Vaccine apartheid is prolonging COVID – not vaccine hesitancy

There’s a colonial tendency to portray people in Africa as anti-science and averse to progress, when the real problem is Big Pharma’s monopoly

By Alena Ivanova

Next week will mark the first anniversary of the NHS administering the first COVID-19 vaccine outside of clinical trials in a hospital in Coventry. Almost a year on from 8 December 2020, the Omicron variant threatens to ruin yet another holiday season and raises questions about the UK government’s approach.

But we already knew of the dangers of vaccine inequality. While the UK this morning announced it had ordered an additional 114 million COVID vaccine doses – despite around 85% of its adult population being fully vaccinated – just 6% of Africa’s 1.2 billion people have received two doses. And hastily reimposed travel bans on people from the African continent reveal more than the refusal of governments in the Global North to deal with the crisis at hand. The racist scapegoating of Black people has a history as old as public health itself.

There is no conclusive evidence that the new travel ban imposed by the UK on six countries in southern Africa will be effective. Indeed, there is plenty of evidence to show that the new variant was circulating in Europe much before Omicron was identified in South Africa, thanks to the scientific rigour and openness of South African researchers. Arbitrary travel bans can affect scientific cooperation and knowledge-sharing, as Tulio de Oliveira, director of South Africa’s Centre for Epidemic Response & Innovation, has warned. He tweeted that travel restrictions mean laboratories don’t get essential supplies.

But politicians and CEOs in the Global North have been busy excusing their dreadful track record on cooperation with low- and middle-income countries, blaming the low vaccination levels in southern Africa on hesitancy. Soundbites such as Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla’s claim that vaccine hesitancy in low-income countries is “way, way higher than the percentage of hesitancy in Europe or in the US or Japan”, have angered many, who have accused them of being tropes grounded in racism – akin to those used during the HIV crisis. In reality, research has suggested a higher willingness to take COVID vaccines in lower- and middle-income countries. But portraying people in Africa as anti-science and averse to progress has long been the coloniser’s excuse to dominate and subjugate and we should not be surprised that it keeps rearing its ugly head. What’s worrying is the speed with which such excuses are adopted by the UK government, while being left unchallenged by the media.

Britain’s Africa minister, Vicky Ford, has repeatedly evaded the issue of vaccine supplies to low- and middle-income countries, focussing instead on their vaccine hesitancy when questioned in Parliament. But research shows no basis for such claims. Africa’s problem is not hesitancy but the fact that many of its healthcare systems are ravaged by privatisation, often imposed by countries such as the UK. Is it any wonder that most African countries are unable to respond quickly and efficiently to the uncertain supply of donated vaccines that arrive with little warning?

Even the so-called ‘level-playing field’ of the market doesn’t seem to deliver for African countries. Earlier this year, Botswana ordered 500,000 doses of the Moderna vaccine at a higher price than was paid by some richer countries. Delivery was expected in August, but as Zain Rizvi, a drug policy expert at US think tank Public Citizen, has noted, none had appeared by October.

What’s more, vaccine hesitancy exists everywhere. The early stages of the vaccination programme in Europe were marred by controversy around the Oxford-AstraZeneca jab, with several countries suspending the inoculation drive or switching vaccines by age group. Even now, enclaves of vaccine hesitancy and mistrust remain across the continent, yet nobody seems to deny European countries the right to an adequate supply of doses.

So where do we really stand on vaccine inequality? COVAX, the global mechanism that was supposed to facilitate equal sharing of doses through a centralised donation and purchasing scheme, has failed. Its original goal of distributing two billion doses across the world during 2021 won’t be met. Instead, COVAX now has a revised goal of distributing 1.45 billion doses by the end of the year. But at the time of writing, only 589 million doses had been shipped; shockingly half a million of those were delivered to the UK.

Pharmaceutical companies tell us that supply is not the problem. Yet, with rich countries guzzling the existing doses and refusing to share equally, the only just solution is to expand supply. But a waiver on intellectual property rights for COVID-19 vaccines, treatments and tests – a proposal to increase production that is supported by much of the world –is being blocked by the same countries that have hoarded doses and protected the financial interests of big pharma.

This article originally appeared at opendemocracy.net on and originally published on December 2, 2021.  This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence. 

Please support and visit The Brooks Blackboard's website, our INTEL page, OPEN MIND page, and LIKE and FOLLOW our Facebook page.

Follow me on Twitter at @_CharlesBrooks   

Twenty Years After 9/11, 'The Only Way to Effectively Counter Terror Is to End War'

Anti-war voices reflect on two decades of the misguided hubris, failed policies, war profiteering, suffering, and death that resulted from the 2001 attacks.

BRETT WILKINS

September 11, 2021

As the United States on Saturday commemorates the 20th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks with plenty of patriotic zeal but perhaps too little introspection, peace advocates have marked the occasion by reflecting on the costs and bloody consequences of the so-called "Global War on Terror" as they reaffirmed that the best safeguard against further terrorism—as many warned at the time—is ending war and respecting human rights.

"The U.S. response to 9/11 was corrupted by a toxic soup of revenge, imperialist ambitions, war profiteering, systematic brainwashing, and sheer stupidity."
—Medea Benjamin, CodePink

A sobering assessment 20 years after the 9/11 attacks lays bare a never-ending war abroad, an erosion of civil liberties and deadly neglect of dire social needs at home, and the further enrichment of corporations and wealthy investors—perhaps the only winners of perpetual conflict that progressive critics have long deemed unwinnable by design.

Just as it was on 9/11, Afghanistan is again ruled by the Taliban. The U.S. military prison at Guantánamo Bay, opened in 2002, still holds dozens of men, many of them imprisoned without charge or trial for over a decade. Much of Iraq, whose 2003 invasion was sold on a pack of lies, has been destroyed not once, but twice, by U.S.-led wars whose toxic detritus is still killing and poisoning people years later. More than 900,000—and possibly many more—civilians have been killed in at least seven nations in the name of countering "terrorism"—a tactic, not an enemy.

In the two decades since 9/11, thousands of U.S. and allied troops have died. During that time, trillions of dollars that could have been spent on social uplift both home and abroad were instead expended on waging war without end.

"The U.S. government and military exploited the grief and shock following the 9/11 attacks to raise fears, promote Islamophobia, and launch forever wars which continue to this day," wrote Kathy Kelly, co-founder of Voices for Creative Nonviolence, on Friday.

Baher Azmy, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), said, "Following the 9/11 attacks, the United States turned a horrific criminal act—which killed thousands of innocent people—into a platform to launch a shocking human rights crisis."

The U.S. government, Azmy continued, "used the same formula it had for centuries before 9/11: Launch foreign wars and establish domestic policies to oppress its own people in service of some broader ideological conflict."

In the aftermath of the attacks, he said, the Bush administration "constructed a dominant, destructive, and enduring 9/11 ideology building upon narratives of xenophobia, maximal security measures, and military power and profit that still largely permeates every facet of public life 20 years later."

Medea Benjamin, the CodePink co-founder who rose to prominence by confronting war criminals like Bush-era Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, says that "the U.S. response to 9/11 was corrupted by a toxic soup of revenge, imperialist ambitions, war profiteering, systematic brainwashing, and sheer stupidity."

Prescient warnings went unheard and unheeded—but were ultimately vindicated. Before casting the lone dissenting vote against the 2001 congressional authorization underpinning the so-called War on Terror, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) urged her colleagues to "think through the implications of our actions today, so that this does not spiral out of control."

"We must be careful not to embark on an open-ended war with neither an exit strategy nor a focused target," warned Lee—who quoting Rev. Nathan Baxter's post-9/11 sermon, added, "As we act, let us not become the evil we deplore."

As Vice President Dick Cheney ominously declared that the United States would wage the impending war on "the dark side" and "in the shadows," the George W. Bush administration was building the legal and physical framework of an edifice of war crimes. What followed was a series of cascading and intertwined human rights disasters: the offshore prison at Guantánamo; extraordinary rendition; CIA "black sites"; Abu Ghraib; and other prisons where men and boys caught up in the War on Terror, a great many of them innocent civilians, were tortured—sometimes to death—by U.S. military and intelligence personnel.

Instead of ending the war and closing Guantánamo as promised, President Barack Obama escalated the conflict. He sent tens of thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan, vastly expanded drone strikes, intervened in the Libyan and Syrian civil wars, and, after withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011, launched a new war there after the so-called Islamic State's (ISIS) rise to power. And instead of investigating Bush war criminals as promised, the Obama administration actively protected them, while waging an unprecedented war against whistleblowers and expanding a global mass surveillance dragnet targeting Americans and foreigners alike. 

President Donald Trump campaigned on a promise to "bomb the shit out of" ISIS militants and "take out their families." He was true to his words. As his administration relaxed rules of engagement meant to protect civilians, U.S. and allied forces laid waste to entire cities and towns, killing thousands of civilians and exacerbating the world's worst refugee crisis since World War II. Trump also did something that neither Bush nor Obama dared to do by negotiating the end of the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan, the longest conflict in American history.

While imperialists and war profiteers excoriated President Joe Biden for withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan last month, Repairers of the Breach president Rev. Dr. William Barber II and Tope Folarin of the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) note that "a significant majority of people in the U.S. supported the move," a "far cry from the 88% who supported the war when it was launched."

Barber and Folarin write for Common Dreams:

In part, this is a movement victory. Movements against the War on Terror emerged within days of the 9/11 attacks, even before the first U.S. bombers assaulted Kabul. This rising anti-war drumbeat played a major part in pulling public opinion away from support for Washington's "forever wars."

It wasn't a given that Biden would pull out of Afghanistan—other presidents have promised to do so and then failed. This time, there is no question that public opposition to the war was critical to Biden's decision.

"That shift also shows that people across the U.S. have learned some harsh realities that anti-war activists mobilized around for years," Barber and Folarin added. Among those "harsh realities" is the tremendous cost of war and deepening militarization—$21 trillion, according to a recent IPS report. Critics say that money could have been better spent on healthcare, education, infrastructure, climate action, and a host of other pressing social needs. 

Instead, the military-industrial complex has strengthened and other profiteers of the permanent war economy have grown stupendously rich from the death and destruction of forever war. Ten thousand dollars invested in the top five U.S. military contractors in 2001, according to a recent analysis, is worth nearly $100,000 today—nearly 40% more than an identical investment in an S&P index fund over the same period.

As Biden seeks to increase the Pentagon budget to $715 billion while stoking tensions with China and Russia and acknowledging the possibility of "over-the-horizon" strikes in Afghanistan, CodePink's Benjamin warns that "we can't continue down the path of deadly, destructive, and costly U.S. militarism" any longer.

This week, in a post explaining how the U.S. should extricate itself from the cycle of violence, Lee said, "It’s time we end these forever wars. With a coalition of partners, allies, and advocates both inside the halls of Congress and out, we are finally on the cusp of turning the page on this state of perpetual war-making."

And as Kathy Kelly concurred in her assessment: "The only way to effectively counter terror is to end war."

                                                                             ***

This article originally appeared at CommonDreams.org. Originally published on September 11th, 2021.It is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. 

Please support and visit The Brooks Blackboard's website, our INTEL page, OPEN MIND page, and LIKE and FOLLOW our Facebook page.

Follow me on Twitter at @_CharlesBrooks   

Haiti Assassination Raises Red Flags Among Observers Fluent in History of US Intervention

"It's quite striking that the arguments being made for a U.S. intervention in Haiti are so alike the ones that were used to justify the 1915-34 occupation."

BRETT WILKINS

July 8, 2021

In the wake of Wednesday's assassination of Jovenel Moïse, the unpopular, corrupt, and increasingly authoritarian U.S.-backed Haitian president, observers fluent in the history of foreign interference in the hemisphere's first truly free republic sounded the alarm over the same sort of calls for intervention in the name of "stability" that preceded so many previous American invasions of Haiti.