After speaking with current and former negotiators, United Nations representatives, NGO officials, and politicians, Investigate Europe reported Thursday that “access for all was never a priority” in initial vaccine procurement talks.

A negotiator told the news outlet that “there was strong nationalism on the European level.”

“The words ‘global public goods’ are an empty shell,” said another unnamed negotiator.

Negotiators claimed in interviews with Investigate Europe that “their hands were tied” in price talks with pharmaceutical companies because of the “lucrative contracts already signed by the United States.”

 Another said that “Big Pharma are very good at pressuring.”

“If you don’t sign their contracts,” the unnamed negotiator said, “others will do.”

The People’s Vaccine Alliance, a global coalition of more than 70 humanitarian and public health organizations, tweeted that Investigate Europe’s story “details what we suspected all along.”

“Vaccine nationalism and pharma profits trumped Covid solidarity.”

Moderna, Pfizer, and the latter’s German partner BioNTech “have reaped over $60 billion in jab sales in 2021 and 2022,” Investigate Europe observed. 

Moderna hasn’t delivered a single vaccine dose to a low-income nation thus far, according to an Amnesty International report published earlier this week.

“Documents seen by the Financial Times revealed that Pfizer’s vaccine now fetches €19.50 against €15.50 previously,” the outlet noted. “Similarly, a dose of Moderna costs $25.50 (€21.60), up from $22.50 in the first deal, although down from $28.50 in the second.”

Anna Marriott, policy lead for the People’s Vaccine Alliance, told Investigate Europe that “vaccine corporations have been greedy,” effectively getting taxpayers to pay for vaccines three times over.

“First with billions for research, then with bloated prices draining public funds, and finally because they’re paying little in taxes,” said Marriott.

Probe of Secret Vaccine Talks Finds ‘Access for All Was Never a Priority’ (commondreams.org)

Worldwide, more than 2 billion people don’t have enough to eat, while 2 billion are overweight or obese, and nearly a third of the food that gets produced is wasted and ends up discarded

 According to Michael Fakhri, the UN’s special rapporteur on food rights, the UN global food summit, “… is being led by scientists and research institutes who are pro-corporate sector. People say, let’s give them the benefit of the doubt, let’s see if it is the ‘people’s summit’ it is claiming to be. But they have failed in what they had set out to do. It is not the people’s summit. It is elitist.”

His is not the only criticism, Hundreds of organisations and NGOs representing small-scale and subsistence food producers, consumers and environmentalists are protesting about the summit for being undemocratic, non-transparent and focused only on strengthening only one food system: that backed by the big corporations. An online alternative forum in July, running in parallel with the pre-summit meeting in Rome, attracted about 9,000 participants. This week, even more, are expected. The counter summit’s slogan is “Farmers, not corporations, feed the world”, puts clearly the contending visions: it’s about the conflict between agribusiness on the one hand and small-scale producers, the civil society supporting them and agroecological science on the other.

The International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems added its dissenting voice to how the Summit operates. “From the start, the Summit threatened to replace democratic debate with increasingly unaccountable modes of decision-making… the Summit’s rules of engagement were determined by a small set of actors. The private sector, organizations serving the private sector (notably the World Economic Forum), and a handful of scientific experts kick-started the process and framed the agenda…”It concluded that the Summit is being used to promote a new science panel – an ‘IPCC for Food’ – falls short in several respects: it is non-transparent; imbalanced in its composition and biased in its perspectives and sources of knowledge; unreflexive about the relationships between food systems and society; and is pursuing a business-oriented ‘technology and innovation’ agenda.”

Why is the summit facing such widespread opposition? The main reason is that organisers have given agribusiness a lead role in the process and largely ignored the social movements and small farmers’ organisations around the world that produce a third of all food. As a result, the summit will unavoidably push for an industrialised and corporate-driven food system, undermining the future of the millions of small-scale farmers, fishers, herders, food vendors and processors across the world. Worldwide, 70% of food is produced by small farmers, who use only one-quarter of total farmland.

Johanna Jacobi, an environmental scientist and professor of agroecological transitions at the Swiss federal institute of technology ETH Zurich, explains Small producers are facing cut-throat competition for land, water and market access from corporations and large landowners, who control 70% of global agricultural land but only produce up to 40% of the food, as Jacobi outlines. “And it is precisely these big players’ representatives that are leading the world food summit,”

Stephen Rist, a professor of human geography and critical sustainability research at the University of Bern, cites ecological and social reasons for boycotting the summit. As he explains, the organisers are pursuing strategies and approaches that will not solve the main problems underlying today’s food systems but will actually exacerbate them. For the past six years, Rist has headed an international research project on nutritional sustainability. This has found that smallholder and family-run farms, in contrast to monocultures from large-scale plantations, grow food in a manner that is very close to the principles of agroecology.

“Their main problem is not that they don’t know how to produce food ecologically and sustainably, but that the extra work involved is not fairly remunerated by the markets,” says Rist. “The agro-industrial focus also overlooks the fact that the globally organised large companies and corporations are primarily responsible for the bulk of food waste,” Rist adds. It is important, he believes, to put forward a clear alternative, namely agroecology as a practice, a social movement and science.

 A report by the UN’s International Fund for Agricultural Development showed profits for large food companies escalating, while people producing, processing and distributing food were trapped in poverty and hunger. It calls for a “revolution” to place small rural farmers, who produce a third of the planet’s food, at the centre of the world’s food systems.

The Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA), representing some 200 million small-scale food producers in its continent-wide network, directly challenged  Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) and its claim to represent Africa. AFSA sent a letter to AGRA donors signed by 160 international organisations demanding an end to funding for failing Green Revolution projects, speaking out about what it seeks from agriculture and life: food that is both healthful and nourishing and produced in a way that is not harmful to the environment and is culturally suitable.

AGRA promised to double yields and incomes for 30 million families while cutting food insecurity by half in 13 African countries by 2020. Over the last decade, AGRA acquired funding of nearly $1 billion and spent half a billion dollars advancing the use of genetically modified and hybrid seeds, commercial fossil fuel-based fertilizers, and chemical pesticides. In AGRA’s 13 focus countries, hunger has increased 30%, as farmers were pushed to abandon nutritious, traditional farming practices to focus on monoculture fields of cash crops.

AFSA opposes philanthrocapitalists like Bill Gates, Western governments, foreign aid organisations, multinational corporations and certain African governments who are pushing policies of industrial agriculture, spending billions to sway governments to opt for agrochemicals, genetically modified organisms and high technology.  The goal is to take Africa down the path of industrial monoculture rather than promote agroecology.

La Vía Campesina is one of the world’s largest social movements. Made up of 200 million small farmers, peasants, farmworkers, and indigenous peoples, has long advocated the idea of food sovereignty, the right of peoples to control and defend their own food systems using healthy, agro-ecological methods.

The UN Food Systems Summit is based on the assumption that global food systems will become more sustainable only if agro-industrial food production continues to expand.” The negative consequences of agribusiness, such as deforestation, soil and water pollution, risks to human health and animal diversity, land grabbing and food speculation, are being swept under the carpet and brushed aside. 

The agro-industrial food system uses a lot of fossil energy, pesticides, commercial seeds and artificial fertilizers to produce food. It is not a sensible strategy to seek to turn the basic problem underlying today’s farming methods into a solution.

 British forces are linked to the deaths of 86 children and more than 200 adult civilians during the Afghanistan conflict,  the youngest recorded civilian victim was three years old.

In February 2008 a family received just £104.17 for a confirmed fatality and property damage.

£586.42 for the death of a 10-year-old boy in December 2009.

£4,233.60 for four children “shot and killed by ISAF (International Security Assistance Force)” in the same month. There is no record of this incident in the English language media.

Five Afghan children wounded by stray bullets fired from a British army Apache helicopter received £7,204.97.

A family of three Afghan farmers allegedly killed in cold blood in 2012 received £3,634 three weeks after the incident. The logs describe the money as an “assistance payment to be made to calm local atmopherics [sic]”.

The Ministry of Defence paid out £688,000 for 289 civilian deaths between 2006-14, an average of £2,380.

Afghanistan war: UK’s lowest payout for civilian death was £104.17 – BBC News

 Air pollution is even more dangerous than previously thought, the World Health Organization (WHO) has warned, as it reducing maximum safe levels of key pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide. The new guidelines halve the recommended maximum for exposure to tiny particles called PM2.5s. It is also cutting the recommended limit for another class of microparticles, known as PM10s, by 25%.

The WHO puts air pollution on a par with smoking and unhealthy eating.

 The media is very fickle. A headline today and tomorrow disappears into the inside pages, then the story is forgotten all about. 

At least 5 million people in Yemen are on the brink of famine and a further 16 million are “marching toward starvation”, according to experts from the World Food Programme (WFP) 

Supply chains in the country had been disrupted and food prices were “spiking”.

WFP’s executive director David Beasley said: “With food pricing and the lack of fuel, it is catastrophic…”

 Without further funding, the organisation will be forced to cut 3.2 million people’s food rations by October, a number rising to 5 million people by December.

The WFP’s spokesperson for Yemen, Annabel Symington, said that Yemenis have been left unable to afford basic food supplies. “The causes of the hunger crisis in Yemen are complex, but the impact on Yemenis is clear. The devaluation of the Yemeni riyal and soaring food prices have made it impossible for ordinary Yemenis to afford basic foods,” she said.

Adam Kelwick, a humanitarian aid worker for the NGO Action For Humanity, visited al-Sabaeen hospital, in the western city of Sana’a and said it was “full to the brink” with starving, malnourished children.

“They had to expand into other wards to accommodate all these children,” he said. “It was a horrific scene where there were beds full of children who looked like skeletons. It’s clear to see the situation is rapidly deteriorating and the reason children are so severely malnourished is because their mothers are malnourished as well…”

He explained something that socialists have often had to point out is that “There is food in Yemen but it’s expensive and out of people’s budgets.” Kelwick said a woman, who lives on the outskirts of Sana’a, Yemen’s capital city, told him her family earns $100 (£73) a month, but it is not enough to afford basic food supplies. “She said their money doesn’t go anywhere any more. Prices for everything have increased.”

16 million in Yemen ‘marching towards starvation’ as food rations run low – UN | Hunger | The Guardian

 Boris Johnson’s raised national insurance 1.25% to additionally fund the NHS and social care. 

 12% of the £7.4bn expected to be raised from employees through the tax rise will come from nurses, care home staff and other health and social care workers who will pay an additional £900m in tax, according to the analysis.

The figures do not include those working in the NHS or care who are self-employed, meaning the real impact is likely to be even greater.

Millions of health and care workers are already facing a squeeze on their finances. A combination of rising energy and consumer goods prices, coupled with benefits cuts, are adding hundreds of pounds in costs for households.

Christina McAnea, general secretary of Unison, Britain’s biggest health union, said that punishing key workers with the national insurance rise was a terrible way to treat those “who’ve done so much to care for people and save lives these past 18 months”. “Inflation has bypassed the NHS pay rise,” she said. “Most care employees have had nothing at all. The harsh universal credit snatch has yet to take effect. And these same key workers will be paying through the nose when the [national insurance contributions] increase hits.”

McAnea said the NHS and social care sector could see thousands quit as a result. “No one could blame care and NHS staff for jumping ship for more lucrative, less stressful jobs,” she said. “But the consequences of losing thousands of experienced workers simply do not bear thinking about.”

The Royal College of Nursing council chair, Carol Popplestone, said: “Reaching primarily into the pockets of our hardworking healthcare workers who already feel taken for granted, which could lead more to the exit, is the opposite of levelling up.” She added, “The prime minister needs to come up with a credible plan to make up for years of underinvestment and put money into the services patients will rely on for years to come, and the people who provide them.”

National insurance hike to hit NHS and care staff with £900m tax bill | Health | The Guardian

 Senior career diplomat, Daniel Foote, US special envoy for Haiti has resigned in protest over the deportation of Haitian migrants which he described as “inhumane”.

Biden had begun the forced deportation of desperate Haitians from Texas-Mexican border, flying them to Haiti where they are unceremoniously abandoned on the runway.

“I will not be associated with the United States inhumane, counterproductive decision to deport thousands of Haitian refugees and illegal immigrants to Haiti, a country where American officials are confined to secure compounds because of the danger posed by armed gangs to daily life,” Daniel Foote stated in his resignation letter. “Our policy approach to Haiti remains deeply flawed, and my policy recommendations have been ignored and dismissed, when not edited to project a narrative different from my own.” 

Foote explained Haiti was a “collapsed state” that “simply cannot support the forced infusion of thousands of returned migrants lacking food, shelter, and money without additional, avoidable human tragedy”.

 More than 100 countries face cuts to public spending on health, education and social protection as the Covid-19 pandemic compounds already high levels of debt, a new report says. The International Monetary Fund believes that 35 to 40 countries are “debt distressed” – defined as when a country is experiencing difficulties in servicing its debt, such as when there are arrears or debt restructuring.

However, this figure is a “gross underestimation”, according to the study, led by the Pathfinders for Peaceful, Just and Inclusive Societies, based at New York University’s Center on International Cooperation.

Zambia was the first African county to default on debt last year during the pandemic and now has to allocate 44% of its annual government revenue to creditors. Ghana spends about 37% of its national budget on debt interest payments. 

In 2019, the cost of servicing external debts in 64 countries exceeded what they spent on healthcare, she said. Cameroon spent 23.8% of its budget on debt payments, compared with 3.9% of the country’s revenue spent on health.

 Faiza Shaheen, lead author of the report, explains, “If nothing changes and governments face having to make cuts, populations will see development stall and even reverse. For the person on the street, it means they are going to visibly see that it’s harder to access key services, and they’re not going to see improvements in their material wellbeing.”

More than 100 countries face spending cuts as Covid worsens debt crisis, report warns | Global development | The Guardian

 Biden is intending to deport migrants to a detention camp at Guatanamo Bay.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) bureau is inviting tenders for private contractors to run the Migrant Operations Center on the US naval base in Cuba. 

The migrant camp was first set up in 1991 and was intended to hold Cuban asylum seekers. Ultimately it was used to detain about 34,000 Haitians and roughly the same number of Cubans until it was wound down by the Obama administration. It has not been used to hold migrants since 2017.  Ice is looking for a private contractor to run the centre and provide custody and security officers.

Biden administration to reopen migrant detention camp near Guantánamo Bay prison | US immigration | The Guardian

 According to Human Rights Watch, 75% of Covid vaccines have gone to 10 countries. The Economist Intelligence Unit have calculated that half of all of the vaccines made so far have gone to 15% of the world’s population, the world’s richest countries administering 100 times as many shots as the poorest.