democracynow--2020-12-09--People's Vaccine: Calls Grow for Equal Access to Coronavirus Vaccine as Rich Countries Hoard Supply

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : President-elect Joe Biden pledged Tuesday to distribute 100 million vaccine shots in the first 100 days of his administration .
Biden ’ s vow came on the same day Britain began a mass vaccination program using a vaccine developed by Pfizer-BioNTech .
The vaccine is expected to be soon approved in the United States , as well , as early as tomorrow .
On Tuesday , President Trump held what he called a vaccine summit at the White House .
Trump claimed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but the White House Coronavirus Task Force is warning the spread of COVID would not be reduced until the spring , based on current vaccination plans .
A report by the task force obtained by CNN states , quote , “ The current vaccine implementation will not substantially reduce viral spread , hospitalizations , or fatalities until the 100 million Americans with comorbidities can be fully immunized , which will take until the late spring , ” unquote .
Meanwhile , a new report finds as many as nine out of 10 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ miss out on the coronavirus vaccine until at least 2022 , because wealthy countries , including the United States , have hoarded enough doses to vaccinate their entire populations nearly three times over .
The report was issued by the People ’ s Vaccine Alliance , which includes Amnesty International , Frontline AIDS , Global Justice Now and Oxfam .
This is Winifred Byanyima , executive director of UNAIDS , in a video produced by the People ’ s Vaccine Alliance .
AMY GOODMAN : That was the UNAIDS executive director , part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The World Health Organization has also warned about the inequitable distribution of the vaccine .
This is WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus .
AMY GOODMAN : We ’ re joined right now by two guests .
In Oxford , England , Dr. Mohga Kamal-Yanni .
She is policy adviser to the People ’ s Vaccine Alliance and to UNAIDS , the joint U.N. program on HIV and AIDS .
She has worked for decades on access to medicines and healthcare in developing countries .
And in Bangalore , India , Achal Prabhala @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AccessIBSA project , which campaigns for access to medicines in India , Brazil and South Africa .
He recently co-authored an op-ed published in The New York Times headlined “ Want Vaccines Fast ?
Suspend Intellectual Property Rights.
” We ’ re going to begin with the doctor , Dr. Mohga Kamal-Yanni .
You ’ re in Oxford , actually , where one of those vaccine tests has began , and that is AstraZeneca-Oxford .
But start off by talking about what is a people ’ s vaccine and what are the inequities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccine , what countries , and what countries won ’ t ?
DR. MOHGA KAMAL-YANNI : Well , the People ’ s Vaccine is a coalition of organizations like Amnesty , Frontline AIDS , Global Justice , Oxfam .
It ’ s co-led by Oxfam and UNAIDS .
And it has so many people , you know , academics , health activists , health experts , NGOs , patient groups , from all over the world , united for one aim , which has a people ’ s vaccine , not a profit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — basically , we ’ re calling for vaccination that is available for all people at risk , and then for everybody once we have enough doses , but not the way it ’ s happening now , where if you happen to be born in a rich country , you get the vaccine ; if you happen to be born in a poor country , you don ’ t .
And yesterday in the U.K. , they started vaccinating older people , and there was some clapping .
And , you know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And , of course , it ’ s brilliant , you know , that there is hope that this problem that we ’ re all suffering from will be — you know , there ’ s a light at the end of the tunnel .
However , that joy is only limited to people living here .
I ’ ve got friends and relatives and people that I work with in other countries , in developing countries , who are saying , “ Yeah , and what about us ?
” And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this is really a big problem .
There ’ s just so many — it ’ s kind of dividing the world between those who have and can pay and those who don ’ t and can ’ t pay , and , therefore , well , you can stand in the back on the queue ; we don ’ t know when you can get the vaccine .
And that is just not right .
It ’ s not right on moral grounds .
It ’ s not right on public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ Nobody is safe until everybody is safe.
” Yeah , OK. How do you make everybody safe ?
So , a vaccine nationalism will not get you to everybody safe .
And also , on economic ground , you ’ re not going to get the economy growing , if just one — or back to normal , if one country vaccinate its population and the rest of the world isn ’ t .
You can ’ t trade with people who are sick or people who have a high level @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it just doesn ’ t make sense at all .
The other important point is that this is not kind of fact of life that , oh , we have limited amount of vaccines .
Actually , that ’ s not the case .
There are other options that will enable the world to produce more vaccines , and therefore vaccinate more people .
So , basically , what ’ s happening now , if you can imagine that we have a small pie — so that ’ s one vaccine , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basically , the rich can have the bigger share of it , and then we ’ ll have just crumbs left for developing countries .
Well , the idea is that : Well , why don ’ t we increase supply so everybody can have a decent share of it , rather than fighting on a little one ?
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : Well , Dr. Kamal-Yanni , I wanted to ask you about the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine and how access to that vaccine may be more equitable at this stage .
Could you talk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AstraZeneca has reached with the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations and Gavi , the Vaccine Alliance ?
DR. MOHGA KAMAL-YANNI : Well , basically , I mean , this vaccine has been developed by Oxford University .
Oxford University has a standard on managing intellectual property .
And it actually talks about open license .
However , when they did the deal or the contract with AstraZeneca , it became exclusive license for AstraZeneca .
But they managed to put some conditions in the contract about making the vaccine accessible to developing countries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the big vaccine producers in India , the Serum Institute , and made an agreement to produce 1 billion doses , so that ’ s vaccinating 500 million people .
Half of them will be in India .
So , it ’ s a good way — you know , good start to make more vaccines available .
They also — AstraZeneca also has some agreements with other countries , like with Argentina and Brazil , so that may cover a number of people in Latin America .
But what about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some other deals with countries , but not production as such .
You know , you can ’ t leave — you know , so , AstraZeneca , compared to others , yes , they ’ ve done good things and also fixing the price as — well , AstraZeneca said $ 4 per dose , and Serum said $ 3 per dose .
For developing countries , it will be probably $ 3 per dose , so $ 6 per course or per person .
But the thing is , you can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whole — you can ’ t leave the decision on supply , price , which country , which patient , to companies .
That ’ s not their job .
Their job is to produce .
And the job of governments is to make more production , so you have to enable other producers .
Like in India , there ’ s other producers .
Other countries would have other producers .
So , if you allow technology transfer , so sharing technology — which the technology , by the way , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public money , including from the U.S. and the U.K. and Europe and other countries .
So , allowing the sharing of technology and removing the intellectual property barrier , so no patents on vaccines , then other companies can produce the vaccine , and we have more .
And just like AstraZeneca did this contract with Serum , that includes , presumably , technology transfer , or some technology transfer , that can be done on a multilateral level , on a bigger level for more companies .
Because all these deals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re all secret .
You don ’ t know what ’ s in it except what they announce , rather than if you have a multilateral agreement , you don ’ t — you know , the negotiation happens in closed doors , but then , once they agree a license , then it ’ s public .
Then you see what ’ s good and what ’ s bad about it .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And what about the whole issue that many developing countries are relying on the possibility of an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China , obviously , is in last-stage clinical trials for several vaccines .
The potential for China being the one that supplies the bulk of the vaccines to the majority of the people of the planet , what that would mean in terms of international relations in the future ?
DR. MOHGA KAMAL-YANNI : Well , I mean , China has four vaccines in clinical trials phase 3 .
Actually , the Emirates today announced that one of these vaccines passed clinical trials , and they authorized it to work in their country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and efficacy of the clinical trials .
So , yes , if developing countries have nothing coming , you know , they can ’ t just sit — and I heard from a number of countries : “ We ’ re not going to sit and wait.
” So they are talking to companies in Europe and in America , but they ’ re also talking to companies in China .
And the king of Morocco said that he ’ s going to vaccinate his people , and they ’ re aiming at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And again , they have an agreement with a Chinese company .
You know , that put the pressure on ensuring that these vaccines have high efficacy and high safety level , or , you know , at least acceptable safety level .
And the thing is , we need that all clinical trials get published , whether that ’ s from China or Pfizer or Moderna .
It ’ s no good that companies announce their results in a press release to investors , so they have more — you know , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increase , but scientists , who are waiting , who understand these things , can not investigate or review the results because there ’ s nothing published for them .
So , we need more of transparency on that , including the Chinese , so that countries are aware of what they ’ re buying .
AMY GOODMAN : I wanted to bring Achal Prabhala into the conversation , again , coordinator of AccessIBSA project , which campaigns to access medicines for India , Brazil , South Africa .
This piece you recently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Want Vaccines Fast ?
Suspend Intellectual Property Rights.
” You ’ re joining us from Bangalore , India .
Can you talk about what that would mean , if you suspended intellectual property rights ?
Talk about trade secrets .
Talk about patents .
Talk about government subsidies of these private companies .
And how does what ’ s happening now , the development of this vaccine , compare to people ’ s access , for example , to the flu vaccine , how that was developed and financed ?
ACHAL PRABHALA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s great to be here .
And thank you for having me .
The piece that we wrote in The New York Times was geared around an event that ’ s unfolding this week and the next .
It doesn ’ t look like it will get resolved anytime soon or successfully , but that event is a proposal that South Africa and India made at the WTO , at the World Trade Organization , to temporarily suspend a trade rule called TRIPS , which is an agreement on trade-related @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of intellectual property worldwide , which the WTO takes up .
And the reason India and South Africa suggested that all member countries of the WTO should be exempted from provisions of TRIPS is so that everything that we require to survive the pandemic — the masks , the test kits , but now especially the vaccines — should be free to be made in as much capacity as possible to get them faster and cheaper to as many people as we can around the world .
There is an overwhelming support from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the WTO works on consensus , which means that even if five or six very rich countries oppose the proposal , it actually won ’ t pass .
And that ’ s exactly what ’ s happening .
The U.S. , the EU , the U.K. and a few other rich countries , as well as , inexplicably , Brazil , have opposed this proposal and are stalling it , which means that it ’ s unlikely to go through without a fight .
Now , the irony of the fight having to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s really good news out of the U.K.
There ’ s also really good news out of science .
And personally for me , sitting in India , I wish I could share in that good news with the same spirit of cheer and celebration .
I saw a moving interview with a 91-year-old called Martin Kenyon in London , who called his hospital , said , “ Hey , I heard you had vaccines.
” They said , “ Yes , come on over and get one.
” He walked over , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first dose of a Pfizer vaccine .
And he ’ s looking forward to hugging his grandchildren this Christmas .
And it ’ s a beautiful , touching story .
The problem with that is , that Pfizer vaccine , over 90 % of its supplies , until the end of 2021 — so that means for the next 13 months — have been sold out to a handful of rich countries , to the U.S. , to the EU and to the U.K.
There ’ s actually no way that anyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rich countries is going to get their hands on one of these vaccines for love or for money .
They just don ’ t exist outside of very few number of rich countries .
That ’ s kind of amazing to live through in 2020 .
I ’ ve been campaigning for access to medicines for a long time .
But my father had COVID .
He ’ s 87 years old .
My mother is 72 years old .
I definitely would like them to have a vaccine and get one fairly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being unrolled without any possibility of a majority of the world getting them is genuinely heartbreaking .
And that ’ s the anger that partly prompted that piece .
The irony , of course , is that this is such a dramatically different situation from the 1950s when the flu [ sic ] vaccine was developed by Jonas Salk , who , of course , famously said , when asked by Ed Morrow about whether he was going to patent his invention — he said , “ Hahaha , can you patent the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a heartbreak — it ’ s a beautiful — it ’ s a beautiful moment .
It ’ s a really beautiful moment .
And — AMY GOODMAN : And that was about the polio vaccine .
ACHAL PRABHALA : I ’ m sorry , that was about the polio vaccine .
That ’ s exactly right .
And that ’ s about the polio vaccine .
The tradition of Jonas Salk , however , does continue with the flu vaccine that we all take .
That flu vaccine is developed at a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s called informally the Flu Network , and formally the Global Influenza Surveillance and Research Systems .
It ’ s a collaborative infrastructure that they ’ ve set up at the WHO that involves 110 different countries , 130 different laboratories , which pool information on what strains of influenza are circulating in their countries .
That information is collated .
And every year , for two different flu seasons , in the Northern Hemisphere and the Southern Hemisphere , the WHO then releases what would be called the formula for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can produce , because it ’ s completely free of any proprietary intellectual property or monopoly , which means that billions of people have taken it since the 1970s based on this cooperative , shared system of pooling knowledge , as well as finances .
And that ’ s created a very robust infrastructure for the production and consumption of these flu vaccines .
And it ’ s a great success .
It ’ s , unfortunately , exactly the kind of thing that ’ s not being replicated with the coronavirus vaccines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prabhala , I wanted to ask you : In terms of the refusal of these handful of rich countries to allow the suspension of intellectual property rights at the WTO , what is their argument ?
Given the enormous worldwide crisis that we ’ re functioning , how do they defend this ?
And what could possibly be done to overcome this resistance ?
ACHAL PRABHALA : Juan , that ’ s an excellent question .
And look , I think , in some way , I ’ ve been debating several people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The New York Times piece came out , as well as previously , because of my work .
I wish , actually , sometimes that people would be honest and upfront and say , “ Look , we actually care about these corporations more than global human life .
We ’ re actually fine with a certain number of usually poor people dying for a lack of access to these vaccines , as long as the companies and the industry that makes them survives.
” I ’ d be willing to listen to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be honest .
What happens instead is that the arguments that are advanced are , A , that it ’ s not a problem .
To say that it ’ s not a problem ignores 20 years of human history , where millions of people died because of lack of access to monopoly drugs for AIDS , and then did so again for lack of access to drugs for cancer , and then did so again for lack of access to hepatitis C drugs , and , by the way , are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lack of access to insulin , which is , again , patented , for lack of access to PrEP for AIDS , or for a lack of access to cystic fibrosis drugs in the U.K .
So , it ’ s to deny reality .
But the logic that ’ s advanced is that the innovation system requires these monopolies to exist in order to reward private pharmaceutical corporations for taking big risks with private money — except for the fact that that ’ s not what ’ s happening here .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s never happened as starkly as it is not happening in the pandemic .
Moderna , which is just one of the vaccines that posted successful results a couple of weeks ago , has admitted , by its own — in its own financial reports , that 100 % of its vaccine development project was funded by BARDA , by Warp Speed and the U.S. government , U.S. taxpayer money .
On top of that , it ’ s been given preorders of another one-and-a-half billion from the United States and another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a billion , from the European Union .
Every other vaccine , from Pfizer to AstraZeneca , also has substantial government money .
German taxpayer money of up to $ 445 million went into the Pfizer vaccine .
AstraZeneca received huge subsidies through public money from the United Kingdom through its early development at Oxford University .
All of these vaccines have , on top of that , received these very lucrative , very large preorders .
Now , you can ’ t have it all ways .
You can not have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hesitate to say “ subsidy , ” because when it ’ s 100 % of the cost , that ’ s not a subsidy , that ’ s ownership .
You can not have a price like a preorder of $ 6 billion , which is basically what Pfizer has awaiting it on successful completion of its trials and approval , and , on top of that , say , “ But we also need the intellectual property monopoly because of all this private capital we ’ ve risked , ” which doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is very , very strange , but this is the argument that ’ s being advanced , and it doesn ’ t hold water .
I think they understand that , as well .
It ’ s just that this argument has a rich history .
It ’ s embedded in a particular kind of thinking , a particular branch of economics , which they know that they can ride on and , in effect , lie their way through opposing what is really a very sensible and unradical proposal made by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
AMY GOODMAN : So , finally , how exactly — summing up in a minute , if you got around trade secrets , if the companies were forced to release their trade secrets , they didn ’ t get patents on this , how would a people ’ s vaccine work ?
Every company all over could just develop the vaccine where it is ?
What ’ s shocking , President Trump signs some executive order , not clear how enforceable it is , called “ America First.
” We have learned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not , if someone is sick somewhere in the world , you are in danger .
So , this is — everyone is in this together .
But what would a people ’ s vaccine — how would it happen ?
ACHAL PRABHALA : What it requires is , firstly , for companies to say , “ There are two aspects of our monopoly that we ’ ll give up .
We will share with you our patents , and we ’ ll share with you our trade secrets.
” Trade secrets are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s required to make a vaccine .
It ’ s a very important part of the process .
If they were to say , “ Look , we ’ ll license this to any company with a reputation and a quality certification that ’ s willing to make this vaccine with us , ” then let ’ s open it up , and let ’ s have anyone interested do it .
And if they did that , they would suddenly find that there are whole avenues of supply that open up around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccine manufacturers in India , but there are also eight vaccine manufacturers on the continent of Africa .
And there are a number of ways in which you can do this collaboratively .
The one way not to do it is the way that they are , by producing these artificially limited quantities of these vaccines by sort of keeping it all to themselves .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And I wanted to ask Dr. Kamal-Yanni again about the situation with — the Trump administration had removed the United States from the World Health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he will return the U.S. to the WHO .
What do you think has been the impact of the United States pulling out of the WHO in the midst of this pandemic ?
DR. MOHGA KAMAL-YANNI : Well , I mean , what do you say about such an amazing , really incredible , irresponsible , I ’ m afraid , decision in the middle of a pandemic to do that ?
I mean , it ’ s a strange decision even if we ’ re not in a pandemic .
So what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the middle of it ?
It ’ s really , really not very good .
My dream , to be honest , as a non-American , about your election , is to retain two things : one , the American role in advancing global health , and particularly in joining the WHO , and also , you know , putting science before politics .
This has been also very , very problematic from the U.S .
It really affected not just decision makers in other countries , but also ordinary people .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , really bad .
So , we do hope that the new administration — I mean , they made commitment — Biden made a commitment to join the WHO .
That is fantastic .
The sooner , the better , you know ?
That would be great , but also for the U.S. to join something like or to voice public support for something like this technology access pool that WHO and other countries co-sponsored to do the facilitation of licensing intellectual property and — so , managing intellectual property — you know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facilitating technology transfer to other companies .
So , supporting the C-TAP would be absolutely fantastic .
For the U.S. new administration , I mean , it ’ s not in — it wouldn ’ t catch that December meeting that my colleague was talking about , but , in general , playing a positive role in the WTO in putting public health before profit .
And we ’ re not saying companies don ’ t make profit .
We ’ re not saying that at all .
But we ’ re saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which is , by the way , something that all the World Trade Organization members agreed on in Doha in 2001 .
So , it — AMY GOODMAN : Dr. Mohga Kamal — we want to thank so much for being with us , Dr. Mohga Kamal-Yanni , People ’ s Vaccine Alliance and UNAIDS .
And thank you to Achal Prabhala , the AccessIBSA project , co-authored New York Times headlined piece , that we will link to , “ Want Vaccines Fast ?
Suspend Intellectual Property Rights.
” He ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the doctor is speaking to us from Oxford , England .
When we come back , we look at why former jurors and even a prosecutor are speaking out against the federal execution of an African American man , Brandon Bernard , scheduled to die Thursday — on International Human Rights Day .
Stay with us .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: President-elect Joe Biden pledged Tuesday to distribute 100 million vaccine shots in the first 100 days of his administration. Biden’s vow came on the same day Britain began a mass vaccination program using a vaccine developed by Pfizer-BioNTech. The vaccine is expected to be soon approved in the United States, as well, as early as tomorrow.
On Tuesday, President Trump held what he called a vaccine summit at the White House. Trump claimed COVID deaths and hospitalizations would quickly decrease, but the White House Coronavirus Task Force is warning the spread of COVID would not be reduced until the spring, based on current vaccination plans. A report by the task force obtained by CNN states, quote, “The current vaccine implementation will not substantially reduce viral spread, hospitalizations, or fatalities until the 100 million Americans with comorbidities can be fully immunized, which will take until the late spring,” unquote.
Meanwhile, a new report finds as many as nine out of 10 people in dozens of poorer countries could miss out on the coronavirus vaccine until at least 2022, because wealthy countries, including the United States, have hoarded enough doses to vaccinate their entire populations nearly three times over. The report was issued by the People’s Vaccine Alliance, which includes Amnesty International, Frontline AIDS, Global Justice Now and Oxfam.
This is Winifred Byanyima, executive director of UNAIDS, in a video produced by the People’s Vaccine Alliance.
WINIFRED BYANYIMA: Huge pharmaceutical companies are keeping the vaccine research a secret. They’re deciding how many vaccines get made, how much to charge for them, and who gets vaccinated. This will no doubt leave billions of people behind. Pharma companies are putting profit, not people, first. Yet billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money is funding their work. We cannot let the CEOs of a handful of pharmaceutical companies decide our future. We need a vaccine that everyone can have free of charge, no matter where you live or whether you are rich or you’re poor. We need companies to share all their research so we can make enough safe vaccines for everyone. We need a vaccine owned by all of us. To end this COVID-19 pandemic, we need to pull together once more.
AMY GOODMAN: That was the UNAIDS executive director, part of the People’s Vaccine Alliance. The World Health Organization has also warned about the inequitable distribution of the vaccine. This is WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.
TEDROS ADHANOM GHEBREYESUS: We simply cannot accept a world in which the poor and marginalized are trampled by the rich and powerful in the stampede for vaccines. This is a global crisis, and the solutions must be shared equitably as global public goods, not as private commodities that widen inequalities.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re joined right now by two guests. In Oxford, England, Dr. Mohga Kamal-Yanni. She is policy adviser to the People’s Vaccine Alliance and to UNAIDS, the joint U.N. program on HIV and AIDS. She has worked for decades on access to medicines and healthcare in developing countries.
And in Bangalore, India, Achal Prabhala is with us, coordinator of the AccessIBSA project, which campaigns for access to medicines in India, Brazil and South Africa. He recently co-authored an op-ed published in The New York Times headlined “Want Vaccines Fast? Suspend Intellectual Property Rights.” We’re going to begin with the doctor, Dr. Mohga Kamal-Yanni.
You’re in Oxford, actually, where one of those vaccine tests has began, and that is AstraZeneca-Oxford. But start off by talking about what is a people’s vaccine and what are the inequities right now. Who will get this vaccine, what countries, and what countries won’t?
DR. MOHGA KAMAL-YANNI: Well, the People’s Vaccine is a coalition of organizations like Amnesty, Frontline AIDS, Global Justice, Oxfam. It’s co-led by Oxfam and UNAIDS. And it has so many people, you know, academics, health activists, health experts, NGOs, patient groups, from all over the world, united for one aim, which has a people’s vaccine, not a profit vaccine. So we want a vaccine — basically, we’re calling for vaccination that is available for all people at risk, and then for everybody once we have enough doses, but not the way it’s happening now, where if you happen to be born in a rich country, you get the vaccine; if you happen to be born in a poor country, you don’t.
And yesterday in the U.K., they started vaccinating older people, and there was some clapping. And, you know, it was a lot of joy. And, of course, it’s brilliant, you know, that there is hope that this problem that we’re all suffering from will be — you know, there’s a light at the end of the tunnel. However, that joy is only limited to people living here. I’ve got friends and relatives and people that I work with in other countries, in developing countries, who are saying, “Yeah, and what about us?” And yeah, what about them?
So, this is really a big problem. There’s just so many — it’s kind of dividing the world between those who have and can pay and those who don’t and can’t pay, and, therefore, well, you can stand in the back on the queue; we don’t know when you can get the vaccine. And that is just not right. It’s not right on moral grounds. It’s not right on public health grounds, because everybody is saying, “Nobody is safe until everybody is safe.” Yeah, OK. How do you make everybody safe? So, a vaccine nationalism will not get you to everybody safe.
And also, on economic ground, you’re not going to get the economy growing, if just one — or back to normal, if one country vaccinate its population and the rest of the world isn’t. You can’t trade with people who are sick or people who have a high level of infections. So, you know, it just doesn’t make sense at all.
The other important point is that this is not kind of fact of life that, oh, we have limited amount of vaccines. Actually, that’s not the case. There are other options that will enable the world to produce more vaccines, and therefore vaccinate more people. So, basically, what’s happening now, if you can imagine that we have a small pie — so that’s one vaccine, a small pie. And so, basically, the rich can have the bigger share of it, and then we’ll have just crumbs left for developing countries. Well, the idea is that: Well, why don’t we increase supply so everybody can have a decent share of it, rather than fighting on a little one?
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Dr. Kamal-Yanni, I wanted to ask you about the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine and how access to that vaccine may be more equitable at this stage. Could you talk about some of the agreements that the AstraZeneca has reached with the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance?
DR. MOHGA KAMAL-YANNI: Well, basically, I mean, this vaccine has been developed by Oxford University. Oxford University has a standard on managing intellectual property. And it actually talks about open license. However, when they did the deal or the contract with AstraZeneca, it became exclusive license for AstraZeneca. But they managed to put some conditions in the contract about making the vaccine accessible to developing countries.
So, AstraZeneca went to one of the big vaccine producers in India, the Serum Institute, and made an agreement to produce 1 billion doses, so that’s vaccinating 500 million people. Half of them will be in India. So, it’s a good way — you know, good start to make more vaccines available. They also — AstraZeneca also has some agreements with other countries, like with Argentina and Brazil, so that may cover a number of people in Latin America. But what about the rest of the population? There are some other deals with countries, but not production as such.
You know, you can’t leave — you know, so, AstraZeneca, compared to others, yes, they’ve done good things and also fixing the price as — well, AstraZeneca said $4 per dose, and Serum said $3 per dose. For developing countries, it will be probably $3 per dose, so $6 per course or per person. But the thing is, you can’t leave — this is the whole — you can’t leave the decision on supply, price, which country, which patient, to companies. That’s not their job. Their job is to produce. And the job of governments is to make more production, so you have to enable other producers. Like in India, there’s other producers. Other countries would have other producers.
So, if you allow technology transfer, so sharing technology — which the technology, by the way, a lot of it has been developed by public money, including from the U.S. and the U.K. and Europe and other countries. So, allowing the sharing of technology and removing the intellectual property barrier, so no patents on vaccines, then other companies can produce the vaccine, and we have more. And just like AstraZeneca did this contract with Serum, that includes, presumably, technology transfer, or some technology transfer, that can be done on a multilateral level, on a bigger level for more companies. Because all these deals, by the way, they’re all secret. You don’t know what’s in it except what they announce, rather than if you have a multilateral agreement, you don’t — you know, the negotiation happens in closed doors, but then, once they agree a license, then it’s public. Then you see what’s good and what’s bad about it.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And what about the whole issue that many developing countries are relying on the possibility of an effective vaccine coming from China? And China, obviously, is in last-stage clinical trials for several vaccines. The potential for China being the one that supplies the bulk of the vaccines to the majority of the people of the planet, what that would mean in terms of international relations in the future?
DR. MOHGA KAMAL-YANNI: Well, I mean, China has four vaccines in clinical trials phase 3. Actually, the Emirates today announced that one of these vaccines passed clinical trials, and they authorized it to work in their country. They were convinced with the safety and efficacy of the clinical trials. So, yes, if developing countries have nothing coming, you know, they can’t just sit — and I heard from a number of countries: “We’re not going to sit and wait.” So they are talking to companies in Europe and in America, but they’re also talking to companies in China. And the king of Morocco said that he’s going to vaccinate his people, and they’re aiming at vaccinating 80% of the population. And again, they have an agreement with a Chinese company. You know, that put the pressure on ensuring that these vaccines have high efficacy and high safety level, or, you know, at least acceptable safety level.
And the thing is, we need that all clinical trials get published, whether that’s from China or Pfizer or Moderna. It’s no good that companies announce their results in a press release to investors, so they have more — you know, their share value and their market value increase, but scientists, who are waiting, who understand these things, cannot investigate or review the results because there’s nothing published for them. So, we need more of transparency on that, including the Chinese, so that countries are aware of what they’re buying.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to bring Achal Prabhala into the conversation, again, coordinator of AccessIBSA project, which campaigns to access medicines for India, Brazil, South Africa. This piece you recently wrote in The New York Times, “Want Vaccines Fast? Suspend Intellectual Property Rights.” You’re joining us from Bangalore, India. Can you talk about what that would mean, if you suspended intellectual property rights? Talk about trade secrets. Talk about patents. Talk about government subsidies of these private companies. And how does what’s happening now, the development of this vaccine, compare to people’s access, for example, to the flu vaccine, how that was developed and financed?
ACHAL PRABHALA: Thank you, Amy, firstly. It’s great to be here. And thank you for having me.
The piece that we wrote in The New York Times was geared around an event that’s unfolding this week and the next. It doesn’t look like it will get resolved anytime soon or successfully, but that event is a proposal that South Africa and India made at the WTO, at the World Trade Organization, to temporarily suspend a trade rule called TRIPS, which is an agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property, the supergovernance of intellectual property worldwide, which the WTO takes up. And the reason India and South Africa suggested that all member countries of the WTO should be exempted from provisions of TRIPS is so that everything that we require to survive the pandemic — the masks, the test kits, but now especially the vaccines — should be free to be made in as much capacity as possible to get them faster and cheaper to as many people as we can around the world.
There is an overwhelming support from developing countries for this proposal, but the WTO works on consensus, which means that even if five or six very rich countries oppose the proposal, it actually won’t pass. And that’s exactly what’s happening. The U.S., the EU, the U.K. and a few other rich countries, as well as, inexplicably, Brazil, have opposed this proposal and are stalling it, which means that it’s unlikely to go through without a fight.
Now, the irony of the fight having to take place this week is there’s really good news out of the U.K. There’s also really good news out of science. And personally for me, sitting in India, I wish I could share in that good news with the same spirit of cheer and celebration. I saw a moving interview with a 91-year-old called Martin Kenyon in London, who called his hospital, said, “Hey, I heard you had vaccines.” They said, “Yes, come on over and get one.” He walked over, and he got a Pfizer vaccine, the first dose of a Pfizer vaccine. And he’s looking forward to hugging his grandchildren this Christmas. And it’s a beautiful, touching story.
The problem with that is, that Pfizer vaccine, over 90% of its supplies, until the end of 2021 — so that means for the next 13 months — have been sold out to a handful of rich countries, to the U.S., to the EU and to the U.K. There’s actually no way that anyone in India or anyone anywhere outside these rich countries is going to get their hands on one of these vaccines for love or for money. They just don’t exist outside of very few number of rich countries.
That’s kind of amazing to live through in 2020. I’ve been campaigning for access to medicines for a long time. But my father had COVID. He’s 87 years old. My mother is 72 years old. I definitely would like them to have a vaccine and get one fairly quickly. The prospect of these vaccines being unrolled without any possibility of a majority of the world getting them is genuinely heartbreaking. And that’s the anger that partly prompted that piece.
The irony, of course, is that this is such a dramatically different situation from the 1950s when the flu [sic] vaccine was developed by Jonas Salk, who, of course, famously said, when asked by Ed Morrow about whether he was going to patent his invention — he said, “Hahaha, can you patent the sun?” And it’s a heartbreak — it’s a beautiful — it’s a beautiful moment. It’s a really beautiful moment. And —
AMY GOODMAN: And that was about the polio vaccine.
ACHAL PRABHALA: I’m sorry, that was about the polio vaccine. That’s exactly right. And that’s about the polio vaccine.
The tradition of Jonas Salk, however, does continue with the flu vaccine that we all take. That flu vaccine is developed at a unit of the WHO, which it’s called informally the Flu Network, and formally the Global Influenza Surveillance and Research Systems. It’s a collaborative infrastructure that they’ve set up at the WHO that involves 110 different countries, 130 different laboratories, which pool information on what strains of influenza are circulating in their countries. That information is collated. And every year, for two different flu seasons, in the Northern Hemisphere and the Southern Hemisphere, the WHO then releases what would be called the formula for the flu vaccine, which then anyone anywhere can produce, because it’s completely free of any proprietary intellectual property or monopoly, which means that billions of people have taken it since the 1970s based on this cooperative, shared system of pooling knowledge, as well as finances. And that’s created a very robust infrastructure for the production and consumption of these flu vaccines. And it’s a great success. It’s, unfortunately, exactly the kind of thing that’s not being replicated with the coronavirus vaccines.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Achal Prabhala, I wanted to ask you: In terms of the refusal of these handful of rich countries to allow the suspension of intellectual property rights at the WTO, what is their argument? Given the enormous worldwide crisis that we’re functioning, how do they defend this? And what could possibly be done to overcome this resistance?
ACHAL PRABHALA: Juan, that’s an excellent question. And look, I think, in some way, I’ve been debating several people on this just this week, after The New York Times piece came out, as well as previously, because of my work. I wish, actually, sometimes that people would just be honest and upfront and say, “Look, we actually care about these corporations more than global human life. We’re actually fine with a certain number of usually poor people dying for a lack of access to these vaccines, as long as the companies and the industry that makes them survives.” I’d be willing to listen to that argument, because it at least would be honest.
What happens instead is that the arguments that are advanced are, A, that it’s not a problem. To say that it’s not a problem ignores 20 years of human history, where millions of people died because of lack of access to monopoly drugs for AIDS, and then did so again for lack of access to drugs for cancer, and then did so again for lack of access to hepatitis C drugs, and, by the way, are doing today in the United States for lack of access to insulin, which is, again, patented, for lack of access to PrEP for AIDS, or for a lack of access to cystic fibrosis drugs in the U.K. So, it’s to deny reality.
But the logic that’s advanced is that the innovation system requires these monopolies to exist in order to reward private pharmaceutical corporations for taking big risks with private money — except for the fact that that’s not what’s happening here. It’s never happened, but it’s never happened as starkly as it is not happening in the pandemic. Moderna, which is just one of the vaccines that posted successful results a couple of weeks ago, has admitted, by its own — in its own financial reports, that 100% of its vaccine development project was funded by BARDA, by Warp Speed and the U.S. government, U.S. taxpayer money. On top of that, it’s been given preorders of another one-and-a-half billion from the United States and another substantial amount of money, nearing about a billion, from the European Union. Every other vaccine, from Pfizer to AstraZeneca, also has substantial government money. German taxpayer money of up to $445 million went into the Pfizer vaccine. AstraZeneca received huge subsidies through public money from the United Kingdom through its early development at Oxford University. All of these vaccines have, on top of that, received these very lucrative, very large preorders.
Now, you can’t have it all ways. You cannot have a vaccine project literally contracted out — I hesitate to say “subsidy,” because when it’s 100% of the cost, that’s not a subsidy, that’s ownership. You cannot have a price like a preorder of $6 billion, which is basically what Pfizer has awaiting it on successful completion of its trials and approval, and, on top of that, say, “But we also need the intellectual property monopoly because of all this private capital we’ve risked,” which doesn’t seem to actually exist. It is very, very strange, but this is the argument that’s being advanced, and it doesn’t hold water. I think they understand that, as well. It’s just that this argument has a rich history. It’s embedded in a particular kind of thinking, a particular branch of economics, which they know that they can ride on and, in effect, lie their way through opposing what is really a very sensible and unradical proposal made by South Africa and India at the WTO.
AMY GOODMAN: So, finally, how exactly — summing up in a minute, if you got around trade secrets, if the companies were forced to release their trade secrets, they didn’t get patents on this, how would a people’s vaccine work? Every company all over could just develop the vaccine where it is? What’s shocking, President Trump signs some executive order, not clear how enforceable it is, called “America First.” We have learned, if you’re altruistic or not, if someone is sick somewhere in the world, you are in danger. So, this is — everyone is in this together. But what would a people’s vaccine — how would it happen?
ACHAL PRABHALA: What it requires is, firstly, for companies to say, “There are two aspects of our monopoly that we’ll give up. We will share with you our patents, and we’ll share with you our trade secrets.” Trade secrets are the know-how and the technology that’s required to make a vaccine. It’s a very important part of the process. If they were to say, “Look, we’ll license this to any company with a reputation and a quality certification that’s willing to make this vaccine with us,” then let’s open it up, and let’s have anyone interested do it. And if they did that, they would suddenly find that there are whole avenues of supply that open up around the world. There are over 20 vaccine manufacturers in India, but there are also eight vaccine manufacturers on the continent of Africa. And there are a number of ways in which you can do this collaboratively. The one way not to do it is the way that they are, by producing these artificially limited quantities of these vaccines by sort of keeping it all to themselves.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And I wanted to ask Dr. Kamal-Yanni again about the situation with — the Trump administration had removed the United States from the World Health Organization. President-elect Biden is now saying he will return the U.S. to the WHO. What do you think has been the impact of the United States pulling out of the WHO in the midst of this pandemic?
DR. MOHGA KAMAL-YANNI: Well, I mean, what do you say about such an amazing, really incredible, irresponsible, I’m afraid, decision in the middle of a pandemic to do that? I mean, it’s a strange decision even if we’re not in a pandemic. So what do you think if we are in the middle of it? It’s really, really not very good.
My dream, to be honest, as a non-American, about your election, is to retain two things: one, the American role in advancing global health, and particularly in joining the WHO, and also, you know, putting science before politics. This has been also very, very problematic from the U.S. It really affected not just decision makers in other countries, but also ordinary people. This ignoring the science behind COVID was really, really bad.
So, we do hope that the new administration — I mean, they made commitment — Biden made a commitment to join the WHO. That is fantastic. The sooner, the better, you know? That would be great, but also for the U.S. to join something like or to voice public support for something like this technology access pool that WHO and other countries co-sponsored to do the facilitation of licensing intellectual property and — so, managing intellectual property — you know, your previous question — but also facilitating technology transfer to other companies. So, supporting the C-TAP would be absolutely fantastic.
For the U.S. new administration, I mean, it’s not in — it wouldn’t catch that December meeting that my colleague was talking about, but, in general, playing a positive role in the WTO in putting public health before profit. And we’re not saying companies don’t make profit. We’re not saying that at all. But we’re saying that public health comes before profit, which is, by the way, something that all the World Trade Organization members agreed on in Doha in 2001. So, it —
AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Mohga Kamal — we want to thank so much for being with us, Dr. Mohga Kamal-Yanni, People’s Vaccine Alliance and UNAIDS. And thank you to Achal Prabhala, the AccessIBSA project, co-authored New York Times headlined piece, that we will link to, “Want Vaccines Fast? Suspend Intellectual Property Rights.” He’s speaking to us from Bangalore, and the doctor is speaking to us from Oxford, England.
When we come back, we look at why former jurors and even a prosecutor are speaking out against the federal execution of an African American man, Brandon Bernard, scheduled to die Thursday — on International Human Rights Day. Stay with us.


democracynow--2020-12-09--Headlines for December  9, 2020

Headlines for December  9, 2020

In these times of COVID-19 , climate chaos and elections , independent news is more important than ever .
You @ @ @ @ @ because you trust that when we 're reporting on the pandemic or the uprisings against @ @ @ @ @ coverage is not brought to you by the fossil fuel , insurance or weapons industries @ @ @ @ @ count on YOU to make our work possible .
If everyone who visits our website @ @ @ @ @ we could cover our operating costs for 2021 .
Really—that ’ s all it would @ @ @ @ @ generous supporter will TRIPLE your donation to Democracy Now !
, meaning your gift will @ @ @ @ @ .
This is a challenging time for us all , but if you 're able @ @ @ @ @ please do so today .
Stay safe , wear a mask and thank you so @ @ @ @

The U.S. recorded over 2,500 deaths and over 215,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases yesterday. As the average number of daily cases has sailed past 200,000, health experts say the first signs of spikes related to Thanksgiving travel are starting to emerge. Cases have risen over the last week in 38 states and the District of Columbia.
On Tuesday, President-elect Joe Biden officially introduced his coronavirus response team and outlined his goals for tackling the pandemic when he takes office.


democracynow--2020-12-10--Ethiopia's PM Won the Nobel Peace Prize A Year Ago; Now He Is Leading Nation Into Possible Civil War

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
The Quarantine Report .
I ’ m Amy Goodman , with Nermeen Shaikh .
A year ago today , the Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for ending the two-decade “ state of war ” between Ethiopia and Eritrea , with many hailing a new era of peace in the region .
We turn now to look at how , just one year later , Abiy Ahmed ’ s military has displaced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ongoing military campaign in the northern Tigray region .
Thousands have died since Ethiopia declared war on the Tigray People ’ s Liberation Front more than a month ago .
At least one massacre has been reported .
Earlier this week , Ethiopia rejected calls for an independent investigation into the violence , with a top government official saying Ethiopia , quote , “ doesn ’ t need a babysitter.
” This comes amidst a communication blackout and as Ethiopia admitted federal troops fired at and detained U.N. workers in the northern Tigray @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say are forbidden .
On Wednesday , U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet spoke out about the conflict , describing , quote , “ gross human rights violations.
” AMY GOODMAN : Well , for more , we go to London , where we ’ re joined by Awol Allo , associate professor at Keele University School of Law in the United Kingdom , global fellow at Princeton University .
In 2019 , he nominated Abiy Ahmed for the Nobel Peace Prize .
His recent piece in Al Jazeera is headlined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nationalism led to civil war.
” Welcome to Democracy Now !
It ’ s great to have you with us .
You have changed your views in this last year of the man you nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize , who won it last year .
Can you talk about the situation ?
The New York Times headline today on the front page says , “ 'Finish Him ! '
Ethiopians on the Run Describe Ethnic Slaughter.
” Talk about what ’ s happening .
AWOL ALLO : Yeah , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the last two years moved from a moment of a very high degree of hope and optimism , a vision of transformation , into a total civil war that threatened to destabilize not only the country but also the broader Horn of Africa region .
I think a number of people who saw the way in which things were changing in Ethiopia when the prime minister came into power had exactly the same views that I had , that this was a very transformational figure who is committed to the ideas of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because he consistently talked about these ideas .
He mobilized them , you know , in literally every speech that he gave in the first two months of coming to office .
And the , I think , commitment that he made to strike a deal of some sort with Eritrea to end the war at that time , most of us thought that that was a very bold and revolutionary move that deserved recognition of some sort .
But obviously , there were , I think — with the benefit of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there was a lot that we didn ’ t know .
There was a lot that I think the prime minister himself wasn ’ t quite clear about in terms of some of the structural challenges and uncertainties facing in the country .
And I think the fact that an ideological and political difference between himself and his regime and the Tigray People ’ s Liberation Front led to this war , I think , shows that it wasn ’ t clear whether the prime minister actually had as a principle a policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a means of settling political dispute .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : Awol Allo , could you talk — could you give us some historical context for this conflict ?
I mean , the TPLF , the Tigray People ’ s Liberation Front , they dominated for decades the ruling coalition in Ethiopia .
They constitute only 6 % of the population .
What is the source and origin of the conflict between the Abiy central government and the Tigray people ?
AWOL ALLO : So , the difference between the two is primarily political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a struggle over power from the moment when the prime minister came to office .
And then that difference , over the course of time , evolved into an ideological difference .
So , when the prime minister came to power on the back of the Oromo protest movement that catapulted him to the office of the prime minister , that meant that the hegemony that the ethnic Tigrayans or TPLF had in Ethiopian politics came to an end .
And TPLF wasn ’ t particularly happy with the way in which the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , removed some officials of TPLF from power , particularly the fact that the federal government wanted some key members of TPLF to be held accountable for crimes of the past .
So , those political differences over the course of time evolved into an ideological difference .
And this is something that most of us didn ’ t know quite clearly , in the sense that the prime minister , when he came to power , he seemed to be someone who believed in the kind of multinational federal arrangements that existed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which was a kind of affirmative action system put into place to redress the inequities of the past .
But as time progressed , as he consolidated more and more power , he signaled an intention to centralize power , to move towards a more unitary kind of system , where regional governments , regional states , would have less and less authority compared to the center .
Now , TPLF , having been pushed from the center and now at the regional level , they wanted regional autonomy .
So , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the TPLF an ideological kind of path , in terms of taking on the federal government , because that is something that is supported by the vast majority of Ethiopia ’ s people in the south , particularly the Oromos .
So , that is where the conflict between the two took on an ideological form .
And then , over the course of time , the prime minister dissolved the then-ruling coalition , creating his own party .
The coalition that he dissolved is a coalition that is constituted of four ethnic-based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in place of that coalition is what — you may call it pan-Ethiopian party , that does not have an ethnic distinction within it .
But it ’ s the party , at the same time , that is incompatible with some of the predominant mode of political organizing and mobilization that existed in the country , so so many people raised questions as to the viability of that kind of structure , at least especially its ability to win a democratic election .
So , when the prime minister established that new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party , and then the prime minister removed a few individuals who were part of his Cabinet from TPLF from the Cabinet .
And then the prime minister , some months later , decided to postpone the election .
When the election was postponed , TPLF said they will go ahead and hold the election , because it ’ s constitutionally mandated .
The federal government withdrew recognition from the Tigray Liberation Front as a government of the Tigray region .
And then the Tigray regional government also declared that it would not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So you can see how those differences , over political and ideological differences , led to a series of events , ultimately leading to a military confrontation .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : And , Awol , right now , of course , we ’ re in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic .
Could you talk about what the effect of the ongoing conflict has been on the healthcare system in the Tigray region , and of course the fact that the highest-profile Tigrayan abroad is the present head of the World Health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been accused by Ethiopia ’ s military chief of siding with the Tigray region ?
AWOL ALLO : I think , fortunately , the pandemic doesn ’ t seem to be having the same level of impact that it is having here in the Western part of the world .
Maybe because this has to do with data issues , and this is a broader debate as to why the pandemic is not having the same impact in Africa as it is in the Northern Hemisphere , but the pandemic itself is really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the public domain .
But the fact that this war has been prosecuted in the midst of a complete information blackout , and the fact that the hospitals and health centers in the Tigray regional states have not received any supplies and have been running out of emergency supplies , I think that is certainly having a considerable impact on the ability of health providers to provide care for those who are badly in need .
And that is a view that is being expressed by humanitarian agencies working specifically on healthcare issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — AMY GOODMAN : Awol Allo , we ’ re going to have to leave it there , but we will certainly continue to follow the situation .
Awol Allo , associate professor at Keele University School of Law , speaking to us from London .
This is Democracy Now !
I ’ m Amy Goodman , with Nermeen Shaikh .
Be safe .
Wear a mask .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! The Quarantine Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh.
A year ago today, the Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for ending the two-decade “state of war” between Ethiopia and Eritrea, with many hailing a new era of peace in the region.
We turn now to look at how, just one year later, Abiy Ahmed’s military has displaced tens of thousands of civilians in the ongoing military campaign in the northern Tigray region. Thousands have died since Ethiopia declared war on the Tigray People’s Liberation Front more than a month ago. At least one massacre has been reported.
Earlier this week, Ethiopia rejected calls for an independent investigation into the violence, with a top government official saying Ethiopia, quote, “doesn’t need a babysitter.” This comes amidst a communication blackout and as Ethiopia admitted federal troops fired at and detained U.N. workers in the northern Tigray region for attempting to enter areas they say are forbidden.
On Wednesday, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet spoke out about the conflict, describing, quote, “gross human rights violations.”
MICHELLE BACHELET: The situation in Ethiopia is — I think, is really worrying and volatile. And as I had warned, it’s spiraling out of control with appalling impact on civilians. … In the Tigray region itself, fighting is reportedly continuing, in spite of government claims to the contrary. … Elsewhere in Ethiopia, there are numerous reports of ethnic profiling of Tigrayans, including in Addis. We have reports of dismissal from jobs, including in the civil service, harassment of Tigrayan journalists and hate speech against Tigrayans.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, for more, we go to London, where we’re joined by Awol Allo, associate professor at Keele University School of Law in the United Kingdom, global fellow at Princeton University. In 2019, he nominated Abiy Ahmed for the Nobel Peace Prize. His recent piece in Al Jazeera is headlined “How Abiy Ahmed’s Ethiopia-first nationalism led to civil war.”
Welcome to Democracy Now! It’s great to have you with us. You have changed your views in this last year of the man you nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, who won it last year. Can you talk about the situation? The New York Times headline today on the front page says, “'Finish Him!' Ethiopians on the Run Describe Ethnic Slaughter.” Talk about what’s happening.
AWOL ALLO: Yeah, it’s unfortunate that Ethiopia over the course of the last two years moved from a moment of a very high degree of hope and optimism, a vision of transformation, into a total civil war that threatened to destabilize not only the country but also the broader Horn of Africa region.
I think a number of people who saw the way in which things were changing in Ethiopia when the prime minister came into power had exactly the same views that I had, that this was a very transformational figure who is committed to the ideas of peace, of reconciliation, of justice, because he consistently talked about these ideas. He mobilized them, you know, in literally every speech that he gave in the first two months of coming to office. And the, I think, commitment that he made to strike a deal of some sort with Eritrea to end the war at that time, most of us thought that that was a very bold and revolutionary move that deserved recognition of some sort.
But obviously, there were, I think — with the benefit of the hindsight, we can say that there was a lot that we didn’t know. There was a lot that I think the prime minister himself wasn’t quite clear about in terms of some of the structural challenges and uncertainties facing in the country. And I think the fact that an ideological and political difference between himself and his regime and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front led to this war, I think, shows that it wasn’t clear whether the prime minister actually had as a principle a policy of ruling out war and violence as a means of settling political dispute.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Awol Allo, could you talk — could you give us some historical context for this conflict? I mean, the TPLF, the Tigray People’s Liberation Front, they dominated for decades the ruling coalition in Ethiopia. They constitute only 6% of the population. What is the source and origin of the conflict between the Abiy central government and the Tigray people?
AWOL ALLO: So, the difference between the two is primarily political, in the sense that there was a struggle over power from the moment when the prime minister came to office. And then that difference, over the course of time, evolved into an ideological difference.
So, when the prime minister came to power on the back of the Oromo protest movement that catapulted him to the office of the prime minister, that meant that the hegemony that the ethnic Tigrayans or TPLF had in Ethiopian politics came to an end. And TPLF wasn’t particularly happy with the way in which the prime minister changed some of the things, removed some officials of TPLF from power, particularly the fact that the federal government wanted some key members of TPLF to be held accountable for crimes of the past. So, those political differences over the course of time evolved into an ideological difference.
And this is something that most of us didn’t know quite clearly, in the sense that the prime minister, when he came to power, he seemed to be someone who believed in the kind of multinational federal arrangements that existed at the time in the country, which was a kind of affirmative action system put into place to redress the inequities of the past. But as time progressed, as he consolidated more and more power, he signaled an intention to centralize power, to move towards a more unitary kind of system, where regional governments, regional states, would have less and less authority compared to the center.
Now, TPLF, having been pushed from the center and now at the regional level, they wanted regional autonomy. So, the fact their regional autonomy is threatened gave the TPLF an ideological kind of path, in terms of taking on the federal government, because that is something that is supported by the vast majority of Ethiopia’s people in the south, particularly the Oromos. So, that is where the conflict between the two took on an ideological form.
And then, over the course of time, the prime minister dissolved the then-ruling coalition, creating his own party. The coalition that he dissolved is a coalition that is constituted of four ethnic-based parties. The party that he established in place of that coalition is what — you may call it pan-Ethiopian party, that does not have an ethnic distinction within it. But it’s the party, at the same time, that is incompatible with some of the predominant mode of political organizing and mobilization that existed in the country, so so many people raised questions as to the viability of that kind of structure, at least especially its ability to win a democratic election. So, when the prime minister established that new party, TPLF refused to join that party, and then the prime minister removed a few individuals who were part of his Cabinet from TPLF from the Cabinet.
And then the prime minister, some months later, decided to postpone the election. When the election was postponed, TPLF said they will go ahead and hold the election, because it’s constitutionally mandated. The federal government withdrew recognition from the Tigray Liberation Front as a government of the Tigray region. And then the Tigray regional government also declared that it would not recognize the legitimacy of the federal government. So you can see how those differences, over political and ideological differences, led to a series of events, ultimately leading to a military confrontation.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Awol, right now, of course, we’re in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. Could you talk about what the effect of the ongoing conflict has been on the healthcare system in the Tigray region, and of course the fact that the highest-profile Tigrayan abroad is the present head of the World Health Organization, Dr. Tedros, who has been accused by Ethiopia’s military chief of siding with the Tigray region?
AWOL ALLO: I think, fortunately, the pandemic doesn’t seem to be having the same level of impact that it is having here in the Western part of the world. Maybe because this has to do with data issues, and this is a broader debate as to why the pandemic is not having the same impact in Africa as it is in the Northern Hemisphere, but the pandemic itself is really not something that is discussed much in the public domain.
But the fact that this war has been prosecuted in the midst of a complete information blackout, and the fact that the hospitals and health centers in the Tigray regional states have not received any supplies and have been running out of emergency supplies, I think that is certainly having a considerable impact on the ability of health providers to provide care for those who are badly in need. And that is a view that is being expressed by humanitarian agencies working specifically on healthcare issues, including the ICRC and United Nations —
AMY GOODMAN: Awol Allo, we’re going to have to leave it there, but we will certainly continue to follow the situation. Awol Allo, associate professor at Keele University School of Law, speaking to us from London. This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh. Be safe. Wear a mask.


democracynow--2020-12-10--Why Biden's Pick of Tom Vilsack for Agriculture Secretary Is a Missed Opportunity for the USDA

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : I wanted to look now , speaking of the United States , at how President-elect Joe Biden ’ s pick to head the U.S. Department of Agriculture , the USDA , could play a major role in that issue of hunger , feeding millions of Americans facing food insecurity during the pandemic , and how the incoming administration responds to the climate crisis .
Ricardo Salvador , you recently co-authored an op-ed in _The New York Times ” headlined “ Goodbye , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Well-Being.
” You wrote this before Biden picked former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack as his secretary of agriculture instead of Ohio Congressmember Marcia Fudge , who he chose to head housing and urban development .
Environmental and civil rights groups had urged Biden to pick Fudge , who ’ s African American , to head the USDA , citing her dedication to preserving its anti-hunger programs , like SNAP — that ’ s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — which makes up about half the budget .
As many as one in four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s food aid programs .
Fudge ’ s supporters included South Carolina Congressman Jim Clyburn , another key backer of Biden during the primaries , who said , quote , “ It ’ s one thing to grow food , but another to dispense it , and nobody would be better at that than Marcia Fudge.
” But Biden chose Vilsack , who became CEO of the U.S .
Dairy Export Council after he left government , a group backed by the dairy industry .
If you , Ricardo Salvador , could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and what has been Vilsack ’ s role ?
I mean , he ran it throughout the Obama two-term tenure .
RICARDO SALVADOR : Yeah .
Well , the first note that I should make is that it ’ s been reported widely in the media that that will be the pick of the administration .
I want to note that there ’ s been no official announcement of that , so that there ’ s still hope that that decision could be influenced .
But to your point , there would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a historical moment .
It isn ’ t just that the pandemic that we ’ ve been discussing has disrupted the food system , as well as other systems across the planet .
It ’ s that we ’ re also in the middle of an attack on democracy around the planet .
It is also that we are living at a time when the public at large is beginning to doubt the foundations of modernity , which is the scientific approach to things .
And also we are at a time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which is connecting the history , the foundations of today ’ s modern economies to exploitation .
And at this historical moment , any change in administration is an opportunity to strike in a new direction .
So , obviously , going back to a secretary of the past is not the way to strike in a new direction .
That is status quo .
And I need to be clear that while I acknowledge that is a very difficult job , and Secretary Vilsack did as good a job as one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was in , the blemishes in his administration have to do with the issues that have to change about the department .
There was manipulation of data in reports that his administration issued purporting that African American farmers had been better served during his administration .
We now know that is not true .
And by the way , the significance of this is that this is a department that has actually had to settle legal lawsuits for billions of dollars , acknowledging that they have actively discriminated against African American , Native @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ranchers .
Who does that leave , that they ’ ve been preferentially serving since being established in 1862 ?
The farming population in the United States is dominantly white .
It ’ s unnaturally white .
It ’ s 96 % white .
And so , in the 21st century , we can ’ t have an institution with the profile of serving preferentially a very small sliver of the entire population .
Its original remit was to be a people ’ s department .
And this was at a time , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , when the majority of the population were rural and when there was a significant number of people that derived their livelihood from farming itself .
So it did make sense that at that time your primary stakeholders would be farmers .
But it ’ s 2021 .
In the United States , nominally 2 million farmers still ply that trade .
We all depend on them .
But the country is 320 million people , and we all have a stake in the food system .
It determines whether we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re susceptible to diseases like the COVID pandemic and so on .
So the stakeholders in USDA are all of us .
That “ A ” doesn ’ t stand for agribusiness , which is the way that secretaries of agriculture normally behave .
And this is a secretary , Mr. Vilsack , whom I respect , but who has come from four years of working for agribusiness , as you just noted .
And so , that ’ s not the profile of somebody that is going to be able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a much broader set of public interests , which you ’ ve listed .
We all have a stake in having physical and economic access to a nourishing system that is equitable not only in terms of who gets to eat , but also in terms of who gets to farm , who gets to participate in the business of food and agriculture .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : And , Ricardo , before we conclude , you point out in that New York Times piece the question of food insecurity in the U.S .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ insecure before the pandemic .
That number has now doubled .
You also say that nearly 75 % of Americans are clinically overweight or obese , making them , of course , more vulnerable to COVID-19 , in addition to other health problems .
So , could you explain the difference between food insecurity and hunger , and what this phenomenon in America , which is , of course , in the U.S. , the richest country in the world — what it reveals about the food system here and the failures of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constituted ?
RICARDO SALVADOR : Yeah .
Clinically , you ’ re suffering from hunger when you have caloric deficiency or some other nutrient deficiency that is affecting your ability to thrive .
It will stunt the growth of children , for instance .
And this is one of the ways in which we actually measure that hunger is occurring .
However , food insecurity is rampant and has just as profound an effect .
We define that as basically the percentage of your time that you spend worrying about where your next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And if you ’ re in that population , then , obviously , this is going to take major mind share , and you will not be able to flourish , because the primary concern is how you ’ re going to be able to meet your nutritional needs , your food needs .
And so , the fact that in a wealthy country like the United States we should have , prior to the pandemic , about 10 % of the population , and now about 20 % of the population , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a national shame .
This situation just should not occur .
Now , what it reveals , in answer to your question , has to do with who these people are .
When you look at who they are , one of the things that you discover is that they are disproportionately what in the United States we call the people of color .
This means other than the descendants of northern Europeans that settled the country a few hundred years ago .
Just to summarize , almost glibly , a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ represents is that the modern structure of the nation — its laws , its government , its business models — were essentially set up for those settlers and their descendants , and everybody else here has a history of either having been here and being displaced or else having been brought here in order to perform brutal menial labor .
And so , some set of the population , over generations , has been having access to land , access to government programs , access to credit , access to the best education @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and another set of the population has experienced exactly the opposite of that , being driven off of land , their ancestors experiencing genocide , people not having access to government programs , to loans , credit , to real estate .
They only get access to second-grade education — or , second-rate education .
And so , therefore , what that means is they are losing wealth across the generations .
So , if you go back to the formula for hunger that I described earlier , this tracks poverty .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States are disproportionately people of color .
The white poverty rate in the United States , again , prior to the pandemic , runs about 9 % .
The poverty rate among people of color in the United States is double of that , at least double of that .
And so , this is where you find primarily the majority of the hungry people in the United States .
It has to do with the history of the nation .
And as I mentioned earlier , we ’ re living at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we need to overcome that history by directly addressing the inequities that make some of us poor , and therefore make some of us especially susceptible to food insecurity and to hunger .
I ’ ll just repeat , these are the results of actual human decisions , decisions to appropriate somebody else ’ s land , to kill people , to drive them into reservations , to enslave people , to make some people who are essential for the food system to work undocumented so that we can exploit them and abuse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we can change and that we must change .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , this is an ongoing conversation .
Ricardo Salvador , thanks so much for being with us , director of the Food and Environment Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists , recently co-authored an op-ed in The New York Times , which we will link to , headlined “ Goodbye , U.S.D.A.
, Hello , Department of Food and Well-Being.
” Up next , our guest says Ethiopia is on the verge of a civil war .
We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Tigray region .
Stay with us .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to look now, speaking of the United States, at how President-elect Joe Biden’s pick to head the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the USDA, could play a major role in that issue of hunger, feeding millions of Americans facing food insecurity during the pandemic, and how the incoming administration responds to the climate crisis.
Ricardo Salvador, you recently co-authored an op-ed in _The New York Times” headlined “Goodbye, U.S.D.A., Hello, Department of Food and Well-Being.” You wrote this before Biden picked former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack as his secretary of agriculture instead of Ohio Congressmember Marcia Fudge, who he chose to head housing and urban development.
Environmental and civil rights groups had urged Biden to pick Fudge, who’s African American, to head the USDA, citing her dedication to preserving its anti-hunger programs, like SNAP — that’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — which makes up about half the budget. As many as one in four Americans use at least one of USDA’s food aid programs. Fudge’s supporters included South Carolina Congressman Jim Clyburn, another key backer of Biden during the primaries, who said, quote, “It’s one thing to grow food, but another to dispense it, and nobody would be better at that than Marcia Fudge.” But Biden chose Vilsack, who became CEO of the U.S. Dairy Export Council after he left government, a group backed by the dairy industry.
If you, Ricardo Salvador, could talk about the significance of the USDA and what has been Vilsack’s role? I mean, he ran it throughout the Obama two-term tenure.
RICARDO SALVADOR: Yeah. Well, the first note that I should make is that it’s been reported widely in the media that that will be the pick of the administration. I want to note that there’s been no official announcement of that, so that there’s still hope that that decision could be influenced.
But to your point, there would be implications of this. We are living in a historical moment. It isn’t just that the pandemic that we’ve been discussing has disrupted the food system, as well as other systems across the planet. It’s that we’re also in the middle of an attack on democracy around the planet. It is also that we are living at a time when the public at large is beginning to doubt the foundations of modernity, which is the scientific approach to things. And also we are at a time where there is a massive racial reckoning, which is connecting the history, the foundations of today’s modern economies to exploitation. And at this historical moment, any change in administration is an opportunity to strike in a new direction. So, obviously, going back to a secretary of the past is not the way to strike in a new direction. That is status quo.
And I need to be clear that while I acknowledge that is a very difficult job, and Secretary Vilsack did as good a job as one could expect during the time that he was in, the blemishes in his administration have to do with the issues that have to change about the department. There was manipulation of data in reports that his administration issued purporting that African American farmers had been better served during his administration. We now know that is not true. And by the way, the significance of this is that this is a department that has actually had to settle legal lawsuits for billions of dollars, acknowledging that they have actively discriminated against African American, Native American, Latinx and women farmers and ranchers. Who does that leave, that they’ve been preferentially serving since being established in 1862? The farming population in the United States is dominantly white. It’s unnaturally white. It’s 96% white.
And so, in the 21st century, we can’t have an institution with the profile of serving preferentially a very small sliver of the entire population. Its original remit was to be a people’s department. And this was at a time, 1862, the date of its founding, when the majority of the population were rural and when there was a significant number of people that derived their livelihood from farming itself. So it did make sense that at that time your primary stakeholders would be farmers. But it’s 2021. In the United States, nominally 2 million farmers still ply that trade. We all depend on them. But the country is 320 million people, and we all have a stake in the food system. It determines whether we’re healthy or not. It determines whether we’re susceptible to diseases like the COVID pandemic and so on.
So the stakeholders in USDA are all of us. That “A” doesn’t stand for agribusiness, which is the way that secretaries of agriculture normally behave. And this is a secretary, Mr. Vilsack, whom I respect, but who has come from four years of working for agribusiness, as you just noted. And so, that’s not the profile of somebody that is going to be able to be independent of agribusiness and serve a much broader set of public interests, which you’ve listed. We all have a stake in having physical and economic access to a nourishing system that is equitable not only in terms of who gets to eat, but also in terms of who gets to farm, who gets to participate in the business of food and agriculture.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Ricardo, before we conclude, you point out in that New York Times piece the question of food insecurity in the U.S. Ten percent of households were already food insecure before the pandemic. That number has now doubled. You also say that nearly 75% of Americans are clinically overweight or obese, making them, of course, more vulnerable to COVID-19, in addition to other health problems. So, could you explain the difference between food insecurity and hunger, and what this phenomenon in America, which is, of course, in the U.S., the richest country in the world — what it reveals about the food system here and the failures of the USDA as it’s been constituted?
RICARDO SALVADOR: Yeah. Clinically, you’re suffering from hunger when you have caloric deficiency or some other nutrient deficiency that is affecting your ability to thrive. It will stunt the growth of children, for instance. And this is one of the ways in which we actually measure that hunger is occurring.
However, food insecurity is rampant and has just as profound an effect. We define that as basically the percentage of your time that you spend worrying about where your next meal is going to come from. And if you’re in that population, then, obviously, this is going to take major mind share, and you will not be able to flourish, because the primary concern is how you’re going to be able to meet your nutritional needs, your food needs.
And so, the fact that in a wealthy country like the United States we should have, prior to the pandemic, about 10% of the population, and now about 20% of the population, that are dealing with food insecurity should be a national shame. This situation just should not occur.
Now, what it reveals, in answer to your question, has to do with who these people are. When you look at who they are, one of the things that you discover is that they are disproportionately what in the United States we call the people of color. This means other than the descendants of northern Europeans that settled the country a few hundred years ago. Just to summarize, almost glibly, a lot of history, what this population distribution represents is that the modern structure of the nation — its laws, its government, its business models — were essentially set up for those settlers and their descendants, and everybody else here has a history of either having been here and being displaced or else having been brought here in order to perform brutal menial labor. And so, some set of the population, over generations, has been having access to land, access to government programs, access to credit, access to the best education and building their wealth and well-being, and another set of the population has experienced exactly the opposite of that, being driven off of land, their ancestors experiencing genocide, people not having access to government programs, to loans, credit, to real estate. They only get access to second-grade education — or, second-rate education. And so, therefore, what that means is they are losing wealth across the generations.
So, if you go back to the formula for hunger that I described earlier, this tracks poverty. And so, the poorer people in the United States are disproportionately people of color. The white poverty rate in the United States, again, prior to the pandemic, runs about 9%. The poverty rate among people of color in the United States is double of that, at least double of that. And so, this is where you find primarily the majority of the hungry people in the United States. It has to do with the history of the nation. And as I mentioned earlier, we’re living at a moment in racial reckoning, and we need to overcome that history by directly addressing the inequities that make some of us poor, and therefore make some of us especially susceptible to food insecurity and to hunger.
I’ll just repeat, these are the results of actual human decisions, decisions to appropriate somebody else’s land, to kill people, to drive them into reservations, to enslave people, to make some people who are essential for the food system to work undocumented so that we can exploit them and abuse them. And these are things that we can change and that we must change.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, this is an ongoing conversation. Ricardo Salvador, thanks so much for being with us, director of the Food and Environment Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, recently co-authored an op-ed in The New York Times, which we will link to, headlined “Goodbye, U.S.D.A., Hello, Department of Food and Well-Being.”
Up next, our guest says Ethiopia is on the verge of a civil war. We’ll talk about what’s happening in the Tigray region. Stay with us.