The hospital in Saada province in northern Yemen. Photo by Doctors Without Borders.
WHO condemns attack on Doctors Without Borders hospital in Yemen
The World Health Organization (WHO) condemns the bombing of the hospital in Saada province in northern Yemen that was supported by Medécins Sans Frontières (MSF, Doctors Without Borders in English). MSF estimates that this will leave 200,000 people with no access to life-saving medical care.
The attack violates international humanitarian law. It is the second attack on an MSF-run health facility in a month. On October 3, 30 people were killed when the MSF-supported medical clinic in Kunduz, Afghanistan was bombed. Twenty-seven MSF staff were injured.
The bombing represents a serious setback for both MSF and the affected community and an additional challenge to humanitarian work in Yemen.
WHO once again urges all parties in the conflict to respect the safety and neutrality of health workers and health facilities. Tragedies like this can and should be avoided, by warring parties consistently observing international humanitarian law and taking all necessary precautionary measures.
WHO is increasingly concerned by the continuous threats to health workers, facilities and transport, particularly in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. WHO is working together with partners to protect patients, health workers, health infrastructure and supplies from violence and thus minimize disruptions to desperately needed health care.
~ ~ ~
The announcements below are interactive. Click on them for more information
The former secretary of state could shatter the glass ceiling for women, but she’d leave the old boys’ military-industrial complex intact. State Department photo.
As the first Democratic presidential debate drew to a close, moderator Anderson Cooper posed a question to Hillary Clinton: How might her presidency differ from Barack Obama’s?
Clinton smiled. “Well, I think it’s pretty obvious,” she replied to rapturous applause. “Being the first woman president would be quite a change from the presidents we’ve had.”
Indeed, a Hillary Clinton presidency would shatter the glass ceiling for women in the United States. But it would also leave intact the old boys’ military-industrial complex that’s kept our nation in a perpetual state of war for decades.
Clinton, it seems, failed to learn anything after supporting the disastrous Iraq War, which plunged a huge swath of the Middle East into chaos and cost her the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. Instead of embracing diplomacy, she continued to champion ill-conceived military interventions as secretary of state.
In 2011, when the Arab Spring came to Libya, Clinton was the Obama administration’s most forceful advocate for intervening to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi. She even out-hawked Robert Gates, the Pentagon chief first appointed by George W. Bush who was less than enthusiastic about going to war in Libya.
Ironically, the political grief Clinton has suffered over the subsequent attack on a US diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, which killed four Americans, might never have occurred if Clinton had opted against intervening in Libya’s civil war.
While House Republicans recently spent 11 hours relentlessly drilling Clinton about Benghazi and her personal email account, the larger disaster by far is the postwar chaos that’s left Libya without a functioning government, overrun by feuding warlords and extremist militants.
Clinton favors greater military intervention in Syria’s civil war, too. In her presidential bid, she’s joined hawkish Republican senators like John McCain and Lindsey Graham in supporting the creation of a no-fly zone over the country.
That puts her at odds not only with President Barack Obama, but also with her Democratic presidential rival Bernie Sanders, who warned that it could “get us more deeply involved in that horrible civil war and lead to a never-ending US entanglement in that region.”
Clinton did end up supporting the administration’s Iran nuclear deal, but her support came with a history of bellicose baggage.
Back in 2008, for example, she warned that Washington could “totally obliterate” Iran. During that presidential campaign, she chided Obama as “naïve” and “irresponsible” for wanting to engage the country diplomatically.
Even after the nuclear agreement was sealed, she struck a bullying tone: “I don’t believe Iran is our partner in this agreement,” Clinton insisted. “Iran is the subject of the agreement.” She added that she “won’t hesitate to take military action” if it falls through.
Contrast Clinton with the more moderate Secretary of State John Kerry. It’s no wonder Obama’s two signature foreign policy achievements — the Iran deal and the groundbreaking opening of diplomatic ties with Cuba — came after Clinton left.
There was a very telling moment about Clinton’s attitude during the debate when Cooper asked, “Which enemy are you most proud of?”
Alongside the NRA, Republicans, and health insurance companies, Clinton listed “the Iranians” — which could mean either the Iranian government or the nation’s 78 million people. In either case, it wasn’t a very diplomatic thing to say while her successor and former colleagues are trying to chart a new, more cooperative relationship with Iran.
When it comes to war and peace, it might not matter too much if a Republican or Hillary Clinton wins the White House. In either case, the winner will be the military-industrial complex President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us about.
[Editor’s note: There are a couple of stories out there that might be expected in a summary like this, but which I decided to omit for now. Did the Venezuelan prosecutor say that Leopoldo López was framed and flee for his life? How reliable was that statement, how complete and what were the motives? The media that are running with that ball have a long record of bad reporting about Venezuela, so let’s wait and see how this one plays out. And then the ACP, not to date having definitively announced its opinion on the GUPC’s diagnosis of or solution for the leaking locks sill problem, is sending out invitations for an April 2016 opening. But quite frankly, not only is it a prospective statement but the ACP has been neither the most transparent nor the most reliable source. Again, let’s wait and see.]
~ ~ ~
The announcements below are interactive. Click on them for more information
Cars parked in front of the Casa de Gobernacion in Penonome, blocking other cars in. Photo by Eric Jackson.
Silly season in the National Assembly
isn’t just about metro area parking
by Eric Jackson
We could get into some interesting, and perhaps insulting, comparative political culture analyses of what gets declared a human right. Here in Panama, it doesn’t include carrying a fully loaded and fully automatic assault rifle into a hospital emergency room. But back in September our National Assembly did pass a law declaring that drivers have a right to a parking space. That is, for example, that people with business to do at Punta Pacifica’s gleaming palaces that were built without anything close to sufficient parking get to park for free at the ample lots built for the MultiPlaza mall, which is expanding and hopes to eventually need all of that space.
It’s not just a Panama City issue, though. On a stroll through downtown Penonome, a driver honked to get me off the sidewalk next to the Catholic Church. His intention was to park on the sidewalk in front of the gate by which people and their cars get in and out of the church parking lot.
Then around the corner was the scene shown above, in which cars parked in front of the Cocle provincial Casa de Gobernacion block in other cars parked in the designated spaces.
President Varela vetoed the bit about a right to a parking space, with the support of the Chamber of Commerce arguing that it violates the property rights of those who own the lots on which people would park. But the legislators, not wanting to be known as evil oppressors who keep their constituents from parking their cars in convenient places, overrode the veto.
Is it political suicide to suggest that Panama’s urban areas have too many cars, that dealing with the problem — or not dealing with it — carries costs and that it’s drivers who ought to bear that cost? Maybe not. Most Panamanians ride the buses, and in October, after his lost argument with the National Assembly, polls suggested that Varela’s popularity jumped several points. The metro area public in general expresses annoyance with all the congestion, more than half of those interviewed by the Dichter & Neira polling firm opining that the Transito Police are not doing much to solve the problem.
The legislative session ends on October 31, at which time the docket gets erased, to be started over in the next session, which begins next March. Thus we see all manner of demagoguery, most of which will be neither debated nor passed. Most Panamanians are not fooled by the game.
~ ~ ~
The announcements below are interactive. Click on them for more information
George Scribner, a senior artist with Disney, hails from the old Canal Zone and still maintains close ties to Panama. This is some of his more recent and upcoming work.
“Henry and Debbie” — the wife and grandson walking.
“Agaralo bien” — work on the Panama Canal expansion.
Paris in February.
“The Surveyor” — another take on the PanCanal expansion.
The 2016 George Scribner Calendar, a benefit for his grandsons’ college fund. You can order them via georgescribnerart.com.
Upcoming events: Scribner will be doing a one day Painting the Figure in a Landscape workshop at the Buenaventura Art association in Ventura in March 2016. He will also be doing an intermediate to advanced painting workshop at BMAI in Montrose in January 2016. If you have any interest in any of these just contact him by email.
Next summer Scribner is an invited speaker at the Canal Zone Reunion in Orlando.
~ ~ ~
The announcements below are interactive. Click on them for more information
Is this 9mm semiautomatic pistol an illegal “weapon of war” within the meaning of Panama’s constitution and gun laws? Photo by Llama.
Former National Police director’s gun collection could net him years in prison
by Eric Jackson
On October 21, in a summary trial, former National Police chief and National Security Council director Gustavo Pérez faced charges for illegal possession of two 9 millimeter pistols, a .38 revolver and a submachine gun imprecisely described by prosecutors as a Minimax. The weapons were seized in a January 12 raid on Pérez’s home, in which police and prosecutors looked in vain for Ricardo Martinelli’s missing wiretapping equipment and took Pérez into custody on invasion of privacy charges. Because he had no permits for the firearms, and because prosecutors characterized some of them as “weapons of war” that Panama’s constitution says that only the government may possess, Pérez was charged with weapons offenses. One of the pistols belongs to the National Police. The former chief said that two of the guns were given to him — one by his father, another former National Police chief — and thus he didn’t need permits for those. His lawyer also argued that the submachine gun doesn’t count as a “weapon of war” because its fully automatic firing function had been disabled. But the prosecution claimed that large-caliber semiautomtic weapons count as proscribed military arms. Judge Óscar Carrasquilla will have some statutory interpretation to do, and promised a decision within 30 days. Prosecutor Jossira Rojas asked for a maximum 10-year prison sentence.
The case comes at a time when Panama is reconsidering its weapons policies. There is a decree banning the importation of firearms by anyone other than Panama’s police agencies that is set to expire in early December and a de facto moratorium on the issuance of gun permits to civilians that may also be lifted. Security Minister Rodolfo Aguilera touts the private possession of firearms as a crime-fighting measure, but while the officers serving under him maintain their silence on the matter as required by law, some retired cops, including former National Police chief Rolando Mirones, dismiss the minister’s argument. Mirones argues that more guns in more homes is likely to mean more homicides in domestic violence incidents.
So far this year there have been 41 female homicide fatalities in Panama, most of them killed in domestic violence incidents. The government gives no figures on how many of these involved firearms. Former legislator Teresita Yaniz de Arias, an important figure in the Varela administration’s junior partner Partido Popular, is a veteran campaigner against domestic violence and an opponent of easing Panama’s gun rules. In recent years there has been a hue and cry about “femicides,” including stiffer penalties for homicides in which the victim is a woman. The thinking behind this is not that women are so fragile and innocent that they merit special protection, but an attempt to address the pervasive problem of men — often estranged or former husbands or ex-boyfriends — using violence as a means to control women’s lives.
Getting a handle on the firearms issue is complicated by the lack of a unified registry of firearms. There are some 180,000 guns that are legally registered in Panama and police estimate that at least one-third again that many are circulating in society without permits. At the moment there is a moratorium on prosecuting people for having unregistered guns if they come forward and declare their unregistered weapons to the Dirección Institucional de Asuntos de Seguridad Publica (DIASP) and apply for permits. This moratorium expires on November 1.
If and when the moratorium on imports and permits ends, the government has been contemplating a limitation on that to shotguns and pistols. However, an abrupt about-face last August when Aguilera announced that the importation moratorium was to be lifted, only to have it extended two days later, suggests that there are behind-the-scenes struggles within the Varela administration about what Panama’s gun rules ought to be.
~ ~ ~
The announcements below are interactive. Click on them for more information
Panama, seen from above one March day. Photo by NASA.
Four ways to reduce the health
risks from climate pollutants
by the World Health Organization
A new World Health Organization report highlights the urgent need to reduce emissions of black carbon, ozone and methane — as well as carbon dioxide — which all contribute to climate change. Black carbon, ozone and methane — frequently described as short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) — not only produce a strong global warming effect, they contribute significantly to the more than 7 million premature deaths annually linked to air pollution.
The report, “Reducing global health risks through mitigation of short-lived climate pollutants,” produced in collaboration with the Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants, reveals that interventions to cut SLCPs can reduce disease and death and contribute to food security, improve diets and increase physical activity.
“Every day, these pollutants threaten the health of men, women and children,” says Dr. Flavia Bustreo, Assistant Director-General at WHO. “For the first time, this report recommends actions that countries, health and environment ministries, and cities can take right now to reduce emissions, protect health and avoid illness and premature deaths, which often take the greatest toll on the most vulnerable.”
The report builds off a 2011 assessment by the UN Environment Program and World Meteorological Organization that estimated that a global deployment of 16 SLCP reduction measures would prevent an average of 2.4 million premature deaths annually by 2030. New estimates could raise that to 3.5 million lives saved annually by 2030, and between 3 to 5 million lives per year by 2050. These latest projections take into account WHO’s latest data on deaths linked to air pollution as well as some new SLCP measures.
“Quick action to reduce black carbon, methane and other ozone precursors are much needed now,” says Helena Molin Valdés, head of the UNEP-hosted CCAC. “We know that the sooner we start reducing these pollutants the sooner we will relieve the pressures on climate and human health.”
Top actions for health and climate benefits
WHO rated more than 20 available and affordable measures to mitigate short-lived climate pollutants, including vehicle emissions standards, capturing landfill gas, switching from fossil fuels to renewables, reducing food waste and improving household cooking fuels, to see which have the greatest potential to improve health, reduce SLCP emissions and prevent climate change.
Four interventions rated medium to high in all three categories:
* Reducing vehicle emissions by implementing higher emissions and efficiency standards could reduce black carbon and other co-pollutants from fossil fuels, improve air quality and reduce the disease burden attributable to outdoor air pollution.
* Policies and investments that prioritize dedicated rapid transit such as buses and trains and foster safe pedestrian and cycle networks can promote multiple benefits, including: safer active travel and reduced health risks from air and noise pollution, physical inactivity, and road traffic injuries.
* Providing cleaner and more efficient stove and fuel alternatives to the approximately 2.8 billion low-income households worldwide dependent on primarily wood, dung and other solid fuels for heating and cooking, could reduce air pollution-related diseases and reduce the health risks and time invested in fuel-gathering.
* Encouraging high and middle-income populations to increase their consumption of nutritious plant-based foods could reduce heart disease and some cancers, and slow methane emissions associated with some animal-sourced foods.
“The health benefits that may be obtained from these strategies are far larger than previously understood, and they can be enjoyed immediately and locally,” says Maria Neira, WHO Director, Department of Public Health, Environmental and Social Determinants of Health. “The environment and health sectors can now prioritize interventions to meet both of their goals — preventing climate change and ensuring good health.”
The way forward
The release of today’s report is a significant step in WHO’s ongoing work to prevent diseases and deaths related to air pollution — and towards achieving the new global health goal. Target 3.9 aims to “By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination.”
In May 2015, the World Health Assembly adopted a resolution to address the health impacts of air pollution, which stresses the need for strong cooperation between different sectors and integration of health concerns into national, regional and local air-pollution-related policies.
WHO is piloting a number of these approaches in the urban health initiative it is leading with CCAC, Norway and other partners. The initiative will be rolled out in four cities in 2016. As part of this initiative, cost benefit analysis of key interventions recommended here will be further assessed.
Evidence from previous WHO studies on healthy transport already suggest that shifts to mass transport and the introduction of safe walking and cycling networks are relatively inexpensive when compared with the loss of life and costs of treating people for air-pollution related illnesses, traffic injuries and diseases related to physical inactivity.
~ ~ ~
The announcements below are interactive. Click on them for more information
So where will the new company assign this horse? To a glue factory, or to a brewery? Or will he be shipped off to perform new duties in Panama? Photo by Busch Gardens.
Should one beer behemoth control 70 percent of the US market?
Most people never sang that old song all the way to the end. But one multinational brewing corporation is finally ready to belt out the last verse.
The world’s biggest beer conglomerate, Anheuser-Busch InBev, intends to gulp down the second biggest, SABMiller, leaving us with only one behemoth of brewing. The two mega-stouts of mass-market beer have agreed to a $104 billion merger deal.
Both giants are creatures of the global merger-mania that’s consumed the industry in the past decade.
Anheuser-Busch was a St. Louis company built on the Budweiser brand. It was taken over in 2008 by a Brazilian consortium that had previously merged with a huge European brewing conglomerate. So plain old “Bud” is now AB InBev, headquartered in Belgium and also producing Corona, Stella Artois, Modelo, and a host of other brands.
Miller was a Milwaukee company until a similar series of mergers put it in the hands of a consortium controlled by a South American family dynasty and Altria, the tobacco giant that makes Marlboro cigarettes.
Now headquartered in London and named SABMiller, its roster of brews includes Peroni, Pilsner Urquell, and Grolsch. Plus it has joint ownership in the brands of the Canadian-based Molson Coors conglomerate.
These two sultans of suds say that the ABInBevSABMiller conglomeration of conglomerates is necessary for “future growth.” Hogswill.
For consumers and beer industry workers, the deal is about shrinkage. The new colossus would control 70 percent of all US beer sales and would own nearly half of the world’s top 40 beer brands. It won’t hesitate to use this monopolistic muscle to shrink consumer choice by squeezing independent breweries out of bars and retail outlets. And the merged entity is already planning to cut thousands of jobs.
That’s an awfully bitter brew.
OtherWords columnist Jim Hightower is a radio commentator, writer, and public speaker. He’s also the editor of the populist newsletter, The Hightower Lowdown, and a member of the Public Citizen board.
~ ~ ~
The announcements below are interactive. Click on them for more information
In collaboration with some Panamanian law firms, “offshore asset protection” outfits and real estate salespeople, plus another American named Daniel Daves, Wiles has prompted a migration to Boquete of Americans who believe in these primitive sorts of hatreds and are prepared to evade the immigration, labor and weapons laws of the Republic of Panama. Quotations by Rick Wiles, graphic by The Advocate.
Colonization: a touchy subject that Panama should not just ignore
by Eric Jackson
Take the Wayback Machine to Panama City in 1856, when the California Gold Rush was still underway, the Dred Scott case was percolating in the American courts toward the next year’s decision that would do so much to provoke a bloody civil war, and this gringo named Jack Oliver thought it appropriate to steal from an Afro-Panamanian fruit vendor, and to introduce a gun into the argument when the vendor objected. Dozens of people, mostly Americans, were killed and the first of several US military invasions of Panama ensued.
Fast forward to 2014. This gringo named Sage Million was one of the “sovereign citizens” who colonized the El Volcan area. The sovereign citizens have many variations on a rap that began with a white supremacist group that calls itself the Posse Comitatus (not to be confused with a US law of that name). That routine originally went that because the rebellious states of the old Confederacy were obliged to adopt state constitutions that ratified the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the US Constitution as a prerequisite for readmission to the Union, those amendments and all US constitutional changes that came thereafter, and the very existence of the federal government. and the things that it does and has done, are illegitimate, null and void. Consider that the 13th Amendment abolished slavery to know how reactionary that is. Consider that the 14th Amendment provides among other things that every person born in the United States is a US citizen to know how reactionary Donald Trump is. But there are other strains of sovereign citizens who say that it wasn’t until the 17th Amendment in 1913, which provides for direct election of US senators, or the 1934 Gold Reserve Act, that the national government became “unconstitutional.” In any case, the sovereign citizen rap is that by the time that Hawaii became a state in 1959 everything that the US federal government did was illegitimate.
That being so, Mr. Million figured, Hawaiian statehood and Hawaii’s state laws are illegitimate, ESPECIALLY the one giving rise to the warrant for his arrest for allegedly having sexual relations with a 10-year-old girl. He also considered himself so personally sovereign that Panamanian and Costa Rican borders didn’t apply to him. In the course of an illegal border crossing Panama’s SENAFRONT arrested him and the US embassy notified Panama of the state warrant for his arrest. Just one short-eye perv who’s a bit crazier than most? Well, that too, but Sage Million had both open and silent supporters in the gringo community here.
That’s scary, because some modern-day Jack Oliver who considers that young cholas have no rights that a white gringo is bound to respect could rather quickly inflame the deadliest of passions. A mob enraged about something like that may not inquire about what sort of American they would be attacking, especially if the ultra-right element of the gringo community shoves its way in front of the TV cameras and represents itself as the voice of all Americans here.
Consider that they are not just urging senior citizens to come retire here. Many of the people who have come to Boquete due to the urging of Wiles and Daves are working age Americans who are not millionaires and won’t qualify for pensionado, investor or special professional visas. They are coming here intending to violate Panamanian labor and immigration laws. And what about the advice that Daves gives his followers about protecting themselves? He not only says that every “Christian” of his variety ought to be packing a gun, he’s advising people to get portable anti-aircraft weapons to shoot down drones. Panama is conflicted about gun policies at the moment, and perhaps our Security Minister Rodolfo Aguilera is so far off the deep end as to like the idea of foreigners who are illegally here carrying surface-to-air weapons around. Were the National Police interested in a military coup, that sort of thinking around the cabinet table would be a readily available excuse. But although I think that Aguilera gets his information from Hollywood fiction to an extent unacceptable in a Panamanian government minister, I don’t think he’s for gringo fanatics going around Panama armed with weapons of war.
But hey — just because Panamanian law provides that preaching ethnic, political, racial or religious hatred is a deportable offense if a foreigner does it, our gay, lesbian and transgendered citizens are “fair game” here. In Panama it’s “legal” to hate queers. Plus, one of the questions that is not looked into during this country’s immigration procedures is whether the applicant suffers from paranoid delusions.
Set aside all of the creepy xenophobia that comes from legislator Zulay Rodríguez’s mouth — but all resident gringos should be aware of the threat that it represents in the presence of American extremists in Panama. And for those of us who are citizens, whether or not duals like me, there is a duty to defend Panama’s sovereignty — not only from hostile nations but also from individuals who consider themselves to be sovereign powers superior to the Panamanian people and to the flawed republic that happens to be the only one we have.
Balance those things against the universal human right to believe in whatever stupid thing that you want to believe. It’s not the first occasion for Panama to balance such considerations. But I think that if Wiles or Daves are found in this country, they should be arrested for illicit association to violate a number of Panamanian laws, and that all of their followers who have come here or seek to come here should be carefully examined on an individual basis. Panama really needs a better defined and more consistent policy about these sorts of colonizations.
~ ~ ~
The announcements below are interactive. Click on them for more information
