democracynow--2020-12-10--As Food Insecurity Surges, Leading Scientist Says Hunger Is a Deliberate Choice by Those in Power

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
, democracynow.org , The Quarantine Report .
I ’ m Amy Goodman , with Nermeen Shaikh .
We look now at the growing hunger crisis and how the World Food Programme , this year ’ s Nobel Peace Prize recipient , projects 270 million people may be pushed to the brink of starvation amidst the combination of conflict , climate crisis and COVID-19 .
Here in the United States , the group Feeding America predicts more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experience food insecurity before the end of the year — including one in four children .
We ’ re joined now by Ricardo Salvador , director of the Food and Environment Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists .
Welcome to Democracy Now !
It ’ s great to have you with us .
Can you start , Ricardo , by responding to the World Food Programme winning the Nobel Peace Prize today and the comments of its director , David Beasley , saying , “ Food is the pathway to peace ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , first of all , this is a very apt recognition for the organization .
However , I think that executive director Beasley will also agree that the best circumstance would be that there be no need for an organization like the World Food Programme .
What it is doing is heroic because it ’ s essentially delivering emergency food to populations that have no recourse .
But we really need to be asking ourselves : How is it that in the 21st century , when the planet as a whole is producing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in terms of calories that we need to feed everyone , that there are some people that are in such dire circumstances as he described ?
So , we must always do that work .
We must support that work .
We must congratulate the people that devote their lives to do that .
But I think a more important calling is actually to prevent the incidence of hunger on the planet , which is entirely doable .
And to your question , the formula that food is the way to derive peace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reverse .
The answer to my question of why we have so many hungry people on the planet when there is no need for that is that it is a deliberate decision that some human beings make in order to appropriate the resources of others , or , as in the case of one of the hot spots on the planet right now for hunger , which is Yemen , it was a deliberate strategy to disrupt the food system specifically to weaken the country in the pursuit of the war between proxies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so , it ’ s important to remember that hunger does not always happen because of natural disasters , which is a mental model that most of us fall back upon ; it is often the result of things that we actually do to each other deliberately .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : Ricardo , also today , when Beasley was speaking , the head of the World Food Programme , he said that food is the pathway to peace .
He ’ s also pointed out in a piece in The Guardian that even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ twice as many children died of malnutrition and hunger than have died in total from the pandemic so far .
That is , over 3 million children died last year from hunger and malnutrition .
Can you talk about what you think the underlying causes of this are ?
You hinted at it earlier .
What are the problems with the global food system that creates this kind of systemic hunger in certain places ?
RICARDO SALVADOR : Yeah , I ’ d be happy to lay that out .
The most important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system is that it is a creation of about the last 70 years , and it is a business model .
It is a wonder of global logistics .
And it is not a philanthropy .
It costs a great deal to invest in the production , the processing , the distribution , the transportation logistics , all of the blinking lights that make it so that for those of us that have economic and political power , that food system can serve our needs .
It literally can deliver on our whims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , per deliberate strategy of the food system , are just within arm ’ s reach of anything that it can manufacture and deliver .
But note the qualifications that I just described .
You need to have economic and political power in order to make that food system serve you .
Now , that system does not serve everyone .
When we cite statistics like the ones that we ’ ve been hearing this morning about the millions who are hungry , another way of hearing that is to say the global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be able to interact with it actually does not serve hundreds of millions of people on the planet .
And the reason why these people are not served is that you provide your food in one of two ways .
It ’ s very simple .
You either grow it and produce it for yourself , meaning that you have access to land and you can apply your labor and entrepreneurship to produce your own food , or else you generate cash income from some other activity , and you interact with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all for you .
If you ’ re hungry , then it means you have no access to land or else you ’ re not able to apply your entrepreneurship to produce your own food , and you also don ’ t have access to the capital , to the cash that ’ s required to be able to interact with the food system .
So , the questions are : Why is it that some people are not able to produce in their own backyards , on their own land , enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to that is that often it ’ s the folks interacting with the food system , that second category of people that I mentioned , that are the explanation .
Those of us that enjoy cocoa , coffee , tea , the products of most of the tropical part of the world , are actually utilizing tropical land , are actually utilizing the resources of other people .
In our mind , we believe in such theories as comparative advantage : We ’ re actually trading for these artifacts .
But in fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the time we ’ re appropriating the resources of very vulnerable , economically desperate people that are not able to fight back against millionaires that are investing in land leases in order to produce industrial crops , such as jatropha for biofuels , or to produce the luxury crops of the Global North .
And so , it is very important to understand that , as I mentioned at the outset , these are deliberate human decisions , tactics that look like investment decisions to other people but in fact actually have the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people hungry in different parts of the planet .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : Ricardo , could you talk about that actually in the context of what David Beasley also said , these staggering figures , $ 400 trillion of wealth in the world today , an additional $ 2.7 trillion added over just 90 days at the height of this pandemic , the connection between inequality and the kind of resource appropriation that you ’ ve been speaking of ?
RICARDO SALVADOR : Yeah .
I ’ ll add a few more statistics to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ globally , the value of the food system approaches $ 5 trillion .
It is a very high value-add business proposition to take the raw products that most of us wouldn ’ t know what to do with — so , for instance , raw corn , raw soybean or livestock on the hoof — and turn that into the edible bites that most of us expect from the food system that we ’ re accustomed to .
Those of us that have only known the food system of the last 70 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and large .
And so , it ’ s a very profitable system , and that nearly $ 5 trillion that I ’ ve described says things are going to stay this way .
And so , this means people on the planet who are displaced , who formerly owned land and produced for themselves but have been displaced for banana plantations , for cocoa plantations , for tea plantations , for bioenergy plantations and so on , these are populations of people that do not have the political power — often don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own governments — in order to assure their food sovereignty and their own well-being .
Prime example of this is the continent of Africa .
The majority of us are accustomed to grab , for a stereotypical image of somebody suffering from hunger , by going onto the internet and finding images of desperate people on the African continent .
We are conditioned by those images to think of the continent as a basket case when it comes to economic development and to agricultural production .
The continent of Africa not only could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more calories than needed to feed its own population .
Just one country , Sudan , could be a breadbasket for the entire continent .
But what is actually occurring is that governments are making land lease deals with foreign companies or other nations , namely China , so that the production of Africa is literally appropriated to meet the needs of other countries that have the capital to compete for that land and for the production of that land against the interests of native Africans .
And so , this is just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I keep repeating , that hunger does not just happen to people .
It isn ’ t just that climate change has occurred .
It isn ’ t just that there ’ s been a temporary catastrophe such as a typhoon , a hurricane .
It is that we deliberately make decisions to deprive other folks of the factors of production that they require to take care of one of their prior needs , which is to provide for their nourishment .
So it ’ s a matter of power .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actual democracy for people to be able to fight for their own rights within their own countries .
And so , the abstract notion of hunger can be translated into very deliberate power plays , that we all can interact with , that we all can shift .
AMY GOODMAN : Ricardo Salvador , what can the pandemic teach us about treating hunger ?
RICARDO SALVADOR : Well , the pandemic is an instance of a disruption that has been global , in this particular instance , but let ’ s go to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the world right now that I ’ ve mentioned already , the country of Yemen .
It is a civil war that is a proxy war being fought by Iran and Saudi Arabia .
It has gone on for five years .
The United States is a part of this war on the side of Saudi Arabia , backing Saudi Arabia , providing armaments , providing moral justification .
It is a country that would not be able to provide for its own food .
It is primarily a desert country .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is imported .
If you disrupt the economic system there , as the war had done prior to the pandemic , then that means that people are going to be vulnerable .
There will be no actual flow of food .
But the pandemic has actually exacerbated that to the point where essentially the 85 % of food that has to be imported to meet the demand of the internal population has been disrupted just logistically .
Just because of the war , the food can not get in .
And so , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t have access to food .
One is the one that I just described , physical access .
And I ’ ve given you an example of a place where a decision is made by people — let ’ s go to war , and let ’ s specifically disrupt the food system of Yemen so that it can be vulnerable and we can win the war there — so , an intentional act .
Or the other way that you can not have access is because you don ’ t have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have the cash .
And so , the fundamental thing to remember always in these situations is you must provide access so that people can actually meet their own needs in one of those two ways .
The pandemic itself has actually exacerbated existing vulnerabilities all over the planet .
Where people were on the razor ’ s edge of food sovereignty and survivability , often this has tipped them over the edge .
And it has occurred not only in the Global South ; it is actually something that exists within the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ populations the size of , say , Sudan , a 50 million total population .
That is the number of food-insecure people embedded within the United States .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The Quarantine Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh.
We look now at the growing hunger crisis and how the World Food Programme, this year’s Nobel Peace Prize recipient, projects 270 million people may be pushed to the brink of starvation amidst the combination of conflict, climate crisis and COVID-19. Here in the United States, the group Feeding America predicts more than 50 million people in the country could experience food insecurity before the end of the year — including one in four children.
We’re joined now by Ricardo Salvador, director of the Food and Environment Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Welcome to Democracy Now! It’s great to have you with us. Can you start, Ricardo, by responding to the World Food Programme winning the Nobel Peace Prize today and the comments of its director, David Beasley, saying, “Food is the pathway to peace”?
RICARDO SALVADOR: Yeah, well, first of all, this is a very apt recognition for the organization. However, I think that executive director Beasley will also agree that the best circumstance would be that there be no need for an organization like the World Food Programme. What it is doing is heroic because it’s essentially delivering emergency food to populations that have no recourse. But we really need to be asking ourselves: How is it that in the 21st century, when the planet as a whole is producing almost half, again, as much in terms of calories that we need to feed everyone, that there are some people that are in such dire circumstances as he described? So, we must always do that work. We must support that work. We must congratulate the people that devote their lives to do that. But I think a more important calling is actually to prevent the incidence of hunger on the planet, which is entirely doable.
And to your question, the formula that food is the way to derive peace actually should be more properly understood in reverse. The answer to my question of why we have so many hungry people on the planet when there is no need for that is that it is a deliberate decision that some human beings make in order to appropriate the resources of others, or, as in the case of one of the hot spots on the planet right now for hunger, which is Yemen, it was a deliberate strategy to disrupt the food system specifically to weaken the country in the pursuit of the war between proxies, Saudi Arabia and Iran. And so, it’s important to remember that hunger does not always happen because of natural disasters, which is a mental model that most of us fall back upon; it is often the result of things that we actually do to each other deliberately.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Ricardo, also today, when Beasley was speaking, the head of the World Food Programme, he said that food is the pathway to peace. He’s also pointed out in a piece in The Guardian that even before the pandemic, in 2019, twice as many children died of malnutrition and hunger than have died in total from the pandemic so far. That is, over 3 million children died last year from hunger and malnutrition. Can you talk about what you think the underlying causes of this are? You hinted at it earlier. What are the problems with the global food system that creates this kind of systemic hunger in certain places?
RICARDO SALVADOR: Yeah, I’d be happy to lay that out. The most important thing to understand about the modern food system is that it is a creation of about the last 70 years, and it is a business model. It is a wonder of global logistics. And it is not a philanthropy. It costs a great deal to invest in the production, the processing, the distribution, the transportation logistics, all of the blinking lights that make it so that for those of us that have economic and political power, that food system can serve our needs. It literally can deliver on our whims in an instant. Most of us, per deliberate strategy of the food system, are just within arm’s reach of anything that it can manufacture and deliver. But note the qualifications that I just described. You need to have economic and political power in order to make that food system serve you.
Now, that system does not serve everyone. When we cite statistics like the ones that we’ve been hearing this morning about the millions who are hungry, another way of hearing that is to say the global food system that relies on wealthy people to be able to interact with it actually does not serve hundreds of millions of people on the planet. And the reason why these people are not served is that you provide your food in one of two ways. It’s very simple. You either grow it and produce it for yourself, meaning that you have access to land and you can apply your labor and entrepreneurship to produce your own food, or else you generate cash income from some other activity, and you interact with a global food system that does it all for you. If you’re hungry, then it means you have no access to land or else you’re not able to apply your entrepreneurship to produce your own food, and you also don’t have access to the capital, to the cash that’s required to be able to interact with the food system.
So, the questions are: Why is it that some people are not able to produce in their own backyards, on their own land, enough to feed themselves? And the answer to that is that often it’s the folks interacting with the food system, that second category of people that I mentioned, that are the explanation. Those of us that enjoy cocoa, coffee, tea, the products of most of the tropical part of the world, are actually utilizing tropical land, are actually utilizing the resources of other people. In our mind, we believe in such theories as comparative advantage: We’re actually trading for these artifacts. But in fact what is happening is that most of the time we’re appropriating the resources of very vulnerable, economically desperate people that are not able to fight back against millionaires that are investing in land leases in order to produce industrial crops, such as jatropha for biofuels, or to produce the luxury crops of the Global North.
And so, it is very important to understand that, as I mentioned at the outset, these are deliberate human decisions, tactics that look like investment decisions to other people but in fact actually have the perverse result of immiserating and making other people hungry in different parts of the planet.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Ricardo, could you talk about that actually in the context of what David Beasley also said, these staggering figures, $400 trillion of wealth in the world today, an additional $2.7 trillion added over just 90 days at the height of this pandemic, the connection between inequality and the kind of resource appropriation that you’ve been speaking of?
RICARDO SALVADOR: Yeah. I’ll add a few more statistics to that. So, for instance, globally, the value of the food system approaches $5 trillion. It is a very high value-add business proposition to take the raw products that most of us wouldn’t know what to do with — so, for instance, raw corn, raw soybean or livestock on the hoof — and turn that into the edible bites that most of us expect from the food system that we’re accustomed to. Those of us that have only known the food system of the last 70 years know only those edible bites, by and large. And so, it’s a very profitable system, and that nearly $5 trillion that I’ve described says things are going to stay this way.
And so, this means people on the planet who are displaced, who formerly owned land and produced for themselves but have been displaced for banana plantations, for cocoa plantations, for tea plantations, for bioenergy plantations and so on, these are populations of people that do not have the political power — often don’t enjoy the support of their own governments — in order to assure their food sovereignty and their own well-being.
Prime example of this is the continent of Africa. The majority of us are accustomed to grab, for a stereotypical image of somebody suffering from hunger, by going onto the internet and finding images of desperate people on the African continent. We are conditioned by those images to think of the continent as a basket case when it comes to economic development and to agricultural production. The continent of Africa not only could feed itself, it is currently producing more calories than needed to feed its own population. Just one country, Sudan, could be a breadbasket for the entire continent. But what is actually occurring is that governments are making land lease deals with foreign companies or other nations, namely China, so that the production of Africa is literally appropriated to meet the needs of other countries that have the capital to compete for that land and for the production of that land against the interests of native Africans.
And so, this is just another instance of the principle, that I keep repeating, that hunger does not just happen to people. It isn’t just that climate change has occurred. It isn’t just that there’s been a temporary catastrophe such as a typhoon, a hurricane. It is that we deliberately make decisions to deprive other folks of the factors of production that they require to take care of one of their prior needs, which is to provide for their nourishment. So it’s a matter of power. It’s a matter of whether there is actual democracy for people to be able to fight for their own rights within their own countries. And so, the abstract notion of hunger can be translated into very deliberate power plays, that we all can interact with, that we all can shift.
AMY GOODMAN: Ricardo Salvador, what can the pandemic teach us about treating hunger?
RICARDO SALVADOR: Well, the pandemic is an instance of a disruption that has been global, in this particular instance, but let’s go to one of the hot spots of hunger in the world right now that I’ve mentioned already, the country of Yemen. It is a civil war that is a proxy war being fought by Iran and Saudi Arabia. It has gone on for five years. The United States is a part of this war on the side of Saudi Arabia, backing Saudi Arabia, providing armaments, providing moral justification. It is a country that would not be able to provide for its own food. It is primarily a desert country. So, 80% of its food is imported. If you disrupt the economic system there, as the war had done prior to the pandemic, then that means that people are going to be vulnerable. There will be no actual flow of food. But the pandemic has actually exacerbated that to the point where essentially the 85% of food that has to be imported to meet the demand of the internal population has been disrupted just logistically. Just because of the war, the food cannot get in.
And so, there are two ways that you don’t have access to food. One is the one that I just described, physical access. And I’ve given you an example of a place where a decision is made by people — let’s go to war, and let’s specifically disrupt the food system of Yemen so that it can be vulnerable and we can win the war there — so, an intentional act. Or the other way that you can not have access is because you don’t have the capital, you don’t have the cash. And so, the fundamental thing to remember always in these situations is you must provide access so that people can actually meet their own needs in one of those two ways.
The pandemic itself has actually exacerbated existing vulnerabilities all over the planet. Where people were on the razor’s edge of food sovereignty and survivability, often this has tipped them over the edge. And it has occurred not only in the Global South; it is actually something that exists within the Global North. So, there are populations the size of, say, Sudan, a 50 million total population. That is the number of food-insecure people embedded within the United States.


democracynow--2020-12-10--Food Is the Pathway to Peace: World Food Programme Wins Nobel Peace Prize & Warns of Hunger Pandemic

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : Just before our live broadcast today , the World Food Programme received the Nobel Peace Prize in an online ceremony , due to COVID-19 restrictions , for what the Nobel Committee described as “ its efforts to combat hunger , for its contribution to bettering conditions for peace in conflict-affected areas and for acting as a driving force in efforts to prevent the use of hunger as a weapon of war and conflict , ” unquote .
The World Food Programme is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dealing with hunger and food security .
It ’ s now warning the combination of conflict , climate crisis and COVID-19 could push 270 million people to the brink of starvation .
The executive director , the former South Carolina Governor David Beasley , accepted this year ’ s Nobel Peace Prize award on behalf of the organization from its headquarters in Rome .
DAVID BEASLEY : On behalf of the secretary-general of the United Nations , António Guterres , our board , our sister agencies , our incredible partners and donors , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the World Food Programme , including those who came before us and especially those who died in the line of duty and their families who carry on , and on behalf of the 100 million people we serve , to the Norwegian Nobel Committee , thank you for this great honor .
I wish today that I could speak of how , working together , we could end hunger for all the 690 million people who go to bed hungry every night , but today we have a crisis at hand .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thank you ; it is a call to action .
Because of so many wars , climate change , the widespread use of hunger as a political and military weapon , and a global health pandemic that makes all of that exponentially worse , 270 million people are marching toward starvation .
Failure to address their needs will cause a hunger pandemic which will dwarf the impact of COVID .
And if that ’ s not bad enough , out of that 270 million , 30 million depend on us 100 % for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
What tears me up inside is this .
This coming year , millions and millions and millions of my equals , my neighbors , your neighbors , are marching to the brink of starvation .
We stand at what may be the most ironic moment in modern history .
On the one hand , after a century of massive strides in eliminating extreme poverty , today those 200 million of our neighbors are on the brink of starvation .
That ’ s more than the entire population of Western Europe .
On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 400 trillion of wealth in our world today .
Even at the height of the COVID pandemic , in just 90 days , an additional [ $ 2.7 ] trillion of wealth was created .
And we only need $ 5 billion to save 30 million lives from famine .
What am I missing here ?
A lot of my friends and leaders around the world have said to me , “ You ’ ve got the greatest job in the world , saving the lives of millions of people.
” Well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : I don ’ t go to bed at night thinking about the children we saved ; I go to bed weeping over the children we could not save .
And when we don ’ t have enough money nor the access we need , we have to decide which children eat and which children do not eat , which children live , which children die .
How would you like that job ?
Please , don ’ t ask us to choose who lives and who dies .
AMY GOODMAN : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s World Food Programme executive director David Beasley accepting this year ’ s Nobel Peace Prize award on behalf of the organization from its headquarters in Rome , on today , International Human Rights Day .
When we come back , we look at the hunger crisis with Ricardo Salvador of the Union of Concerned Scientists .
We ’ ll also ask him about President-elect Biden ’ s pick to head the U.S. Department of Agriculture , which could play a key role in feeding millions of Americans facing food insecurity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll look at the crisis in Ethiopia .
Stay with us .
AMY GOODMAN : Richard Fariña ’ s “ Birmingham Sunday , ” performed by the University of California Riverside Chamber Singers , arranged for chorus by Gene Glickman .
Lifelong activist and music professor , Gene passed away last weekend at the age of 86 .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: Just before our live broadcast today, the World Food Programme received the Nobel Peace Prize in an online ceremony, due to COVID-19 restrictions, for what the Nobel Committee described as “its efforts to combat hunger, for its contribution to bettering conditions for peace in conflict-affected areas and for acting as a driving force in efforts to prevent the use of hunger as a weapon of war and conflict,” unquote.
The World Food Programme is the world’s largest humanitarian organization dealing with hunger and food security. It’s now warning the combination of conflict, climate crisis and COVID-19 could push 270 million people to the brink of starvation.
The executive director, the former South Carolina Governor David Beasley, accepted this year’s Nobel Peace Prize award on behalf of the organization from its headquarters in Rome.
DAVID BEASLEY: On behalf of the secretary-general of the United Nations, António Guterres, our board, our sister agencies, our incredible partners and donors, and on behalf of 19,000 peacemakers at the World Food Programme, including those who came before us and especially those who died in the line of duty and their families who carry on, and on behalf of the 100 million people we serve, to the Norwegian Nobel Committee, thank you for this great honor.
Also, thank you for acknowledging our work of using food to combat hunger, to mitigate against destabilization of nations, to prevent mass migration, to end conflict and to create stability and peace. We believe food is the pathway to peace.
I wish today that I could speak of how, working together, we could end hunger for all the 690 million people who go to bed hungry every night, but today we have a crisis at hand. This Nobel Peace Prize is more than a thank you; it is a call to action. Because of so many wars, climate change, the widespread use of hunger as a political and military weapon, and a global health pandemic that makes all of that exponentially worse, 270 million people are marching toward starvation. Failure to address their needs will cause a hunger pandemic which will dwarf the impact of COVID. And if that’s not bad enough, out of that 270 million, 30 million depend on us 100% for their survival. How will humanity respond?
What tears me up inside is this. This coming year, millions and millions and millions of my equals, my neighbors, your neighbors, are marching to the brink of starvation. We stand at what may be the most ironic moment in modern history. On the one hand, after a century of massive strides in eliminating extreme poverty, today those 200 million of our neighbors are on the brink of starvation. That’s more than the entire population of Western Europe. On the other hand, there is $400 trillion of wealth in our world today. Even at the height of the COVID pandemic, in just 90 days, an additional [$2.7] trillion of wealth was created. And we only need $5 billion to save 30 million lives from famine. What am I missing here?
A lot of my friends and leaders around the world have said to me, “You’ve got the greatest job in the world, saving the lives of millions of people.” Well, here’s what I tell them: I don’t go to bed at night thinking about the children we saved; I go to bed weeping over the children we could not save. And when we don’t have enough money nor the access we need, we have to decide which children eat and which children do not eat, which children live, which children die. How would you like that job? Please, don’t ask us to choose who lives and who dies.
In the spirit of Alfred Nobel, as inscribed on this medal, “peace and brotherhood,” let’s feed them all. Food is the pathway to peace.
AMY GOODMAN: “Food is the pathway to peace.” That’s World Food Programme executive director David Beasley accepting this year’s Nobel Peace Prize award on behalf of the organization from its headquarters in Rome, on today, International Human Rights Day.
When we come back, we look at the hunger crisis with Ricardo Salvador of the Union of Concerned Scientists. We’ll also ask him about President-elect Biden’s pick to head the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which could play a key role in feeding millions of Americans facing food insecurity during the pandemic. And then we’ll look at the crisis in Ethiopia. Stay with us.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: Richard Fariña’s “Birmingham Sunday,” performed by the University of California Riverside Chamber Singers, arranged for chorus by Gene Glickman. Lifelong activist and music professor, Gene passed away last weekend at the age of 86.


democracynow--2020-12-10--Headlines for December 10, 2020

Headlines for December 10, 2020

The United States recorded 3,124 COVID-19 deaths on Wednesday , shattering every daily world record since the start of the pandemic .
One hundred seven thousand people across the U.S. are hospitalized with the disease — also a record — and more than 220,000 new infections were reported in just 24 hours .
More than a third of U.S. residents live in areas where intensive care units have either filled to capacity or are running critically short of ICU beds .
Forecasts published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention predict as many as 23,000 new COVID-19 hospitalizations a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , unless public health measures like social distancing and mask wearing are widely adopted .
In Alabama , former Republican state Senator Larry Dixon died Saturday of COVID-19 at the age of 78 .
His widow , who also tested positive , reported her husband ’ s last words were “ We messed up .
We let our guard down .
Please tell everybody to be careful .
This is real , and if you get diagnosed , get help immediately.
” On Capitol Hill , the House of Representatives approved a one-week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ give more time for lawmakers to reach agreement on a coronavirus relief bill .
Senate Republicans have failed to pass a new stimulus package since the House passed the $ 3 trillion HEROES Act last May .

The United States recorded 3,124 COVID-19 deaths on Wednesday, shattering every daily world record since the start of the pandemic. One hundred seven thousand people across the U.S. are hospitalized with the disease — also a record — and more than 220,000 new infections were reported in just 24 hours. More than a third of U.S. residents live in areas where intensive care units have either filled to capacity or are running critically short of ICU beds. Forecasts published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention predict as many as 23,000 new COVID-19 hospitalizations a day could follow the Christmas holiday weekend, unless public health measures like social distancing and mask wearing are widely adopted.
In Alabama, former Republican state Senator Larry Dixon died Saturday of COVID-19 at the age of 78. His widow, who also tested positive, reported her husband’s last words were “We messed up. We let our guard down. Please tell everybody to be careful. This is real, and if you get diagnosed, get help immediately.”
On Capitol Hill, the House of Representatives approved a one-week extension of federal funding in order to give more time for lawmakers to reach agreement on a coronavirus relief bill. Senate Republicans have failed to pass a new stimulus package since the House passed the $3 trillion HEROES Act last May.


democracynow--2020-12-11--Andrew Bacevich on Why Retired General and Raytheon Official Lloyd Austin Should Not Head Pentagon

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : We turn to look at President-elect Joe Biden ’ s nominee for defense secretary : retired four-star Army General Lloyd Austin .
If confirmed , he would make history as the first Black defense secretary .
General Austin can only be confirmed if first a waiver is secured from Congress , due to laws designed to preserve the civilian control of the military .
Several Democratic senators , including Richard Blumenthal , Tammy Duckworth , Jon Tester and Elizabeth Warren , have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Austin .
Three years ago , 17 Democratic senators voted against giving a waiver to General James Mattis when he was nominated by President Trump .
Now there ’ s speculation some Democrats may vote against the waiver for Austin , but for his confirmation , while some Republicans may do the opposite .
This comes as General Austin also faces scrutiny for his ties to weapons manufacturer Raytheon , whose board he sits on .
For more on Lloyd Austin ’ s nomination , we go to Walpole , Massachusetts , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bacevich , president and co-founder of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and a retired colonel and Vietnam War vet .
Professor Bacevich is professor emeritus of international relations and history at Boston University .
It ’ s great to have you back .
Why don ’ t you talk about your concerns about the general being the defense secretary ?
ANDREW BACEVICH : Well , the general is not a civilian .
And it seems to me , if we ’ re serious about civilian control of the military — and we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ought to have a bona fide civilian in charge of the Pentagon .
AMY GOODMAN : So , this goes back to 1947 ?
Explain the law passed by Congress .
ANDREW BACEVICH : So , that was the National Security Act of 1947 , which created the modern national security establishment , unified the armed forces , created institutions that we ’ re familiar with , such as the Joint Chiefs of Staff , and created the position of defense secretary .
This was under Harry Truman ’ s administration .
Truman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of maintaining civilian control , and therefore , the creation of this reform , in establishing the position of defense secretary , he was emphatic , the law is explicit , that it will be filled by a civilian .
There have been two exceptions .
The first occurred in 1951 .
This is during the Korean War , great military crisis .
General Marshall , George Marshall , became defense secretary .
The waiver allowing him to do that was approved .
And then , the second time , as you just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appointment of General Mattis to serve as defense secretary by Donald Trump during the Trump presidency .
AMY GOODMAN : And talk about what civilian control means .
I mean , for a lot of people , they may just say , “ So , it ’ s the Pentagon .
Why wouldn ’ t you have a general ?
” ANDREW BACEVICH : Yeah , you know , just yesterday , I reread General — President , excuse me , President Eisenhower ’ s famous farewell address .
This was the speech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the military-industrial complex .
And there ’ s a phrase he uses — he ’ s addressing his fellow citizens — about the imperative of being watchful over the military to ensure that liberty and security may prosper together .
And as I ’ ve thought about that , it seems to me that military professionals have a rather specific understanding of what liberty and security mean and what they require , and that we ordinary citizens actually have a different understanding — doesn ’ t mean that ours is necessarily right .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ we need civilian control , in the form of a genuinely civilian defense secretary , for the defense secretary , in a sense , to serve as our agent to try to ensure that the military ’ s understanding of liberty and security aligns with our understanding of liberty and security .
And that ’ s why I would — I ’ ve got nothing against Austin .
I think he ’ s probably a good guy , a patriot , served honorably .
But I have serious doubts that he has that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the larger sense .
And that ’ s why I think his appointment is a bad idea .
AMY GOODMAN : You ’ ve also expressed concern about , well , what General/President Eisenhower talked about , that military-industrial complex .
But you said that he jumped on the military-industrial gravy train too soon .
ANDREW BACEVICH : Well , you know , in a way , it ’ s hard to criticize Austin for this , because so many of them do it .
I mean , you know , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as soon as they retire , they start cashing in .
And we ’ ve got these defense contractors , for whatever reason , this — you know , welcome the retired generals and admirals to their boards And that ’ s what Austin did .
He ’ s only been retired for , I think — what ?
Four years ?
He ’ s made a ton of money .
The money comes from defense contractors .
I find that all ethically very troubling , even though I have to acknowledge that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and , frankly , what he did is what so many of the rest of them do .
But it is indicative of this incestuous relationship between defense contractors and senior members of the officer corps .
And we ought to be uncomfortable with that , even though we ’ ve come to accept it as , you know , I guess , the way things are .
AMY GOODMAN : I wanted to switch gears a bit and ask you about the Costs of War project at Boston University , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shows that the number of Afghan civilians killed in airstrikes led by the U.S. and allies have risen by 330 % since 2017 .
AMY GOODMAN : We also just reported on , what , 2019 alone , about 700 people were killed by airstrikes carried out by the Trump administration .
And just yesterday , the report out of Jalalabad , the television journalist Malalai Maiwand was assassinated with her driver as they were on the road .
What is happening in eastern Afghanistan ?
ANDREW BACEVICH : Well , I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a charade going on — AMY GOODMAN : I don ’ t mean eastern , but all of Afghanistan .
ANDREW BACEVICH : Yes .
I think there ’ s been a bit of a charade going on — it really precedes Trump but continues under Trump — that the so-called endless wars are coming to an end .
And the evidence for that is that the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan and in other theaters of war has been going down .
And when the number of troops go down , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American public simply tunes out .
Well , what has gotten less attention , but that Costs of War report invites us to pay attention to , is that as troop levels go down , reliance on air power goes up .
Reliance on air power goes up even in a time of precision munitions , you ’ re going to end up killing more civilians .
And that is , in fact , what has happened .
And it ought to be exceedingly troubling , except for the fact , as I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attention to wars involving the United States is determined by the number of U.S. troops that are being killed or being wounded .
And right now in Afghanistan that number is very small .
AMY GOODMAN : Ten seconds .
Do you expect Biden to be different when it comes to Afghanistan ?
ANDREW BACEVICH : No .
I think he is going to take office and say , “ I will end endless wars , ” and he will maintain so-called counterterrorism capabilities , small number of troops , continue to use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in places like Afghanistan will continue .
I think that he ’ ll be putting his reform program at home in jeopardy if he doesn ’ t bring these wars to an end .
AMY GOODMAN : Andrew Bacevich , I want to thank you for being with us , president and co-founder of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft , retired colonel and Vietnam War veteran .
That does it for our broadcast .
Special thanks to María Carrión .
Democracy Now !
produced with Renée Feltz , Mike Burke , Deena @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , María Taracena , Carla Wills .
I ’ m Amy Goodman .
Wear a mask .
Stay safe .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We turn to look at President-elect Joe Biden’s nominee for defense secretary: retired four-star Army General Lloyd Austin. If confirmed, he would make history as the first Black defense secretary. General Austin can only be confirmed if first a waiver is secured from Congress, due to laws designed to preserve the civilian control of the military. Several Democratic senators, including Richard Blumenthal, Tammy Duckworth, Jon Tester and Elizabeth Warren, have indicated they would oppose granting a waiver to Austin. Three years ago, 17 Democratic senators voted against giving a waiver to General James Mattis when he was nominated by President Trump. Now there’s speculation some Democrats may vote against the waiver for Austin, but for his confirmation, while some Republicans may do the opposite. This comes as General Austin also faces scrutiny for his ties to weapons manufacturer Raytheon, whose board he sits on.
For more on Lloyd Austin’s nomination, we go to Walpole, Massachusetts, where we’re joined by Andrew Bacevich, president and co-founder of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and a retired colonel and Vietnam War vet. Professor Bacevich is professor emeritus of international relations and history at Boston University.
It’s great to have you back. Why don’t you talk about your concerns about the general being the defense secretary?
ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, the general is not a civilian. And it seems to me, if we’re serious about civilian control of the military — and we should be as citizens — that we ought to have a bona fide civilian in charge of the Pentagon.
AMY GOODMAN: So, this goes back to 1947? Explain the law passed by Congress.
ANDREW BACEVICH: So, that was the National Security Act of 1947, which created the modern national security establishment, unified the armed forces, created institutions that we’re familiar with, such as the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and created the position of defense secretary. This was under Harry Truman’s administration. Truman himself was acutely sensitive to the importance of maintaining civilian control, and therefore, the creation of this reform, in establishing the position of defense secretary, he was emphatic, the law is explicit, that it will be filled by a civilian.
There have been two exceptions. The first occurred in 1951. This is during the Korean War, great military crisis. General Marshall, George Marshall, became defense secretary. The waiver allowing him to do that was approved. And then, the second time, as you just mentioned, was just recently with the appointment of General Mattis to serve as defense secretary by Donald Trump during the Trump presidency.
AMY GOODMAN: And talk about what civilian control means. I mean, for a lot of people, they may just say, “So, it’s the Pentagon. Why wouldn’t you have a general?”
ANDREW BACEVICH: Yeah, you know, just yesterday, I reread General — President, excuse me, President Eisenhower’s famous farewell address. This was the speech where he warned about the influence of the military-industrial complex. And there’s a phrase he uses — he’s addressing his fellow citizens — about the imperative of being watchful over the military to ensure that liberty and security may prosper together.
And as I’ve thought about that, it seems to me that military professionals have a rather specific understanding of what liberty and security mean and what they require, and that we ordinary citizens actually have a different understanding — doesn’t mean that ours is necessarily right. But I think the point is that we need civilian control, in the form of a genuinely civilian defense secretary, for the defense secretary, in a sense, to serve as our agent to try to ensure that the military’s understanding of liberty and security aligns with our understanding of liberty and security.
And that’s why I would — I’ve got nothing against Austin. I think he’s probably a good guy, a patriot, served honorably. But I have serious doubts that he has that appreciation for what liberty and security mean in the larger sense. And that’s why I think his appointment is a bad idea.
AMY GOODMAN: You’ve also expressed concern about, well, what General/President Eisenhower talked about, that military-industrial complex. But you said that he jumped on the military-industrial gravy train too soon.
ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, you know, in a way, it’s hard to criticize Austin for this, because so many of them do it. I mean, you know, the three stars, the four stars, as soon as they retire, they start cashing in. And we’ve got these defense contractors, for whatever reason, this — you know, welcome the retired generals and admirals to their boards And that’s what Austin did. He’s only been retired for, I think — what? Four years? He’s made a ton of money. The money comes from defense contractors.
I find that all ethically very troubling, even though I have to acknowledge that what he did was not legally wrong, and, frankly, what he did is what so many of the rest of them do. But it is indicative of this incestuous relationship between defense contractors and senior members of the officer corps. And we ought to be uncomfortable with that, even though we’ve come to accept it as, you know, I guess, the way things are.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to switch gears a bit and ask you about the Costs of War project at Boston University, that came out with this new study that shows that the number of Afghan civilians killed in airstrikes led by the U.S. and allies have risen by 330% since 2017.
ANDREW BACEVICH: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: We also just reported on, what, 2019 alone, about 700 people were killed by airstrikes carried out by the Trump administration. And just yesterday, the report out of Jalalabad, the television journalist Malalai Maiwand was assassinated with her driver as they were on the road. What is happening in eastern Afghanistan?
ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, I think there’s been a bit of a charade going on —
AMY GOODMAN: I don’t mean eastern, but all of Afghanistan.
ANDREW BACEVICH: Yes. I think there’s been a bit of a charade going on — it really precedes Trump but continues under Trump — that the so-called endless wars are coming to an end. And the evidence for that is that the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan and in other theaters of war has been going down. And when the number of troops go down, U.S. casualties go down, and the American public simply tunes out.
Well, what has gotten less attention, but that Costs of War report invites us to pay attention to, is that as troop levels go down, reliance on air power goes up. Reliance on air power goes up even in a time of precision munitions, you’re going to end up killing more civilians. And that is, in fact, what has happened. And it ought to be exceedingly troubling, except for the fact, as I suggested, the American public’s attention to wars involving the United States is determined by the number of U.S. troops that are being killed or being wounded. And right now in Afghanistan that number is very small.
AMY GOODMAN: Ten seconds. Do you expect Biden to be different when it comes to Afghanistan?
ANDREW BACEVICH: No. I think he is going to take office and say, “I will end endless wars,” and he will maintain so-called counterterrorism capabilities, small number of troops, continue to use air power, so the endless wars in places like Afghanistan will continue. I think that he’ll be putting his reform program at home in jeopardy if he doesn’t bring these wars to an end.
AMY GOODMAN: Andrew Bacevich, I want to thank you for being with us, president and co-founder of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, retired colonel and Vietnam War veteran.
That does it for our broadcast. Special thanks to María Carrión. Democracy Now! produced with Renée Feltz, Mike Burke, Deena Guzder, Libby Rainey, Nermeen Shaikh, María Taracena, Carla Wills. I’m Amy Goodman. Wear a mask. Stay safe.


democracynow--2020-12-11--U.S. Recognizes Morocco's Occupation of Western Sahara in Latest Betrayal of Sahrawi People

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 .
Morocco and Israel have agreed to establish diplomatic relations has part of a U.S.-brokered deal , Morocco the fourth Arab nation to establish ties with Israel since August .
As part of the deal , the United States agreed to become the first country in the world to recognize Morocco ’ s sovereignty over occupied Western Sahara — what many consider to be Africa ’ s last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ open a consulate in the occupied city of Dakhla , where there are few , if any , U.S. citizens .
Morocco has occupied much of the resource-rich territory since 1975 in defiance of the United Nations and the international community .
Thousands of Sahrawis have been tortured , imprisoned , killed and disappeared while resisting the Moroccan occupation .
Following Morocco ’ s invasion in 1975 , about half the Sahrawi population fled to neighboring Algeria , where they ’ ve lived for the past 45 years in refugee camps in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comes less than a month after a nearly three-decade-old ceasefire ended in Western Sahara .
Joining us from Spain is Mouloud Said , a representative in Washington of the Polisario Front , the Sahrawi liberation movement seeking independence .
Also with us , in the United States , Stephen Zunes , professor of politics and international studies at the University of San Francisco , the co-author of Western Sahara : War , Nationalism , and Conflict Irresolution .
We welcome you both to Democracy Now !
Stephen Zunes , if you can make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. , in exchange , it seems , officially accepting Morocco ’ s annexation of the occupied Western Sahara ?
STEPHEN ZUNES : It was clearly a quid pro quo .
Though the United States has been , in effect , supporting Morocco ’ s occupation for many years , just as it has been supporting Israel ’ s occupation for many years , Trump , in both cases , has gone well beyond what previous administrations of both parties have done , and violated long-standing international legal norms — in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solely Israel ’ s capital , moving the U.S. Embassy there , and recognizing Israel ’ s illegal annexation of Syria ’ s Golan Heights .
In the case of Morocco , it ’ s even worse , because it ’ s not just talking about recognizing an illegal annexation of a portion of a country , but an annexation of an entire country .
And in the case of Western Sahara , remember , Western Sahara , the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic , has been recognized by over 80 nations around the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the African Union .
In a sense , Trump is now recognizing the takeover of one African nation by another .
Again , this is unprecedented , since the signing of the United Nations Charter , for the United States — or any nation , really — to recognize such a brazen violation of international legal norms .
AMY GOODMAN : I wanted to go to Madrid , Spain , to get the response of Mouloud Said .
You represent the Polisario Front in Washington , D.C. , though you ’ re in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about what this means , the Trump administration doing something that has not been done by any country in the world , recognizing the annexation of Western Sahara ?
What does this mean for the Sahrawi people ?
MOULOUD SAID : Good morning , Amy , and thank you for having me .
The Sahrawi government condemns and regrets this decision taken by President Trump , which breaks away from all the previous administration policies .
But this decision is not going to change the facts that the Sahrawi Republic is a full @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Morocco occupies part of this territory .
And it ’ s not going to change the nature of the conflict .
This decision , it was done without advancing any legal argument , because they will not find it anywhere .
And Western Sahara is not just a piece of real estate that President Trump can give ; it ’ s a territory that belongs to its people and a full-fledged member of a continental organization .
Like was very well said by Professor Zunes , this is the first time that a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state , as if the African Union did not exist , as if the Sahrawi Republic was not a member of the African Union .
And so , this is really something that we condemn this position , but it ’ s not going to change on anything the situation , because the Sahrawi people are going to continue with their struggle .
We are not going to stop .
And this is — you said this is the first power that recognizes ; it ’ s the first power that violates international @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sahara .
And since it ’ s a violation of international law , it is not going to have any effect on the issue .
By the way , already the European Union came up with a statement disassociating itself from this decision , and the United Nations .
And I want to take this opportunity to thank the senators that acted so promptly , and members of Congress , in particular Senator Jim Inhofe ; Senator Patrick Leahy ; and Eliot — Congressman Eliot Engel , the chairman of the international relations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ others , that disassociated themselves , and some of them even condemned this kind of decision .
AMY GOODMAN : I wanted to go right now inside occupied Western Sahara to Laayoune to speak with Nazha El-Khalidi , who is inside her home , where many are in their homes , but police have laid siege to the area .
And , Nazha , I wanted to welcome you to Democracy Now !
You ’ re a journalist , as well , with Équipe Média .
You ’ ve been arrested by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump administration recognizing Morocco ’ s sovereignty over your territory and what this means for you ?
What is the situation inside ?
NAZHA EL-KHALIDI : Thank you very much , Amy Goodman .
And thanks to Democracy Now !
for talking to us and give to the Sahrawi activists from the occupied territory of Western Sahara the opportunity to share their stories and to share testimonies of victims .
Regarding the situation in the occupied territory , there is a major crackdown on the Sahrawi rights , on the Sahrawi — on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ freedom of movement , on the freedom of assembly .
Especially after Morocco violated the ceasefire and the wars start again , Morocco started a wave of arrests against Sahrawi activists in the occupied territory , the oppression and the repression against the Sahrawi peaceful movements raising day by day , and Morocco keep arresting people .
Now there are dozens of Sahrawi activists who are behind bars in Moroccan prisons .
The people in Western Sahara are not allowed to express themselves .
There are no press agencies on the ground that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beings in here .
Morocco is continue closing the territory on front of the international observers , international activists and international journalists .
So , we determine and we describe Western Sahara as a black hole , as it was described by RSF reports two years ago and by international organizations .
It ’ s completely closed , and we are suffering in silence .
Regarding the Donald Trump recognition , we believe that this will not erase our legitimate right to freedom and independence .
Sahrawi people is continue struggling .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been betrayed by the international community for over 30 years , where we were waiting for a peaceful solution from the United Nations , that we have been promised by the United Nations .
There is a mission to organize a fair referendum and to offer the opportunity to Sahrawi people to vote and to determine their own future by themselves .
So we are not surprised by , like , the recognition from Trump .
And I think the status of Western Sahara is already determined by international law , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who is already on his way out .
So , the international law is clear and is set out in successive United Nations Security Council resolutions that were authored by the U.S. itself , and that Western Sahara ’ s status will be determined by a referendum .
We hope the incoming Biden administration will return the U.S. to a nation that respects long-standing international law and that will use its influence to encourage the meaningful — the United Nations-led peace talks on Western Sahara that have been neglected .
We hope that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long-standing conflict in Western Sahara and help deliver what the Sahrawi people have long been promised by the United Nations , which is a promise to give them a simple right , which is the vote for our freedom .
So , the Donald Trump recognition will not stop the Sahrawi struggle and will not end the Sahrawi beliefs in achieving legal rights and fighting for legal rights , which is independence and establish their state on their land .
AMY GOODMAN : Finally , I wanted to ask Steve Zunes about this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. planning to sell — negotiating the sale of at least four sophisticated large aerial drones to Morocco — not clear whether it is related to this , though it ’ s coming at the same time .
And you have the longtime supporter of Israel , the outgoing congressman , head of the House Foreign Relations Committee , Eliot Engel , while applauding the relationship between Jerusalem and Rabat , warned the Trump administration against casting aside legitimate , multilateral avenues of conflict resolution , doing something no other country in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you have 30 seconds .
STEPHEN ZUNES : The drone sale was of concern , because it ’ s illegal for the United States to support — to provide invading armies with this kind of sophisticated equipment .
But now that Western Sahara is recognized as part of Morocco , suddenly it ’ s an internal conflict .
And so , this paves the way for this kind of equipment , which could be used in counterinsurgency situations .
In terms of Engel , it ’ s important that someone who is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ break with the administration on this point .
The question is what Biden is going to do , because Biden could reverse the annexation — recognition of the annexation with a stroke of a pen .
But he ’ d be under a lot of pressure because then Morocco could use this as an excuse to nullify their recognition of Israel .
So , Biden is going to be in a lot of pressure by pro-Israel groups not to rescind Trump ’ s order .
So , it ’ s good that you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s decision .
AMY GOODMAN : And finally , Mouloud Said , the status of the ceasefire between Morocco and the Polisario ?
MOULOUD SAID : Since the Moroccans invaded — I mean , crossed the buffer zone — and this was stated by the president of the Sahrawi Republic , Mr. Brahim Ghali — we ’ d say that the ceasefire was over , and therefore we are back to square one , to the situation in which we found ourselves in 1991 .
So right now there is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Western Sahara to the north , from Guerguerat to Mahbes .
So , the ceasefire is not anymore .
It ’ s over .
Now it ’ s just a war that will continue until the final liberation of the remaining part of the territory .
And it ’ s sad that this decision by Mr. Trump comes on the day of the international — the day that everybody was celebrating the human rights , the anniversary of the Human Rights Declaration .
AMY GOODMAN : Mouloud Said , I want to thank @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Polisario Front in Washington , D.C .
Professor Stephen Zunes from the University of San Francisco .
And , Sahrawi journalist Nazha El-Khalidi , thank you so much for being with us from occupied Laayoune .
Coming up , we look at Joe Biden ’ s pick to head the Pentagon , a retired general .
What does this mean ?
Stay with us .

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.
Morocco and Israel have agreed to establish diplomatic relations has part of a U.S.-brokered deal, Morocco the fourth Arab nation to establish ties with Israel since August. As part of the deal, the United States agreed to become the first country in the world to recognize Morocco’s sovereignty over occupied Western Sahara — what many consider to be Africa’s last colony. It’s due to open a consulate in the occupied city of Dakhla, where there are few, if any, U.S. citizens. Morocco has occupied much of the resource-rich territory since 1975 in defiance of the United Nations and the international community. Thousands of Sahrawis have been tortured, imprisoned, killed and disappeared while resisting the Moroccan occupation. Following Morocco’s invasion in 1975, about half the Sahrawi population fled to neighboring Algeria, where they’ve lived for the past 45 years in refugee camps in the middle of the desert. The deal comes less than a month after a nearly three-decade-old ceasefire ended in Western Sahara.
Joining us from Spain is Mouloud Said, a representative in Washington of the Polisario Front, the Sahrawi liberation movement seeking independence. Also with us, in the United States, Stephen Zunes, professor of politics and international studies at the University of San Francisco, the co-author of Western Sahara: War, Nationalism, and Conflict Irresolution.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Stephen Zunes, if you can make that link between Morocco recognizing Israel and the U.S., in exchange, it seems, officially accepting Morocco’s annexation of the occupied Western Sahara?
STEPHEN ZUNES: It was clearly a quid pro quo. Though the United States has been, in effect, supporting Morocco’s occupation for many years, just as it has been supporting Israel’s occupation for many years, Trump, in both cases, has gone well beyond what previous administrations of both parties have done, and violated long-standing international legal norms — in the case of Palestine, recognizing Jerusalem as solely Israel’s capital, moving the U.S. Embassy there, and recognizing Israel’s illegal annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights.
In the case of Morocco, it’s even worse, because it’s not just talking about recognizing an illegal annexation of a portion of a country, but an annexation of an entire country. And in the case of Western Sahara, remember, Western Sahara, the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, has been recognized by over 80 nations around the world and is a full member of the African Union. In a sense, Trump is now recognizing the takeover of one African nation by another. Again, this is unprecedented, since the signing of the United Nations Charter, for the United States — or any nation, really — to recognize such a brazen violation of international legal norms.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go to Madrid, Spain, to get the response of Mouloud Said. You represent the Polisario Front in Washington, D.C., though you’re in Spain right now. Can you talk about what this means, the Trump administration doing something that has not been done by any country in the world, recognizing the annexation of Western Sahara? What does this mean for the Sahrawi people?
MOULOUD SAID: Good morning, Amy, and thank you for having me.
The Sahrawi government condemns and regrets this decision taken by President Trump, which breaks away from all the previous administration policies. But this decision is not going to change the facts that the Sahrawi Republic is a full member of the African Union, that Morocco occupies part of this territory. And it’s not going to change the nature of the conflict. This decision, it was done without advancing any legal argument, because they will not find it anywhere. And Western Sahara is not just a piece of real estate that President Trump can give; it’s a territory that belongs to its people and a full-fledged member of a continental organization. Like was very well said by Professor Zunes, this is the first time that a country is trying to ignore another member state, as if the African Union did not exist, as if the Sahrawi Republic was not a member of the African Union. And so, this is really something that we condemn this position, but it’s not going to change on anything the situation, because the Sahrawi people are going to continue with their struggle. We are not going to stop. And this is — you said this is the first power that recognizes; it’s the first power that violates international law, bluntly, in the Western Sahara. And since it’s a violation of international law, it is not going to have any effect on the issue.
By the way, already the European Union came up with a statement disassociating itself from this decision, and the United Nations. And I want to take this opportunity to thank the senators that acted so promptly, and members of Congress, in particular Senator Jim Inhofe; Senator Patrick Leahy; and Eliot — Congressman Eliot Engel, the chairman of the international relations committee; Congresswoman Betty McCollum; and others, that disassociated themselves, and some of them even condemned this kind of decision.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go right now inside occupied Western Sahara to Laayoune to speak with Nazha El-Khalidi, who is inside her home, where many are in their homes, but police have laid siege to the area. And, Nazha, I wanted to welcome you to Democracy Now! You’re a journalist, as well, with Équipe Média. You’ve been arrested by the Moroccans. Can you respond to the Trump administration recognizing Morocco’s sovereignty over your territory and what this means for you? What is the situation inside?
NAZHA EL-KHALIDI: Thank you very much, Amy Goodman. And thanks to Democracy Now! for talking to us and give to the Sahrawi activists from the occupied territory of Western Sahara the opportunity to share their stories and to share testimonies of victims.
Regarding the situation in the occupied territory, there is a major crackdown on the Sahrawi rights, on the Sahrawi — on the freedom of speech, on the freedom of movement, on the freedom of assembly. Especially after Morocco violated the ceasefire and the wars start again, Morocco started a wave of arrests against Sahrawi activists in the occupied territory, the oppression and the repression against the Sahrawi peaceful movements raising day by day, and Morocco keep arresting people. Now there are dozens of Sahrawi activists who are behind bars in Moroccan prisons. The people in Western Sahara are not allowed to express themselves. There are no press agencies on the ground that can document the violations against Sahrawi human beings in here. Morocco is continue closing the territory on front of the international observers, international activists and international journalists. So, we determine and we describe Western Sahara as a black hole, as it was described by RSF reports two years ago and by international organizations. It’s completely closed, and we are suffering in silence.
Regarding the Donald Trump recognition, we believe that this will not erase our legitimate right to freedom and independence. Sahrawi people is continue struggling. And we are not surprised, since we have been betrayed by the international community for over 30 years, where we were waiting for a peaceful solution from the United Nations, that we have been promised by the United Nations. There is a mission to organize a fair referendum and to offer the opportunity to Sahrawi people to vote and to determine their own future by themselves. So we are not surprised by, like, the recognition from Trump. And I think the status of Western Sahara is already determined by international law, so not by a tweet of a president who is already on his way out. So, the international law is clear and is set out in successive United Nations Security Council resolutions that were authored by the U.S. itself, and that Western Sahara’s status will be determined by a referendum.
We hope the incoming Biden administration will return the U.S. to a nation that respects long-standing international law and that will use its influence to encourage the meaningful — the United Nations-led peace talks on Western Sahara that have been neglected. We hope that the new U.S. administration will resolve the long-standing conflict in Western Sahara and help deliver what the Sahrawi people have long been promised by the United Nations, which is a promise to give them a simple right, which is the vote for our freedom. So, the Donald Trump recognition will not stop the Sahrawi struggle and will not end the Sahrawi beliefs in achieving legal rights and fighting for legal rights, which is independence and establish their state on their land.
AMY GOODMAN: Finally, I wanted to ask Steve Zunes about this latest report in Reuters that talks about the U.S. planning to sell — negotiating the sale of at least four sophisticated large aerial drones to Morocco — not clear whether it is related to this, though it’s coming at the same time. And you have the longtime supporter of Israel, the outgoing congressman, head of the House Foreign Relations Committee, Eliot Engel, while applauding the relationship between Jerusalem and Rabat, warned the Trump administration against casting aside legitimate, multilateral avenues of conflict resolution, doing something no other country in the world has done. Professor Zunes, you have 30 seconds.
STEPHEN ZUNES: The drone sale was of concern, because it’s illegal for the United States to support — to provide invading armies with this kind of sophisticated equipment. But now that Western Sahara is recognized as part of Morocco, suddenly it’s an internal conflict. And so, this paves the way for this kind of equipment, which could be used in counterinsurgency situations.
In terms of Engel, it’s important that someone who is so strongly for Israel is willing to break with the administration on this point. The question is what Biden is going to do, because Biden could reverse the annexation — recognition of the annexation with a stroke of a pen. But he’d be under a lot of pressure because then Morocco could use this as an excuse to nullify their recognition of Israel. So, Biden is going to be in a lot of pressure by pro-Israel groups not to rescind Trump’s order. So, it’s good that you have somebody like Engel who is challenging Trump’s decision.
AMY GOODMAN: And finally, Mouloud Said, the status of the ceasefire between Morocco and the Polisario?
MOULOUD SAID: Since the Moroccans invaded — I mean, crossed the buffer zone — and this was stated by the president of the Sahrawi Republic, Mr. Brahim Ghali — we’d say that the ceasefire was over, and therefore we are back to square one, to the situation in which we found ourselves in 1991. So right now there is the war going on from the south of Western Sahara to the north, from Guerguerat to Mahbes. So, the ceasefire is not anymore. It’s over. Now it’s just a war that will continue until the final liberation of the remaining part of the territory. And it’s sad that this decision by Mr. Trump comes on the day of the international — the day that everybody was celebrating the human rights, the anniversary of the Human Rights Declaration.
AMY GOODMAN: Mouloud Said, I want to thank you for being with us, representative of the Polisario Front in Washington, D.C. Professor Stephen Zunes from the University of San Francisco. And, Sahrawi journalist Nazha El-Khalidi, thank you so much for being with us from occupied Laayoune.
Coming up, we look at Joe Biden’s pick to head the Pentagon, a retired general. What does this mean? Stay with us.