plant, on the coast facing Iran across the Gulf, stands just 50 kilometres (30 miles) from the Saudi border and closer to Qatar's capital Doha than to Abu Dhabi.

Amid a tense confrontation between Iran and the United States over Tehran's nuclear programme, the UAE has said it will not be developing a uranium enrichment programme or nuclear reprocessing technologies.

Qatar, the target of a boycott by Saudi Arabia, the UAE and others since June 2017, last year said the Barakah plant poses a "flagrant threat to regional peace and environment".

The UAE has repeatedly said its nuclear ambitions are for "peaceful purposes" and moved to dispel any concerns over safety.

It says it has welcomed more than 40 international reviews and inspection missions.
Copyright AFP. All rights reserved.


UAE's Nuclear Power Plant: Energy And Politics

By AFP News
08/01/20 

The United Arab Emirates' Barakah nuclear power plant, a first for the Arab world, successfully started up Saturday in a region grappling with conflicts.

Here are some facts about the plant that consists of four nuclear reactors, designed to supplement the energy needs of a country which has substantial oil reserves but is investing heavily in renewables.

The $22.4 billion Barakah plant, on the Gulf coast west of Abu Dhabi, is being built by a consortium led by the Korea Electric Power Corporation.

When fully operational, the four reactors will generate 5,600 megawatts, around 25 percent of the UAE's electricity needs.


On Saturday, the UAE pushed the button on the first of the four reactors. Commercial operation of Unit 1 is planned for later this year.

"The full operation of Barakah plant in the near future will contribute to the UAE's efforts for development and sustainability," Hamad Alkaabi, the UAE representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency, told journalists in January.

The plant is a regional first. Neighbouring Saudi Arabia has announced plans to build up to 16 nuclear reactors, but they have yet to materialise.

The UAE's seven emirates have an energy-hungry population of 10 million, mostly expatriates. Its glass skyscrapers and their air-conditioning systems guzzle energy, particularly during the scorching summer.

The fourth largest crude producer in the OPEC cartel, the country was built on oil and sits on a huge, recently discovered gas field.

Nevertheless, it is spending billions to develop enough renewable energy to cover half of its needs by 2050.

Officials hope that as well as generating cheap electricity, the plant will elevate the UAE's status as a regional player with influence extending to Yemen, the Horn of Africa and Libya.

"This is part of the UAE's drive to diversify its energy economy, reduce dependence on fossil fuels and project its image as a regional leader in science and technology," one Gulf analyst told AFP.

Other big projects include a homegrown space program which sent the first Emirati astronaut into space last year and a probe to Mars last month.

The Barakah Nuclear Power Plant in the United Arab Emirates is being built at a cost of $22.4 billion Photo: Barakah Nuclear Power Plant / -

The first of the Barakah plant's reactors had been due to come online in late 2017, but that was delayed several times to meet regulations.

"There have been delays in issuing the required licence (from the country's atomic regulator) to ensure the safety of the nuclear plant," the Gulf analyst said.

The UAE has repeatedly said its nuclear ambitions are for "peaceful purposes" and moved to dispel any concerns over safety.

It cites more than 40 international missions and reviews by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) since 2010, demonstrating its commitment to transparency.

Residents living within 50 kilometres (30 miles) of the plant have been instructed on what to do in the event of an accident.

The UAE has said it will not be developing a uranium enrichment programme or nuclear reprocessing technologies.

The Barakah plant is located near the border with Saudi Arabia, closer to the Qatari capital Doha than to the UAE capital Abu Dhabi. It lies on the Emirates coast, separated from Iran by troubled Gulf waters.

Iran has a nuclear power plant of its own on the Gulf coast, built by Russia after years of delay outside the city of Bushehr.

Relations between Iran and the UAE, a staunch US ally, have deteriorated as Washington has pursued a "maximum pressure" policy against Tehran and accused it of attacking oil tankers in Gulf waters.
A missile and drone attack that knocked out half of energy giant Saudi Aramco's production was claimed by Yemen's Huthi rebels, but Washington pointed the finger at Iran.

"The 2019 attack on Aramco highlighted the vulnerability of the Gulf's energy infrastructure to external attacks," the Gulf analyst said.

Tensions pitting Iran against the US and its allies "increases the vulnerability of new energy infrastructure to the possibility of such attacks."

Meanwhile Qatar, the target of a boycott by Saudi Arabia, the UAE and others since June 2017, last year said the plant poses a "flagrant threat to regional peace and environment".The Emirates said there was no cause for concern, reiterating its commitment to "the highest degree of nuclear safety, security and nuclear non-proliferation".

Copyright AFP. All rights reserved.

UAE launches operations in first nuclear power plant in the Arab world

The United Arab Emirates announced Saturday that it has launched operations at Barakah Nuclear Energy Plant in Abu Dhabi, shown here in 2017. Photo courtesy Emirates Nuclear Energy Corp.

Aug. 1 (UPI) -- The United Arab Emirates announced Saturday that it has launched operations in the first of four reactors at the Barakah nuclear power station, which has been described as the first nuclear power plant in the Arab world.

Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation, which is building and operating the plant with Korea Electric Power Corporation in the Al Dhafrah Region of Abu Dhabi, published a press release saying Unit 1 of the plant has successfully started.

"The start-up of Unit 1 marks the first time that the reactor safely produces heat, which is used to create steam, turning a turbine to generate electricity," the release said.

The plant, Barakah, was scheduled to open in 2017, but has run billions of dollars over budget and been troubled by delays, Al-Jazeera reported.

Nuclear energy veterans have raised concerns about potential risks associated with the plant.

Last year Paul Dorfman, an honorary senior research fellow at the Energy Institute, University College London and founder and chair of the Nuclear Consulting Group, authored a report last year saying Barakah's reactors lack key safety features that are standard in newly-built nuclear plants elsewhere.

The missing features include "core catcher" to stop the core of a reactor from breaching containment in the event of a meltdown, and reinforcements that would shield against a radiological release resulting from a missile or fighter jet attack.

RELATED UAE's historic first Mars mission launches from Japan

There have been at least 13 aerial attacks on nuclear facilities in the Middle East.

Barakah is located near Qatar, which is a regional rival of the UAE and which has called the plant a "flagrant threat to regional peace and environment."