NO TO FILTH

By Christian Kpesese

About 200 angry residents of Accra marched through the streets of the city to demand that city authorities rid the capital of filth which has engulfed every nook and cranny of the nation.

The demonstrators carrying placards with various inscriptions on sanitation marched to the office of the Mayor of Accra to present a petition to the government.

 Unfortunately the mayor did not show up to receive their plea even though they claim the mayor was given a two week notice.

The demonstration dubbed ``Clean Ghana Now’’ is the first of a series of activities by the concern residents of Accra to draw the attention of both government and citizens to the dangers pose by the carefree disposal and collection of waste especially in the capital city.

Addressing the media on the content of the petition, a member of the group, Mr Kobina Nyanteh called on the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA), Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development, Parliament and the President of the republic to as a matter of urgency develop a comprehensive and decisive sanitation policy to deal with the challenge once and for all.

The demonstrators urged government to place a ban on the use of plastic and rubber bags for shopping because it is responsible for 90% of the country`s sanitation challenges.

They also called on the government to localize the collection of waste in a more technology driven manner and urged the Greater Accra Regional Coordinating Council to pay its debts on waste promptly to eliminate rubbish that has bedeviled the capital.

The concerned citizens of Accra have also reminded the AMA to vigorously enforce its byelaws on sanitation to help keep the city clean.

The group has vowed to continue to advocate using all possible means to ensure that the city of Accra becomes attractive to visitors.

  They urged citizens to be alert and responsive in the management and disposal of their waste and join every effort to ensure that the nation is kept clean. 

Kathleen Addy, a member of the group said the demonstration was meant to create awareness and awaken the consciousness of all citizens on the disturbing nature of sanitation in the country.  

Actor, King Aboagye Brenya who was part of the demonstrators urged Ghanaians to change the negative culture of throwing away everything, saying ``let’s all change our attitudes to help keep the nation clean’’.

He promised to use his wide media exposure to advocate for a cleaner Ghana and urged his colleagues to do same.

THE MOTION OF DESTINY

Kwame Nkrumah

An African colonial people proclaim that they are ready to assume the stature of freemen and to prove to the world that they are worthy of the trust.

I know that you will not fail those who are listening for the mandate that you will give to your Representative Ministers. For we are ripe for freedom, and our people will not be denied. They are conscious that the right is theirs, and they know that freedom is not something that one people can bestow on another as a gift. They claim it as their own and none can keep it from them.

And while yet we are making our claim for self-government, I want to emphasise, Mr. Speaker, that self-government is not an end in itself. It is a means to an end, to the building of the good life to the benefit of all, regardless of tribe, creed, color or status in life. This country a worthy place for all its citizens, a country that will be shining light throughout the whole continent of Africa, giving inspirations for beyond its frontiers. And this we can do by dedicating ourselves to unselfish service to humanity.

We must learn from the mistakes of others so that we may, in so far as we can avoid a repetition of those tragedies which have overtaken other human societies.

We must not follow blindly, but must endeavour to create. We must aspire to lead in the art of peace. The foreign policy of our country must be dedicated to the service of peace and friendship.

We repudiate the evil doctrine of tribal chauvinism, racial prejudice and national hatred. We repudiate these evil ideas because in creating that brotherhood to which we aspire, we hope to make a reality, within the bounds of our own small country, of all the grandiose ideologies which are supposed to form the intangible bounds holding together the British Commonwealth of nations in which we hope to remain.

We repudiate racial prejudice and national hatred, because we do not wish to be of dis­grace to these high ideals.

Her Majesty, :Queen Elizabeth II, has just been crowned--barely one month ago — the memory is still fresh in our minds; the Queen herself has not forgotten the emotions called forth as she first felt the weight of the Crown upon her head; the decorations in Lon­don streets' are hardly down; the millions of words written about the Coronation and its meaning will endure for centuries; the prayers from millions of lips are still fresh; the vows of dedication to duty which the Queen made !ore a symbol of the duties devolving from the commonwealth.

And so, we repudiate the evil doctrine which we know are promulgated and accepted elsewhere as the truth.

To Britain, this is the testing moment in her African relations. When we turn our eyes to the sorry events in South Africa, Central and East Africa, we are cheered by the more cordial relations that exists between us and Britain.

We are now asking Her Majesty to allow that relation to ripen into golden bonds of freedom, equality and fraternity, by complying without delay to our request for self-government.

We are sure that the British Government will demonstrate its good­will towards the people of the Gold Coast by granting us the self-government which we now so earnestly desire.

We enjoin the people of Britain and all political parties to give our request their ardent support.

The self-government which we demand, therefore, is the means by which we shall create the climate in which our people can develop their attributes and express their potential­ities to the full. As long as we remain subject to an alien power, too much of our energies are diverted from construc­tive enterprise.

Oppressive forces breed frustration. Impe­rialism and Colonialism are a two-fold evil. This theme is expressed in the truism that ' no nation which oppresses another can itself be free! Thus we see that this evil not only wounds the people which is subject, but the dominant nation pays the price in a warping of their finer sensibilities t through it arrogance and greed.

Imperialism and Colonialism are a bar­rier to true friendship for the short time since we Africans have had bigger say in our own affairs, the improved relations between us and the British are most remarkable.

Today there exists the basis of real friendship between us and His Excellency the Governor, Sir Charles and the ex-officio Minister of Defence and External affair, of Finance and Justice.

(First Published in the Evening News of Thursday, February, 7 1963)

Big Pharma Pushes for More Profits

By Mara Kardas-Nelson

In January of this year, South African Minister of Health Aaron Motsoaledi cried foul: he was publicly pissed about a US-created astroturf campaign (a faux "grassroots movement" actually led by moneyed interests) meant to undermine the country's efforts to lower drug prices through amending its intellectual property (IP) legislation.
Labeling the plot as being of "satanic magnitude" and tantamount to "genocide," Motsoaledi slammed the creators of the campaign, a veritable who's who of pharmaceutical companies and conservative, pro-business groups. The tripartite alliance responsible for the plot consisted of Public Affairs Engagement (PAE), a DC-based PR firm headed by US Ambassador James Glassman, formerly the undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs in the George W. Bush administration; the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, one of the most powerful drug industry bodies on the planet; and a local pharmaceutical body, Innovative Pharmaceutical Association of South Africa (IPASA).

The group would seek to persuade the South African public that strong intellectual property policy is good for investment and that the country's health woes are a result of a failed public health system rather than patent laws and the price of medicines.
The draft South African policy that the groups sought to undermine seeks to more strictly define how patents should be given, what is patentable and what measures the government can take if pharmaceutical patents negatively impact public health, all in an attempt to stem rising health costs. With its burgeoning middle class, "diseases of the rich" like diabetes, hypertension, obesity, heart disease and cancers are on the rise. This, matched with a high rate of HIV, TB, and other historically "poor" diseases, and coupled with the excessive cost of patented drugs, means that drugs are in high demand, but prices are sometimes inaccessibly high.

The astroturfing plot was simple: For just under half a million dollars, paid for in large part by PhRMA, the US public relations firm would support IPASA's efforts to stem South Africa's IP reform by setting up a puppet front group, to be named Forward South Africa and led from Washington DC. The group would seek to persuade the South African public that strong intellectual property policy is good for investment and that the country's health woes are a result of a failed public health system rather than patent laws and the price of medicines.

What's more, South Africa is trying to stem costs just as pharmaceutical companies want a bigger slice of its pie - with its growing wealth, its patent-friendly laws and its sick population, South Africa looks like a deliciously ripe, relatively untapped market. If South Africa pushes back, not only could current and future profits be reduced within the country, but also, and more importantly, other emerging economies that also appeal to pharma could follow suit, eliminating potential profits for companies hungry for new markets.

It's easy to see how multinational pharmaceutical companies would be scared of South Africa's potential reforms. The country currently offers IP protection beyond what is required under international law and does not review patents before they are granted. As a result, it hands out thousands of drug patents annually and readily gives out multiple patents on a singular medicine, offering monopoly protection on a single drug for decades. Nearly all of the country's pharmaceutical patents are granted to multinational firms, and the country's department of trade and industry cites drugs as a key reason for South Africa's trade deficit. The country is also a continental leader that other African countries and middle-income countries look to for general policy guidance.

Motsoaledi's harsh words in reaction to the PAE-led scandal represent anger, but not necessarily shock: After all, the country has dealt with US and industry meddling in its pharmaceutical policy before. In 1998, Nelson Mandela's administration was sued by dozens of pharmaceutical companies in reaction to the country's attempts to make minor amendments to its drug laws (the case was eventually dropped in 2001, after years of public pressure). The PAE-led astroturfing campaign, which has died in the wake of public outcry, is just one example of many in which US pharmaceutical companies, with the help of high-profile Americans connected to the US government, pressure poorer countries battling high rates of disease to ensure that the IP playing field is set as they like it.

A Legacy of Influence
The battle over intellectual property rights on a global scale is a relatively new phenomenon. Before the late 20th century, each country had its own intellectual property regime: India, for example, offered no protection on pharmaceutical products, and many other countries, South Africa included, offered anywhere from 10 to 20 years of patent protection for medicines.

The US government . . . was swayed by the notion that the death of American manufacturing had to be replaced by other industries, and that IP-heavy ones could help to pick up the pieces.

All of that changed when the Trade Relation Aspects of Intellectual Property Agreement, or TRIPS, was enacted in 1995 under the World Trade Organization (WTO). TRIPS ushered in not only a new era of IP protection - all WTO member countries are now required to give 20 years of patent protection on pharmaceuticals - but also one wherein US government ties with the pharmaceutical industry have a stranglehold on intellectual property in the international arena.

Susan Sell, professor at George Washington's Elliot School of International Affairs, author of Private Power, Public Law: The Globalization of Intellectual Property Rights explains that before TRIPS, US companies concerned that their intellectual property was being infringed upon had to rely on either US embassies to help, which didn't always happen, or the World Intellectual Property Organization to intervene, which didn't have enforcement mechanisms.

As the US government began to negotiate more trade deals throughout the second half of the 20th century, IP-heavy industries saw trade - historically separate from IP - as a new avenue through which to protect their interests. Through a series of internal campaigns, intellectual property became part of US trade negotiations; the US government, and particularly the Reagan administration, was swayed by the notion that the death of American manufacturing had to be replaced by other industries, and that IP-heavy ones could help to pick up the pieces.

Meanwhile, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), responsible for negotiating international trade on behalf of the US government, had been strengthened in part due to successful lobbying from the IP sector. "(IP industries) lobbied for increased resources for the USTR," says Sell. In response, the office "does their bidding."

In the late 20th century, international trade rules underwent a series of massive changes, and IP industries, now cozy with the USTR, again saw an opportunity. Banding together in a coalition entitled the Intellectual Property Committee, and originally led by John Opel of IBM and Edmond Pratt of Pfizer, American-based IP-heavy industries began a government-targeted campaign to include IP within negotiations taking place under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (which would later be replaced by the stronger WTO). Joining together with industries in Europe and Japan, the IP umbrella body drafted a trilateral document outlining what they wanted in an international IP treaty, a wish list that the US Chamber of Commerce pushed domestically and internationally through negotiations, with the promise of new access to US markets and the threat of sanctions if countries didn't concede.

"This trilateral document became pretty important, and a lot of what's in TRIPS came right out of that," notes Sell. "It was a draft treaty; it included what the chapters should be, what should be in there. The (US government) pretty much accepted this private sector analysis as fact for what should be included internationally."

TRIPS went into effect in 1995. Under the auspices of the WTO, also born in 1995, the agreement is notable not only for homogenizing strong intellectual property rules across the globe, but also because it is binding; the WTO can enact sanctions against members who do not comply.

Middle-Income Countries Push Back
TRIPS was signed just as the HIV epidemic was exploding, a scenario that offers a glimpse into why South Africa - and other middle-income countries facing high burdens of HIV - are acutely aware of the impact intellectual property can have in determining medicine prices.

When HIV treatment first came on the scene, first-line anti-retrovirals, which the majority of HIV positive people take, were patented, and cost $10,000 a year - a price far out of reach not only for the majority of people in Africa, but for many in the US, as well. The epidemic only began to see a decline in horrendous mortality rates when affordable generic HIV treatment became accessible, the result of court battles, international campaigning and global awareness of the injustice of an enormous death toll in the face of exorbitantly priced medicines. In 2010, a year's treatment with first-line anti-retrovirals, now available in generic form, cost $100 a year.

TRIPS allows for some variations in countries' drug laws, including allowing each country to determine key requirements of patentability and to use compulsory licenses, wherein a government can override a patent. In the wake of the HIV epidemic, some countries are formulating their intellectual property policies to use these so-called "TRIPS flexibilities" to prevent another catastrophe. Brazil has recently proposed intellectual property reforms that would ensure new versions of old medicines won't be re-patented, and compulsory licenses use be made easier. In 2012, China also amended its law to allow for compulsory licensing. India is the most bold of them all: whereas South Africa - like the United States and Europe - allows re-patenting an old product under new forms and indications, India's law expressly limits this. As such, India was able to throw out a patent on Novartis' cancer medicine Gleevec. The result is shocking: whereas the drug cost approximately $70,000 for a year's treatment in the United States, in 2013, in India, generic versions go for one-twentieth of that price. In 2012, India also issued  a compulsory license on the cancer drug sorafenib, branded by the pharmaceutical company Bayer as Nexavar. The Indian company Natco now sells the drug for just under $200 a month, compared with Bayer's $5,600 monthly price.
Too many jaded customers skeptical of more "me too" medicines? Tap that billion plus population of aspiring, middle-class healthcare consumers in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, all with untreated chronic diseases.

The countries that are taking the most aggressive stances in amending their IP laws are also the ones that are most lucrative for the pharmaceutical industry. As companies slide down the oft-discussed patent cliff - in which patents on some of the industry's key moneymakers expire - pharmaceutical companies look to relatively untouched markets. Middle-income countries, which hold a rising number of people with expendable incomes, health insurance, and diseases of the rich and poor - like Brazil, China, India and South Africa - have been called "pharmamerging" countries for the potentially lucrative prospects they hold for the pharmaceutical sector. Whereas emerging markets accounted for less than 10 percent of global pharmaceutical spending in 2013, that'sexpected to explode to 30 percent by 2016.

The pharmaceutical industry has not been subtle about its hoped-for expansion into markets outside of the United States and Europe: William Looney, editor-in-chief of Pharmaceutical Executive magazine and former senior director of Pfizer, characterized the pharmaceutical sentiments in a 2013 article:

Had enough of grumpy, cost-conscious, risk-averse payers and regulators? Consider the vast new opportunities in countries with undeveloped health infrastructure, a largely out-of-pocket payment system and no requirement to negotiate access.

Facing loss of exclusivity on multiple blockbuster products? Fill the gap with high-margin branded generics that benefit from a privileged market position and local infant industry protection.

Too many jaded customers skeptical of more "me too" medicines? Tap that billion plus population of aspiring, middle-class healthcare consumers in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, all with untreated chronic diseases.

Worried about the precedent amendments to national intellectual property laws could set internationally and about loss of potential profit in pharmamerging countries, pharmaceutical companies are trying to push back - and the US government is helping to do the grunt work. Each year, the USTR puts out a "Special 301 watch list," essentially the US government's version of Santa's "naughty" list. In it, the USTR, with heavy industry input, highlights countries whose intellectual property laws and actions are seen as a threat to US industry; those deemed to be the baddies can be threatened with trade sanctions, even if their actions are legal under TRIPS. Brazil, India and South Africa have all faced this wrath; this year, in the wake of its compulsory license and Novartis case, PhRMA and other industry groups have recommended that India be placed on the "priority watch list," meaning it's the most likely to face trade sanctions.
Overt pressure is often coupled with backdoor lobbying. Take the case of Ecuador: In 2009, president Rafael Correa requested that the country include compulsory license provisions in its legislation, as allowed for under TRIPS. Wikileaks cables released in 2011 documented pressure from the US ambassador on Ecuador's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, with the US government suggesting that adopting such measures could threaten Ecuador's eligibility for trade agreements. The cables also show that the US Embassy met repeatedly with multinational pharmaceutical companies to discuss the provisions, in addition to meeting with Ecuadorian government officials on the matter. Despite this pressure, Ecuador issued its first compulsory license - for an HIV drug - in 2010.
Pressure and retaliation can also come in more vicious forms. In 2006, Dr. William Aldis, a World Health Organization (WHO) representative in Thailand, wrote an op-ed published in a national newspaper warning the country about provisions in the then-proposed (now discarded) US-Thailand Free Trade Agreement that could harm access to medicine. In his piece, Aldis highlighted the essential role generic drugs had played in curbing the country's HIV epidemic (the country had issued compulsory licenses for key HIV drugs, allowing for generic versions of otherwise patented medicines to be made, a move which resulted in it being placed on the Special 301 list on numerous occasions). Just a few months after his piece hit the paper, Aldis was removed from his position by the WHO director-general; he had served just over a quarter of his four-year position. The Asia Times Onlinefound that US lobbying pressure was behind his demotion, with US officials privately meeting with and writing the WHO director-general in the days before Aldis' removal.

US, Industry on the Offensive
The pharmaceutical industry, hand in hand with the US government, is also on the offensive. By utilizing trade agreements, the US government is pushing other countries to adopt increased intellectual property protection above what is required in TRIPS.
The Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement, or TPP, provides a prime example of so-called "TRIPS plus" provisions being included in trade agreements. Currently being negotiated by 12 countries, early drafts of TPP text included "some of the worst intellectual property provisions with regards to access to medicine" that Judit Rius Sanjuan, US manager and legal policy advisor at Doctors Without Borders, has ever seen, calling it a "wish list of the pharmaceutical industry." Early TPP texts required, among other things, that signatory countries explicitly outlaw adoption of Indian-like language that would limit patents on new forms of old medicines; that companies be able to directly sue governments whose policies the companies believed were infringing on their investments; and that companies offer 12 years of data exclusivity on biologics - which can extend monopoly rights on a product.

Early proposals also limited countries' ability to negotiate drug prices. In exchange for ramped-up IP protection, countries were offered expanded access to US markets, particularly for agricultural goods. Peter Maybarduk, director of Public Citizen's Global Access to Medicine program, says it's notable that "the global rules (through TRIPS) were in part devised by and for Big Pharma, and today Big Pharma complains that these rules do not account sufficiently for its needs." As Sell notes, TRIPS has become a floor, not a ceiling.

The TPP has been negotiated in secret, with those outside of the USTR virtually unable to get their hands on copies of draft text; even some in the US government have been blind to the specifics of negotiations. Over the years that the TPP has been negotiated, San Ruis has met with members of Congress to discuss the group's concerns with IP provisions. One, who asked to remain anonymous due to sensitive negotiations, noted, "Often, we would tell them what we were hearing was in the text, and they would say 'I had no idea!' Even they didn’t have access." Sell notes that this secrecy is in part due to industry lobbying for a strengthened and separate USTR. "It's the only agency not subject to Freedom of Information Act requests. It's not subject to the same kind of oversight and accountability that most agencies are. We don't have rules for international trade negotiations like we do for other parts of the US government," she says.

IP industries, on the other hand, do have access to secret texts. In 2013, The Washington Post noted that a handful of industry representatives, but not a single civil society group, sit on the USTR's industry trade advisory committee, responsible for advising the agency on intellectual property in trade negotiations. The Post notes that "ITAC seats have access to confidential information about the US negotiating position that isn't available to the public. . . .When USTR wants technical advice on transposing US law into international agreements, it naturally turns to the industry representatives on the ITACs." The USTR also readily asks industry for meetings, whereas civil society groups have to strong-arm their way into discussions with the body; discussions that are largely blind, as the public isn't privy to provisions being discussed within a trade agreement at any given time. Wikileaks cables of the TPP IP chapter, released at the end of last year, show that 600 representatives from the pharmaceutical industry were invited to participate in discussions on the trade agreement.

Additionally, PhRMA and other industry groups lobbied heavily from the earliest days of the TPP negotiations. The Sunlight Foundation reports that from 2009-2013, drug companies and pharmaceutical associations mentioned the TPP in 251 separate lobbying reports. Lobbying reports from the pharmaceutical industry mention the TPP more than any other industry (these are voluntary disclosures, and the Sunlight analysis only includes documents that specifically mention the TPP. It therefore may be an underestimation of industry's lobbying efforts on the agreement). Of all the pharmaceutical bodies and companies involved, the Sunlight Foundation analysis shows that PhRMA campaigned most heavily.

Fed Up
Things may be changing. In addition to public consciousness developing in places like India, Brazil, and South Africa, Americans are increasingly concerned with the cost of medicines. Medical debt is currently the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States, and new "specialty medicines," like those for cancer, diabetes and hepatitis, are in part responsible for the rise in drug prices. Prescription drug prices rose 5.4 percent last year, and while "specialty drugs" only make up 1 percent of all prescriptions, they account for 28 percent of all spending on pharmaceuticals (cancer drug prices alone rose 24.1 percent last year). Steve Miller, chief medical officer of Express Scripts, America's largest pharmacy benefits manager, told the Wall Street Journal, "The current pricing mentality around innovative products is unprecedented and unreasonable."

One drug in particular - Sovaldi, patented by Gilead and used to treat hepatitis C - costs $84,000 for a 12-week course, a price that Miller thinks is "unsustainable." In large part due to the high price of the drug, Express Scripts expects the cost of hepatitis C treatment to increase 102 percent this year. The drug is set to make $16 billion in sales in 2016 alone, and half of Gilead's current $127 billion market value is a result of high expectations for the drug. The company's CEO, John Martin, has a net worth of $1.2 billion. Gilead acquired Sovaldi for only $11 billion from Pharmasset Inc. in 2012.
"You see a policy sector in which rules are not being written and practices are not being determined according to public interest and logic."

Just as they have internationally, pharmaceutical lobbying efforts also impact drug prices domestically. Take the now-well-publicized deal between the White House and PhRMA regarding Obamacare. In exchange for the pharmaceutical industry offering $80 million in drug cost savings over a decade and spending tens of millions to garner public support for the Affordable Care Act (notably, done in part through two astroturf groups), the Obama administration didn't push key proposals that would curtail pharmaceutical prices in the US. And it's not just about domestic policy, either; what happens internationally affects what happens at home. In pushing for 12 years of data exclusivity for biologics within the TPP, the US government is undermining President Obama's efforts to reduce this period to seven years domestically (the US, like any other signatory, would be bound to the provisions included in the final agreement).

"If you take a step back and look at the global map of this, you see a policy sector in which rules are not being written and practices are not being determined according to public interest and logic," reflects Maybarduk. "There's no great calculus that's being devised about what is the right way to promote innovation and access . . . It's just driven by lobbyists with occasional exceptions where health advocates can break through."
Public awareness about these shenanigans has led to public anger. Last year's Wikileaks TPP cables offered a glimpse at just how harmful the agreement could be, and just how non-transparent the process has been. In March of this year, 16 members of Congress wrote to the USTR with concerns over how medicine access could be impacted by the agreement; even the Vatican has expressed concerns about IP measures within the agreement. Civil society organizations and law professors have called for more transparency in the process.

"Why are we aggressively exporting a policy that we're increasingly questioning here at home?"
In November, 151 House Democrats wrote to Obama, saying that they will not support "fast-tracking" of the TPP (fast-tracking would essentially take Congress out of the process, allowing them only to accept or reject the final agreement without any oversight of negotiations throughout). Groups concerned about freedom of information, freedom of the internet, consumer protection, and American jobs are joining with those concerned about access to medicine, highlighting harmful proposals on all fronts. With negotiations continuing, access-to-medicines groups are hopeful that public pressure and scrutiny will help to remove at least the most harmful provisions.

Sell hopes that discussions within the United States about drug prices and affordability of healthcare will shake some sense into the Obama administration, which Maybarduk notes is "even more aggressive than Bush" in its efforts to push for increased intellectual property protection internationally. "I find it really weird that Obama wants his signature thing (to be) affordable health care, and then abroad we're pushing these things," notes Sell. "There's a really profound disconnect between our foreign policy and the conversations we're having at home, and (pharmaceutical companies) are trying to lock in this business model that doesn't work anymore. Why are we aggressively exporting a policy that we're increasingly questioning here at home?

Almost 80% of Cuban children with leukemia treated successfully

Cuban President Raul

Almost 80% of children with leukemia in Cuba have been cured of this type of cancer, the most frequent among children worldwide, according to Dr. Sergio Machín, Hematology specialist and clinical pediatrician at the country’s Hematology and Immunology Institute (IHI), who explained that this accomplishment is on a par with results in developed nations.

He clarified that acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is the most common malignant disease in this age group and was the first to be treated. Cuba is currently following a new comprehensive treatment regimen with these young patients, in conjunction with 14 other countries. Among those participating in the international research project are Argentina, Chile and Uruguay, in Latin America, and others predominately in Europe.

There have been several treatment strategies developed since the 1970’s, with new resources added over the years. Implementation of the protocol used currently in Cuba began in 2009, and has led to this promising level of success, the doctor explained.

Treatment is offered in seven Cuban institutions - two in Havana, along with others in Pinar del Río, Villa Clara, Camagüey, Holguín and Santiago de Cuba. 

There are approximately 70 new cases of leukemia diagnosed every year in Cuba, 75% are lymphoblastic, and can often be cured, allowing children to lead normal, productive lives, Dr. Sergio Machín said. (AIN)

Promise of African unity illusive

By Abayomi Azikiwe

May 25, 2014 marked the 51st anniversary of the founding of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), the predecessor of the African Union (AU), which was initiated through the Sirte Declaration of 1999 and formally established in 2002.

Last year was the focus of the Jubilee Celebrations for the AU where there was much reflection on the historical developments on the continent since the 1960s.

A projection of 50 years forward was encompassed in the plan for 2063 through a document that was accepted by the 54-member organization which is based in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The initial focus of the OAU was to facilitate the independence struggle throughout Africa where in 1963 over 30 countries were already members of the United Nations.

Nonetheless, just in the last twelve months there have been enormous challenges and setbacks for the cause of African unity, sovereignty and economic self-reliance.

Within the political context of worsening internal disunity and social turmoil, the actual role of the AU appears almost negligible within the broader international division of power and global decision-making.

At a recently-held Africa-European Union (EU) Summit in Brussels, Belgium, the political will of the AU was totally disregarded. The Peace and Security Council (PSC) established guidelines for participation in the gathering which were disrespected by the EU making a mockery of any semblance of authority and sovereignty for this continental organization.

What was revealing about the entire scenario was that despite the EU actions that sidestepped the PSC, some 36 African heads of state still participated in the summit.

Although several leading African states declined to send their presidents and prime ministers, in addition to those that were not invited such as the Republic of Sudan and Eritrea,  the event went on and issued a series of declarations including a plan to deploy EU troops to the former French colony of the Central African Republic (CAR).

What was reinforced in the whole situation was that the EU still supplies a considerable amount of aid and investment in Africa. Consequently, most of these governments, including the AU itself, could not afford to boycott a summons issued by Europe.

These events are a manifestation of the ongoing instability in several geo-political regions throughout the continent. The fact that the AU has not been able to effectively address these problems and crises is a key component of why Africa is not respected within the world corridors of power that remain largely in the hands of the imperialist states in Western Europe and North America.

From Nigeria and Malawi to the CAR and South Sudan
The abduction of over 270 high school girls from the village in Chibok, Borno State is a manifestation of the five-year armed campaign by the Boko Haram sect against the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Many Nigerians have stated openly that the Boko Haram conflict stems from the regional divisions imposed on the country a century after its colonial creation in 1914.

At a national event held in Nigeria to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the British colonial project, French President Francois Hollande attended and pledged support to the oil-rich state, Africa’s most populous, in dealing with its internal security crisis. Later in the year during May, Paris hosted an international conference on the ongoing failure of the administration of President Goodluck Jonathan to resolve the Boko Haram problem.

Meanwhile, civilians are dying in the hundreds every week in Nigeria. Boko Haram has bombed areas in the heart of the political capital of Abuja killing nearly one hundred people as well as attacking rural areas leading to the massacre of civilians, the destruction of property and the kidnapping of women and children. All of this was and is taking place at a time when western financial publications and institutions have anointed the West African state as having the largest economy on the continent, surpassing the Republic of South Africa.

It is interesting that at this stage in Nigerian and African development that the role of western imperialist military and intelligence penetration has reached unprecedented levels in the post-colonial history of the continent. Obviously there is a connection between saying that Africa is experiencing phenomenal growth during a period that its national and regional security apparatuses are ineffectual and therefore in need of the assistance of the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM), the EU military forces (EUFOR), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the State of Israel.

In the Southern African state of Malawi, where one of three women heads-of-state on the continent is in power, the country is facing a monumental political crisis stemming from what President Joyce Banda says was a flawed national electoral process. Banda, who was thrust into the position after the death of her predecessor Bingu wa Mutharika in 2012, has declared the elections null and void. She is ordering a revote within 90 days but says that she will not seek elective office.

The Malawian situation is still not settled. Whether the president will be able to maintain control of the country for another three months will remain to be seen.

However, she has faced problems similar to Mutharika, whose brother Peter is her main challenger in the presidential elections that appears to have gone wrong.

The opposition  
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was leading in the vote count but numerous problems were in evidence including the lack of equipment, inadequate processing structures and in one case, violence at the polling places.

The regional partners within the Southern African Development Community (SADC), which Malawi is currently serving as chair, are undoubtedly hoping that the crisis inside the country can be resolved politically and without violence. The SADC has been successful over the last three decades in resolving internal issues through negotiations coordinated by both regional and continental structures.

However, events over the last several months in the Central African Republic (CAR) and the Republic of South Sudan have starkly illustrated the need for the strengthening of the AU. With the CAR, a former French colony, the persecution and forced removal of the Islamic community is taking place right in the midst of the occupation of the country by troops from Paris, the EU and a host of African states.

The appointment of interim President Catherine Samba-Panza in the CAR earlier in 2014 has not resolved the problems of instability. The CAR is also well-endowed with mineral resources including gold, diamonds and uranium which are exploited by western imperialist states. When former President Francois Bozize sought to partner with the People’s Republic of China, his government was soon removed opening the way for the Muslim-dominated Seleka Coalition that took charge in March 2013 under the leadership of Michel Djotodia.

When the atrocities committed by the Seleka armed forces in the capital of Bangui and other regions of the country became unbearable, the pressure from below and moreover from the Hollande government in Paris, Djotodia was removed at the aegis of Paris and forced into exile in Benin, another former French colony. What is clear at the present conjuncture is that the increasing presence of France and the EU, backed up by AFRICOM, is set to continue.

Africa’s and the world’s latest recognized state, the Republic of South Sudan, has reached a breaking point since the armed clashes between to the two main political factions within the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army began on Dec. 15 of last year. Tens of thousands have been displaced and thousands have been killed in the fighting between forces loyal to President Salva Kiir and ousted Vice-President Riek Machar.

Despite the signing of a secession of hostilities accord in Ethiopia in mid-May both sides have accused the other of violating the letter and spirit of the agreement. The U.S., which was the major proponent of the partition of the country, formerly Africa’s largest geographic nation-state, is responsible for this ongoing crisis.

Ugandan troops are present in large numbers in South Sudan to prop-up the increasingly fragile regime of President Salva Kiir. Uganda has served as a military conduit for Washington’s foreign policy imperatives in Africa. There are Ugandan troops in Somalia, where a 22,000-member purported AU Mission is trained, bankrolled and coordinated by Washington and Brussels.

Whither the AU and the Need for Genuine Unity and Development?
These unresolved internal and regional security issues are providing the imperialist states with a rationale for their escalating military and political intervention in Africa. What is even worse is the silence of the AU and the PSC in this entire process of fortifying neo-colonialism.

However, these western industrial states themselves are suffering from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Mass unemployment and increasing poverty within the imperialist states are prompting bank-imposed austerity programs that further disempower the working class and nationally oppressed within these countries.

In Western Europe right-wing parties are gaining currency within the electoral arena and governance structures. Hostility towards African migrants in Europe has reached unprecedented levels.

In the State of Israel, tens of thousands of economic refugees from Central and East Africa are treated as criminals and labeled “infiltrators.” These migrants are subjected to racist mob violence and the construction of a special prison to remove them from the occupied Palestinian lands.

The U.S., although headed by a self-identified African American president, Barack Obama, is making a major push toward the total domination of the continent militarily. Obama is a militarist and has engaged in massive Pentagon and CIA interference in Africa.

If Afghanistan is any indication, the president announced on May 27 that the 13-year U.S.-engineered war of occupation is coming to an “end”, yet some 10,000 Pentagon troops will remain in the country until at least 2016. While at the same time, the White House threatens war with Russia by overthrowing the government in Ukraine and placing a fascist regime in power on the doorsteps of Moscow.

The Obama administration has endorsed the economic strangulation and illegally-forced bankruptcy of the largest African American populated municipality in the country, the City of Detroit. It is no surprise that this same administration is working feverishly to cripple Africa by sewing divisions and sending in Special Forces, intelligence operatives and conducting massive bombing operations utilizing drones and fighter jets.

The real solution to Africa’s current plight is a total break with the world imperialist system. The capitalists of the West have nothing to offer Africa accept more economic exploitation, oppression and militarism.

This holds true as well for the African American population within the U.S. The benign neglect of the Obama administration is obvious to all who seek to look and listen.

African Americans are even more unemployed, impoverished and politically marginalized after five years of the Obama White House. The only solution offered by this administration is to half-heartedly encourage African American men to engage in self-help efforts while their communities are being destroyed by bank foreclosures, low-wage employment, escalating law-enforcement repression and social containment through the prison-industrial complex.

A political alternative based upon Revolutionary Pan-Africanism, anti-imperialism and socialism provides the only hope for African redemption. The consolidation of Africa under genuine independence, unity and sovereignty will make a tremendous contribution to the abolition of all forms of injustice and inequality throughout the world.

The European Union: Has the Countdown Begun?
 

By Oded Eran

On May 25, 2014, 388 million European Union citizens voted for more than 751 members of the European Parliament. On the agenda was the future of the European project, an unprecedented attempt to create a meta-national institution endowed with powers willingly relinquished by the member states and transferred to the said entity. The elections were thus a vote of confidence in the EU and a test of support by European citizens for the continued existence of the Union, and especially, the continued strengthening of its central institutions. This gave the election results an importance that exceeds the size of the various parties that constitute the European Parliament.
On May 25, 2014, 388 million European Union citizens voted for more than 751 members of the European Parliament, who will serve for the next five years. On the agenda was the future of the European project, an unprecedented attempt to create a meta-national institution endowed with powers willingly relinquished by the member states and transferred to the said entity.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel after casting her ballot in Berlin for the European Parliament elections, May 25, 2014.

Since the establishment of the institutions and organizations that gave rise to the European Union out of the ruins of the Second World War, there has been ongoing tension between the EU central institutions and its key members, especially Great Britain. While the founding states (Germany, France, Italy, and the three Benelux countries) believed from the outset in their ability to create a supranational system, other countries that joined later, and in particular Great Britain, objected to several basic principles and therefore received concessions, including the freedom to not adopt the common currency, the euro, and the freedom to not join the Schengen Agreement (named for a small town in Luxembourg where the borders of France, Germany, and Luxembourg meet), which provides for completely free movement, without border control, between these countries. In Great Britain, the resistance was even greater, and 1993 saw the establishment of the UK Independence Party (UKIP), which objects to British membership in the EU. British Prime Minister David Cameron has promised that if he is reelected next year, he will hold a referendum in 2017 on Britain�s continued membership in the Union.

The financial crisis in the industrialized world has not bypassed Europe in general and specific members in particular, for example, Greece. It has increased doubts as to the EU’s ability, first, to prevent this kind of crisis, and second, to provide appropriate solutions. In fact, only the determination of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and European Central Bank President Mario Draghi enabled the EU to come to the aid of the suffering countries and give the organization and its financial institutions prospects of recovery.

This week’s elections were thus a vote of confidence in the EU and a test of support by European citizens for the continued existence of the Union, and especially, the continued strengthening of its central institutions. This gave the election results an importance that exceeds the size of the various parties that constitute the European Parliament. Many voices called for increasing independence for the member states at the expense of the EU central institutions, specifically, the European Council (composed of heads of state), the European Parliament, and the European Commission. An example is the interview by former French President Nicolas Sarkozy to two major European newspapers, in which he recommended establishing a central French-German bloc in Europe; this would of course weaken the role of the major EU institutions. Sarkozy added that in his opinion, the Schengen Agreement should be abolished.

Was it Sarkozy who gave the final push for the astonishing victory of Marine Le Pen and the National Front in France? Perhaps, but the trend was clear even before Sarkozy�s interview. When the results were announced after two-thirds of the vote had been counted, Le Pen herself declared that the people �no longer want to be led by those outside our borders, by EU commissioners and technocrats who are� not elected. The Euroskeptics, as they are called, doubled their strength in the new Parliament, most notably in Denmark and the Netherlands, where anti-immigration parties were elected, and in Hungary, where Jobbik, a party with clear anti-Semitic overtones, made significant gains. In Great Britain, the UKIP apparently came in first. Its leader, Nigel Farage, has stated that his party wants not only Great Britain, but all of Europe to withdraw from the EU.

While the European People’s Party, which held the largest number of seats (265) in the outgoing Parliament, has retained this primacy, it lost more than 40 seats. In Germany, its stronghold, a party called Alternative for Germany, established only a year ago, won 6.5 percent of the votes.

Yet despite the loss of seats by the European People�s Party, its electoral victory is very important because it reflects the desire of the centrists to continue the unification process. On the other hand, there are increasing calls in Europe, and not only from Marine Le Pen, for full transparency in the EU executive body, i.e., the European Commission, and for its subordination to the European Parliament. The head of the European People�s Party, Jean-Claude Juncker of Luxembourg, will likely be appointed head of the Commission. Juncker is greatly respected throughout Europe, and in addition to serving as former prime minister of Luxembourg, has played an active role in saving Europe from the economic crisis in recent years. He will have the heavy responsibility of restoring the European voter�s trust in the EU’s central apparatus, those more than 30,000 anonymous officials in Brussels who have the power to decide on laws and regulations that are an integral part of daily life for all European citizens. Juncker will have to cooperate more closely with the European Parliament, whose power has grown in the past five years and will grow even more, as the Euroskeptics are eager to prove that they were elected in order to reduce the power of the European Commission.

The European dream suffered a hard blow in the 2014 elections, but the ambitious idea has not come to an end. In the face of the rising economic power of the United States and China, the countries of Europe, other than perhaps Germany, will have a difficult time coping alone. At the same time, the main parties in the EU will not have an easy time resisting the extremist xenophobic parties built on nationalism and ideological opposition to the idea of union.

And Israel? The rise of nationalist parties with racist and anti-Semitic backgrounds should worry Israel and the Jewish community in Europe. The growing number of anti-Semitic incidents in Europe, including physical violence, has already set off alarm bells among heads of state. The murder in Brussels several hours before the polls opened in Europe, in which two Israelis were among the four fatalities, is symbolic. Israel must demand concerted action throughout the continent, led by education and law enforcement efforts, in order to confront the growing anti-Semitism.

Some in Israel will perhaps find some consolation in the trend toward the weakening of the EU’s central institution in Brussels because of Europe’s scathing criticism of Israeli policy on relations with the Palestinians, and especially on the settlements. Yet any consolation is limited: In the coming years, Europe will remain not only Israel’s largest trading partner, but also a political bloc that, despite all the differences of opinion and the clear trend that emerged in the European Parliament elections, will continue to express its collective opinion on the subject of the Middle East. While the preference of Israeli leaders for transferring the political dialogue with Europe from Brussels to the leaders of individual states will grow stronger, it would be a mistake to think that these elections have eliminated the central apparatus. Political leaders in the key countries of the EU, and especially in Germany, will likely wish to strengthen the central establishment in order to prevent the destructive consequences of isolationism and a return to the period when the idea of the nation-state reigned supreme. In the twentieth century, this led to destruction, devastation, and of course the Holocaust, which annihilated one third of the Jewish people.

Nuclear Brinksmanship: Obama’s ProtoWar Against Russia and China

By Eric Sommer

Russia and China are both under attack by a multi-pronged U.S.-led ‘proto-war’ which could erupt into ‘hot war’ or even nuclear war.   ‘Protowar’ or ‘proto-warfare’ is the term I have coined to describe the use of multiple methods intended to weaken, destabilize, and in the limit-case destroy a targeted government without the need to engage in direct military warfare.

Protowar methods include threats against the targeted country; economic sanctions; military encirclement around its borders. cyber-warfare, drone warfare, and use of proxy forces from within or from outside the country for political and/or military action against the local government.

U.S.-led protowars also invariably include propaganda campaigns against the targeted governments. The media campaigns are  waged by the five giant media conglomerates which now control 90% of the U.S. media and which are directly  linked to the U.S. foreign-policy establishment through various means including corporate memberships in the Committee for Foreign Relations.

You can recognize these media campaigns because they frequently employ the words ‘human rights’ or ‘democracy’ as the pretext  for U.S. state protowars against other countries.  Sometimes, of course, these words cannot possibly be applied at all, as in the massive support currently given to the murderous military dictatorship in Egypt or the midevilist kingdom of Saudi Arabia.  In these cases  the U.S. media and government substitute the words ‘U.S. National Interest’ for ‘human rights’ as the pretext for targeting another country.

Proto-warfare often precedes, or leads up to, hot wars, as when a decade of economic sanctions, media demonization, and media-supported lies about ‘weapons of mass destruction’ led up to the Iraq war.   Thousands of young American men and women were sent over to kill and be killed, or to be injured or traumatized, to say nothing of the up to a million Iraqis who died as a result of the war.  However, Iraq did not possess nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction, so there was no danger of a nuclear conflagration.   Matters are much different with respect to Russia and China, both nuclear powers.

The ProtoWar Against Russia and China

U.S.-led proto-warfare against Russia and China has a number of elements.  To begin with, it conforms to two popular doctrines in U.S. foreign policy circles.  The first doctrine states that the U.S. must never allow another super-power to emerge, and must remain the unchallenged dominant force on Earth.  This doctrine is clearly set-out in the original version of the U.S. Defence Department policy document  known as ‘the Wolfowitz doctrine:

“Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.”

The document containing this statement and similar notions was changed for public consumption after the original provoked an outcry when it was leaked to the press.

The second doctrine underpinning proto-warfare against Russia and China is that U.S. dominance of the planet depends on control of the Eurasian land mass, on which Russia and China occupy key positions.  This doctrine has been heavily  promoted by  former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski.  “For America,”  he has written, ” the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia… Eurasia is the globes largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the worlds’ three most advanced and economically productive regions… Eurasia is thus the chessboard on which the struggle for global primacy continues to be played.

In pursuit of Eurasian dominance a whole gamut of protowar tools are now being used by the U.S. in its campaigns against Russia and China.  Militarily, the U.S.-led Nato military alliance has progressively squeezed Russia’s’ strategic space by enlisting one former Russian aligned state in Eastern Europe after another.  Now, with a U.S.-supported coup-imposed government in power in Kiev, there is open talk of Nato also incorporating Ukraine, a country right on Russia’s’ border.

To help U.S.  readers understand the significance of Natos’ movement around Russia, imagine that from South America, up through central America, and up to Mexico and Canada, one country after another was being integrated into a Russian-dominated military system.

Other current protowar actions against Russia include economic sanctions; the use of the Ukraine crisis as a pretext to mobilize more U.S. and other Nato forces in Eastern Europe for purposes of intimidating or threatening Russia; and the publication by the U.S. media conglomerates of an unending series of lies, half-truths, and obscurantism’s regarding the Ukraine, in order to demonize Russia and prepare the U.S. public to accept whatever actions the U.S. state and military chooses to take.  .

On the other side of Eurasia, U.S. military encirclement of China has also recently proceeded apace.   Military bases and transfers of billions of dollars in military equipment have been positioned around China for years in areas such as South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan.

Now, with the Obama administrations’ so-called ‘pivot to Asia’, a new more ambitious program called ‘Air-Sea battle plan’ involves deployment of large amounts of very hi-tech military systems and equipment in the pacific area all aimed at China.

At the same time, new U.S. military bases are being opened across the Pacific arena, from the Philippines to Australia, with no other conceivable target but China.

In conjunction with this Pacific military build-up, the U.S.state is attempting to use previously minor disputes over ownership of maritime resources to turn a number of smaller Asian nations into proxies to help it destabilize China.  These nations include Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, and the Philippines.  By offering its support, and in some cases promises of military assistance in any maritime conflict with China, the U.S. has stoked the ambitions and aggressive nationalist tendencies of these smaller nations vis-a-vis China.

Coinciding with the military build-up against China is extensive cyber-penetration of China by the U.S. NSA (National Security Agency), as revealed by whistle-blower Edward Snowden.

This penetration includes wholesale capture of hundreds of thousands or millions of Chinese mobile text messages; the monitoring of mobile phone conversations of Chinese leaders; and serious intrusions into the computer network backbone system of Beijings’ Tsinghua university, which is linked to large numbers of Chinese research centers including labs engaged in sensitive military-related work.

The NSA has also penetrated and compromised the server computers made by Chinese Huaweii, a giant telecommunications equipment and networking company, whose equipment is used throughout China and around the world.

It should be noted – and emphasized – that the U.S. government has never apologized or stated that these cyber-attacks on China will stop.

Other U.S.attempts to destabilize China include political and economic support for separatist movements by some members of ethnic minorities in the Chnese provinces of Xinjiang and Tibet.   Since the 1950′s, first the CIA and later the so-called “National Endowment for Democracy’, which is funded by the U.S. government, have transferred millions of dollars to the so-called Tibetan government-in-Exile in India. Both sets of money transfers are in the public domain, due to the U.S. freedom of information act.

At the same time, a so-called ‘East Turkistani Government In Exile’ claiming to represent XInjiang province was formed in Washington DC in 2004.  On his way to the Beijing Olympics in 2008l, then President George W. Bush stopped by the see one of the leaders-in-exile  of the Xinjaing separatist movement.

To put all these U.S. protowar actions against China in perspective, we need to consider who is really the aggressive actor in Asia.  The U.S. has over 650 military bases in other peoples’ countries, including Asia, while China has none.   The U.S. is impinging militarily and politically in China’s backyard; China is not interfering in U.S. relations or military activities in the U.S. backyard.  The U.S. has a doctrine of global supremacy; China has no such doctrine and basically wishes to be left alone to develop economically and to engage in economic trade with other nations.

The danger of the U.S.Eurasian protowar erupting into hot war – or even nuclear war – stems from a single factor:  Previous U.S.-led protowars which erupted into hot wars were against countries like Serbia, Iraq, or Libya.  Those countries did not have nuclear weapons and could not effectively defend themselves against U.S. military and other pressures   Russia and China are in a different category – they are nuclear- armed and can defend themselves.

The U.S. state presumably does not intend to provoke a hot war with Russia and China.. But directing intensive protowar against powerful nuclear-armed states is to risk the possibility of ‘sleep walking’ into the abyss through miscalculation, or through a gradual hightening of conflicts which finally go out of control. . In 1914, with the European powers of the day already on edge, it took just the assassination of a minor duke in a peripheral country to trigger World War I.   As an old adage has it, “If you play with fire, you may get burned.”