Tag: Call

Categories
World News

Of Brexit and Boris: What’s Driving the Name for Scottish Independence

Of Brexit and Boris: What’s Driving the Call for Scottish Independence

The millions of votes counted across Scotland on Saturday could be some of the most momentous of recent times, and not because of their impact on things like health, education and fisheries. The biggest problem the country faced and was really at stake was nowhere on the ballot and that is the future of its 314 year old union with England.

While the final votes were still being counted in Saturday’s general election, it seemed almost certain that the Scottish Independent National Party would miss the majority it had hoped would provide an irresistible impetus for a new referendum to break off the elections would give United Kingdom. But it will keep power in Edinburgh, probably with the support of the Scottish Greens, to guarantee that the issue will continue to dominate Scottish politics, as it has for the past few years.

Much. A second referendum on independence after a referendum in 2014 could break the UK. If Scotland were to become independent, Britain would lose eight percent of its population, a third of its land mass and a considerable amount of international prestige.

Some say the loss of Scotland would be the greatest blow to a British Prime Minister since Lord North lost the colonies in America in the 18th century. Understandably, current Prime Minister Boris Johnson is not a fan of this idea.

In the 2014 referendum, the Scots rejected independence with a decisive lead of 55 to 45 percent. That should solve the problem for a generation, but two years later came the Brexit vote and that changed the landscape radically.

While England voted to leave the European Union, 62 percent of Scottish voters wanted to stay. With only about a tenth the population of England, Scotland outnumbered and its preference was simply ignored. Resentment about this has helped revive the urge for what is commonly known as “Indyref2”.

Then there is the person of Mr. Johnson. Already largely unpopular in Scotland, he did nothing to inspire himself, steadfastly advocating a hardline version of Brexit and finally “finishing it”, as he liked to say when 2021 arrived.

The resulting disruption to exporters, and particularly to the important Scottish fish and shellfish industry, which relied heavily on smooth trade with the European Union, has further angered Scots.

The main proponent is the Scottish National Party, led by Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister. Her party has led the Scottish Government for 14 years and she has earned praise for her steadfast handling of the coronavirus pandemic, especially when compared to Mr. Johnson’s early appearances.

There are smaller parties who also want another vote, such as the Greens, who are close to the SNP. Another party for independence, Alba, is led by Alex Salmond, who is not an ally of Ms. Sturgeon – at least not anymore. As a former first minister, Mr. Salmond was once Ms. Sturgeon’s mentor, but the two have recently been embroiled in a bitter feud and his campaign has stalled.

The Scottish Parliament, newly established in 1999, was supposed to satisfy the demand for Scottish independence, but it did not work out that way. The independent SNP has become the dominant force and in 2011 won a rare overall majority in a parliament in which the voting system is designed to avoid the rule of one party. Following that outcome, Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron reluctantly approved the 2014 independence referendum.

Ms. Sturgeon had hoped that an overwhelming victory for the independence parties in these elections would give her the moral authority to call for another referendum. They stayed behind, but Mrs Sturgeon will keep pressure on a referendum claiming that she has a mandate along with the vote for the Greens.

They show a divided Scotland that is split in the middle over independence. This is in line with the results of opinion polls, which showed last year that a majority are in favor of independence, only to fall behind marginally in recent months. The Scottish Conservatives, the opposition Labor Party and the Liberal Democrats are all against independence.

The issue is so dominant that some anti-independence voters appear to have switched loyalty from their normal parties to support the party most likely to defeat the SNP in their area. Ms. Sturgeon is on track to remain first minister, which is an impressive achievement, but with her path to an overall majority likely cut off, her moral case for a second referendum has been weakened.

For a second independence referendum to be legal would almost certainly require London’s approval, and Mr Johnson has repeatedly said no. This is a big problem for Mrs Sturgeon because she wants the result of a second referendum to be accepted internationally and for Scotland to be allowed to return to the European Union.

Far from it. Even if she has to rely on the Greens, Ms. Sturgeon will likely have enough votes to get indyref2 legislation through the Scottish Parliament and then ask Mr. Johnson or his allies to stop them in court.

That could cause a constitutional crisis. After all, Scotland’s union with England was voluntary in 1707, which made it difficult for London to say no to another referendum forever. And Mrs Sturgeon can calculate that support for independence will only increase when the Scots see popular will being blocked by a government in England.

Categories
Health

Pope Francis backs Biden name to waive Covid vaccine patents

Pope Francis backs Biden call to waive Covid vaccine patents

Pope Francis, wearing a face mask, attends an interfaith prayer service for peace with other religious representatives at the Basilica of Santa Maria in Aracoeli, a church on the Capitoline Hill of Rome in Rome, Italy, on October 20, 2020.

Guglielmo Mangiapane | Reuters

Pope Francis advocated a waiver of intellectual property rights for coronavirus vaccines on Saturday, reiterating the U.S. government’s comments earlier this week.

World Trade Organization leaders recently called on member states to reach an agreement on possible vaccine patent waivers in hopes of removing barriers to increased vaccine production in developing countries.

President Joe Biden’s team approved the idea on Wednesday. Sales representative Katherine Tai said in a statement that she “supports the lifting of this protection for COVID-19 vaccines.”

At a global fundraiser on Saturday, Pope Francis said the world was infected with the “virus of individualism”.

“A variant of this virus is closed nationalism, which prevents vaccines from internationalism, for example,” he said in comments translated by Reuters.

“Another variant is when we put the laws of the market or the intellectual market or intellectual property above the laws of love and the health of mankind,” added the Pope.

Vaccine makers, whose share prices were affected by the comments earlier this week, have spoken out against the idea. Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer, warned on Friday of unleashing a global race for raw materials that threatens the safe and efficient manufacture of vaccines.

Germany and Chancellor Angela Merkel have also spoken out against the waiver, with the country’s BioNTech being a key partner for Pfizer in developing its vaccine. Germans and other European officials argue that making and distributing vaccines faster is critical to ending the pandemic.

“The limiting factor in the manufacture of vaccines is the production capacity and high quality standards, not the patents,” a Merkel spokeswoman said in a statement.

PhRMA, a pharmaceutical industry advocacy group, has called the waiver proposal “an unprecedented move that will undermine our global response to the pandemic and put safety at risk”.

To date, there have been nearly 157 million coronavirus infections and over 3.2 million deaths worldwide, according to data from Johns Hopkins University.

—CNBC’s Rich Mendez and Kevin Breuninger contributed to this article.

Categories
Health

Panicked sufferers name medical doctors as Covid vaccine hesitancy rises with J&J blood clot challenge

Panicked patients call doctors as Covid vaccine hesitancy rises with J&J blood clot issue

More Americans are likely to refuse to receive the Covid-19 vaccine from Johnson & Johnson after U.S. health officials said six women developed a rare bleeding disorder with one dead and another in critical condition, experts said for public health and vaccines using CNBC on Tuesday.

The Food and Drug Administration asked states early Tuesday to temporarily stop using J & J’s single-shot vaccine “out of caution” after six women aged 18 to 48 out of the roughly 6.9 million people who received the shot developed blood. A coagulation disorder known as cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, or CVST.

All women developed the condition that occurs when a blood clot forms in the venous sinuses of the brain that prevents blood from flowing back to the heart within about two weeks of receiving the shot from the brain, health officials told reporters on a phone call .

“People who have recently received the vaccine in the past few weeks should be aware if they are looking for symptoms,” said Dr. Anne Schuchat, the deputy chief director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, during a press conference on Tuesday. “If you have received the vaccine and have severe headache, stomach pain, leg pain, or shortness of breath, you should contact your doctor and see a doctor.”

Shortly after the FDA issued the warning, more than a dozen states, as well as some pharmacies, took steps to stop vaccination with J & J’s vaccine. Some replaced scheduled appointments with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine. Some doctors say they are already taking calls from worried patients.

People were already skeptical of vaccines before the coronavirus emerged as a new pathogen in China in December 2019, infecting more than 31.2 million Americans and killing at least 562,718 people in just over a year. Warning from U.S. health officials to states is likely to be even more reluctant to take J & J’s shot and the other vaccines, and threatens to hold back the nation’s recovery from the pandemic, health experts told CNBC.

“Unfortunately, this is likely to exacerbate those who are a little hesitant about getting a vaccine,” said Isaac Bogoch, an infectious disease specialist who served on several drug data and safety oversight panels. “Senior public health officials need to continue to be open, honest, transparent, and most importantly, contextualize that this is a low risk.”

According to Dr. Anthony Fauci, President Joe Biden’s chief medical officer, the goal is to vaccinate between 70% and 85% of the US population – or about 232 to 281 million people – to achieve herd immunity and suppress the pandemic.

To date, more than 120 million Americans, or 36% of the total US population, have received at least one dose of a Covid-19 vaccine, according to the CDC. Around 74 million Americans, or 22% of the total US population, are fully vaccinated, according to the CDC. Children under the age of 16 are not yet eligible to shoot in the United States, and some adults are likely to refuse to get a vaccine.

“This puts a wrench in the plans. It will slow down the rollout,” said Dr. Jeffrey Kahn, director of the Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins University. “People will say, ‘I don’t want this, I want one of the others who don’t have this problem,’ even if it’s an extremely rare occurrence.”

Some Americans, especially in black, Hispanic, and rural communities, have already been reluctant to get the J&J vaccine, especially because they found it to be worse than Pfizer and Moderna’s. The highly effective J&J shot, especially against serious illnesses, showed 72% effectiveness in protecting against Covid in the US about a month after inoculation. This is comparable to the effectiveness of Pfizer and Moderna vaccines with two doses of around 95%.

Single-dose vaccines like J & Js were critical to “getting into communities where a two-dose regimen was impractical or even possible,” Kahn said. US health officials used J & J’s vaccine primarily to reach poorer urban and rural areas where residents could not easily get to a vaccination clinic or did not have reliable internet access.

“These communities are also the hardest hit by Covid,” said Kahn. “Interrupting Use of J & J. [is] one stroke to do that effectively and quickly. “

Dr. Stephen Schrantz, who was part of the team leading a J&J vaccine study at the University of Chicago Medicine, said he already had patients who didn’t want the J&J vaccine and said the news would give them more evidence give to say, “See, I told you.”

“I suspect that vaccine adoption and uptake will slow down, there will be a move away from the J&J vaccine even if the CDC and FDA conclude that there is no causal link,” he said. “And as the wearing of masks wears off, there may be more cases like we have in Michigan.”

Dr. Scott Gottlieb, who sits on Pfizer’s board of directors, predicted the move will fuel “the reluctance” of some people to get a Covid vaccine.

“Even if there is no causal link, even if it is extremely rare, we will see that the whole conversation is now ignited on social media,” he told CNBC in an interview.

Dr. Purvi Parikh, an infectious disease allergy and immunology specialist at NYU Langone Health, described the FDA warning Tuesday as a “double-edged sword” and said it would likely raise concerns for already reluctant Americans. She also said she had already received “panic calls” from her own patients about the J&J vaccine.

“But if anything, I would like to repeat again: This only gives me more confidence in our system because these security checks work. Hopefully it will give some people peace of mind,” she added on “Squawk on the Street”. “” “Again, to look at the bigger picture, the benefits still far outweigh the risks of this vaccination.”

Dr. Archana Chatterjee, pediatric infectious disease specialist and member of the FDA’s Advisory Committee on Vaccines and Related Biological Products, echoed Parikh’s remark. She added that there is nothing “unusual” in the way US health officials are addressing the problem.

“This is a normal procedure that occurs,” she said.

“But of course whenever a serious adverse event is reported about a vaccine that raises public concern,” she added. “If you talk about vaccine trust or vaccine reluctance, could it have an impact? It certainly is possible.”

Dr. Paul Offit, another member of the Advisory Committee on Vaccines and Allied Biological Products, hopes Americans will be “rational” about the problem, adding that cases of blood clots seem extremely rare. He noted that convincing people in hard-to-reach communities could be a challenge.

“It should be reassuring to the people that the officials are still looking [at the vaccine], even for rare side effects, “he said.

– CNBC’s Kevin Stankiewicz contributed to this article.

Categories
Health

To Velocity Vaccination, Some Name for Delaying Second Pictures

To Speed Vaccination, Some Call for Delaying Second Shots

The prospect of a fourth wave of coronavirus, with new cases skyrocketing in the upper Midwest, has sparked renewed debate among vaccine experts about how long to wait between first and second doses. Extending this period would quickly increase the number of people with partial protection from a single shot, but some experts fear that this could also lead to dangerous new variants.

In the United States, two-dose vaccines are three to four weeks apart, which is what has been tested in clinical trials. In the UK, however, health officials have postponed the dosage by up to 12 weeks in order to reach more people faster. And in Canada, where vaccines are few and far between, a government advisory council recommended on Wednesday that the second dose be delayed even longer, up to four months.

Some health professionals believe the United States should follow suit. Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel, co-director of the Healthcare Transformation Institute at the University of Pennsylvania, has suggested that all U.S. vaccines should go to people on their first dose in the next few weeks.

“That should be enough to suppress the fourth surge, especially in places like Michigan like Minnesota,” he said in an interview. Dr. Emanuel and his colleagues posted the proposal in USA Today on Thursday.

However, opponents, including health advisors to the Biden government, argue that delaying dosing is a bad idea. They warn that the country will be prone to variants – those that are already in circulation, as well as new ones that could develop in the bodies of partially vaccinated people who are unable to fight off infection quickly.

“Postponing the second dose to a later date is a very dangerous suggestion,” said Dr. Luciana Borio, the former acting chief scientist of the Food and Drug Administration. Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the nation’s leading expert on infectious diseases, agreed. “Let’s move on to what we know is the optimal level of protection,” he said.

The cornerstone for the debate was laid in December when clinical studies first gave scientists a good look at how vaccines work. For example, in the clinical trial for the Pfizer BioNTech vaccines, volunteers enjoyed robust protection from Covid-19 two weeks after the second dose. But just 10 days after the first dose, the researchers found that the volunteers got sick less often than those who received the placebo.

In the same month, the UK saw a surge in cases caused by a new, highly communicable variant called B.1.1.7. After the UK government approved two vaccines – from Pfizer-BioNTech and AstraZeneca – it decided to combat the variant by delaying the second dose of both formulations by 12 weeks.

In January, some researchers campaigned for the United States to follow Britain’s lead.

“I think right now, before this surge, we need to take as many single doses as possible in as many people over 65 as possible to reduce the serious illness and deaths that will occur in the coming weeks,” said Michael T. Osterholm of the University of Minnesota said “Meet the Press” on NBC’s Jan. 31st.

But the government stayed on track, arguing that it would be unwise to venture into the unknown in the middle of a pandemic. Although the clinical trials showed early protection from the first dose, no one knew how well this partial protection would last.

“When you’re talking about doing something that can do real harm, you need empirical data to back it up,” said Dr. Céline R. Gounder, Infectious Disease Specialist at the Bellevue Hospital Center and member of the Coronavirus Advisory Service for Mr Biden Tafel. “I don’t think you can make your way out of it logically.”

Over the past few weeks, however, those in favor of dosing delay have been able to point to mounting evidence suggesting that an initial dose can provide effective protection that lasts for several weeks.

Updated

April 9, 2021, 12:10 p.m. ET

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that two weeks after a single dose of the Moderna or Pfizer BioNTech vaccine, a person’s risk of developing coronavirus infection was reduced by 80 percent. And researchers in the UK have found that the first dose provides protection for at least 12 weeks.

Dr. Emanuel argued that the UK’s campaign to get more people first doses played a role in the 95 percent drop in cases since their peak in January. “It was pretty breathtaking,” said Dr. Emanuel.

He cites such data as further evidence that the United States should extend vaccination. He and his colleagues estimate that if the country had used a 12-week schedule from the start of its introduction, by April 5 an additional 47 million people would have received at least one dose.

Sarah E. Cobey, an epidemiologist and evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago, said the United States had lost a valuable opportunity to save many lives with such a strategy. “We missed a window and people died,” she said.

But even now, said Dr. Emanuel, it is worth postponing the dosage. The United States issues about three million vaccines every day, but nearly half goes to people who have already received a shot. All of the nation’s offering, he argued, should go to first-timers instead.

If so, according to his team’s calculations, it would take the United States two or three weeks to catch up with Britain. The extra protection would not only save the lives of those vaccinated, it would also help reduce the transmission of the virus to people who are not yet protected.

Still, some scientists say it is premature to acknowledge the belated vaccination schedule for the decline in cases in the UK.

“They did a couple of other things like shutdown,” said Dr. Fauci.

“I think the real test will be whether we see a rebound in cases where the UK reopens.” Said Dr. Gounder.

Rather than experimenting with vaccination schedules, critics think it wiser to take basic preventive measures like wearing masks seriously. “It is crucial that we don’t just rejoin a big national party,” said Dr. Borio.

You and others are also concerned about recent studies showing that a single dose of Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech doesn’t work as well against certain variants like B.1.351, which were first found in South Africa.

“Relying on a dose of Moderna or Pfizer to stop variants like B.1.351 is like using a BB gun to stop a charging rhino,” said John P. Moore, virologist at Weill Cornell Medicine.

Dr. Moore said he also feared delaying dosing could encourage the spread of new variants that vaccines can better resist. When coronaviruses multiply in the bodies of some vaccinated people, they can acquire mutations that allow them to evade the antibodies produced by the vaccine.

But Dr. Cobey, who studies virus evolution, said she wasn’t worried about delayed doses that produce more variants. “I would bet my money on it, with the opposite effect,” she said.

Last week, she and her colleagues posted a comment in Nature Reviews Immunology to defend the delay of doses. Vaccinating more people – even with moderately less protection – could curb the spread of the virus in a community more than if fewer people had more protection, they said. And that decline wouldn’t just mean more lives were saved. Variants would also have a lower chance of showing up and spreading.

“There are fewer infected people who can have variants,” she said.

Dr. Adam S. Lauring, a University of Michigan virologist who was not involved in the comment, said he felt that Dr. Cobey and her colleagues had come up with a compelling case. “The arguments in this piece really agree with me,” he said.

While the United States is unlikely to change course, its northern neighbor has adopted a delayed strategy to deal with a booming pandemic and vaccine shortage.

Dr. Catherine Hankins, a public health specialist at McGill University in Montreal and a member of Canada’s Covid-19 Immunity Task Force, approved this decision based on the emerging evidence for single doses. And she said that she thought other countries facing even worse deficits should consider this too.

“I will advocate, on a global level, that countries look closely at Canada’s strategy and think seriously about it,” said Dr. Haskins.

Categories
World News

Biden Backs Taiwan, however Some Name for a Clearer Warning to China

Biden Backs Taiwan, but Some Call for a Clearer Warning to China

WASHINGTON – If anything can turn the global power struggle between China and the United States into actual military conflict, many experts and administrators say it is the fate of Taiwan.

Beijing has increased its military harassment on what it believes to be rogue territory, including threatening flights by 15 Chinese fighter jets near its coast in recent days. In response, Biden government officials are trying to calibrate policies that will protect the democratic, tech-rich island without creating an armed conflict that would be catastrophic for all.

Under a long-standing – and notoriously confused – policy stemming from America’s “One China” position, which supports Taiwan without recognizing it as independent, the United States provides political and military support for Taiwan, but makes no explicit promises to counter it to defend a Chinese attack.

However, as China’s power and ambition grow, and Beijing views Washington as weakened and distracted, a debate is ongoing as to whether the United States should be more committed to defending the island, in part to reduce the risk of China’s miscalculation doing this could lead to unwanted war.

The debate reflects a key foreign policy challenge that the Biden government is facing as it draws up its broader Asia strategy. At the White House, the State Department and the Pentagon, which is reviewing its military stance in Asia, officials are reassessing the rationale of American strategy for a new and more dangerous phase of competition with China.

American officials warn that China is increasingly able to invade the island democracy of nearly 24 million people, located about 100 miles off the coast of mainland China, whose status has been since the retreat of Chinese nationalists and the formation of a government after the communist of Beijing 1949 has owned revolution.

Last month, the military commander for the Indo-Pacific region, Adm. Philip S. Davidson on what he sees as a risk that China may attempt to retake Taiwan by force within the next six years.

The United States has long avoided saying how it would react to such an attack. While Washington supports Taiwan with diplomatic contacts, arms sales, fixed language, and even the occasional military maneuver, there are no guarantees. No declaration, doctrine, or security arrangement compels the United States to save Taiwan. A 1979 Congressional law simply states that “any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by means other than peaceful means” would be “a serious concern of the United States.”

The result is known as “strategic ambiguity,” a careful balance so as not to provoke Beijing or encourage Taiwan to make a formal declaration of independence that could lead to a Chinese invasion.

Biden government officials formulating their China policy are paying special attention to Taiwan, trying to determine whether strategic ambiguity is sufficient to protect the increasingly vulnerable island from Beijing’s drafts. But they also recognize that after two decades of bloody and costly conflict in the Middle East, Americans may be unfavorable to new, distant military commitments.

For this reason, Admiral Davidson raised his eyebrows last month when, under questioning, contrary to usual government news, he confirmed that the policy “should be reconsidered” and added, “I look forward to hearing from you.”

“I think there has been a change in the way people think,” said Richard N. Haass, former director of policy planning at the State Department under President George W. Bush and now president of the Foreign Relations Council. “What you have seen over the past year is an acceleration of concern in the United States about Taiwan.” He described the feeling that “this delicate situation, which for decades seemed to have been successfully mastered or refined, suddenly awoke people with the possibility that this era has come to an end”.

Mr. Haass helped stimulate conversation on the matter last year after he published an article in the September issue of Foreign Affairs Magazine declaring that strategic ambiguity had “taken its course”.

“It is time for the United States to adopt a policy of strategic clarity: one that makes it clear that the United States would respond to any Chinese use of force against Taiwan,” wrote Haass with colleague David Sacks.

Mr. Haass and Mr. Sacks added that after four years under President Donald J. Trump ranting “endless wars” and openly questioning United States relations, Chinese leader Xi Jinping may question America’s willingness to its alliances to defend security commitments. A clearer promise, while more hawkish-sounding, would be safer, they argued.

“Such policies would reduce the likelihood of misjudging China, which is the most likely catalyst for a cross-strait war,” wrote Haass and Sacks.

In the past few months the idea has grown in prominence, including on Capitol Hill.

Florida Republican Senator Rick Scott has tabled a bill that would authorize the president to use military action to defend Taiwan against a Chinese attack – no longer making America’s intentions ambiguous. When Mr. Haass testified last month before a committee on the Foreign Relations Committee of the House of Representatives on Asia, he was filled with questions about how to deter the Chinese threat to Taiwan.

Speaking at a Washington Post event in February, Robert M. Gates, a former Secretary of Defense and CIA director who served under presidents of both parties, including Bush and Barack Obama, identified Taiwan as the facet of US relations and China, that was what concerned him most.

Mr. Gates said it “may be time to abandon our longstanding strategy of strategic ambiguity with Taiwan”.

The thought gained another unlikely support when former Representative Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat and longtime diver in military matters, argued in an opinion piece in The Hill newspaper last month that the United States must guarantee, for human rights reasons, that one flourishing Asian democracy is protected from “being violently immersed in an outrageously brutal regime that exemplifies the denial of basic human rights”.

Mr. Frank cited China’s “imperviousness to other considerations” as violence as a reason “to save 23 million Taiwanese from the loss of their basic human rights.”

Though Taiwan has limited territorial value, it has also gained greater strategic importance in recent years as one of the world’s leading manufacturers of semiconductors – the high-tech equivalent of oil in the nascent supercomputing showdown between the US and China microchip supply shortages .

These factors combined have led the Biden government to back Taiwan, which some experts call surprisingly haunting.

When China sent dozens of fighter jets across the Taiwan Strait days after Mr. Biden’s inauguration in January, the State Department issued a statement declaring America’s “rock-solid” commitment to the island. Mr Biden raised the issue of Taiwan during his phone conversation with Mr Xi in February, and Foreign Secretary Antony J. Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan raised their concerns about the island during their meeting in Anchorage last month with two front-line Chinese officials.

“I think people lean back to say to China,” Don’t get the math wrong – we strongly support Taiwan, “said Bonnie Glaser, director of the China Power Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Ms. Glaser said she was surprised at the Biden team’s early stance on Taiwan, which so far has maintained the Trump administration’s heightened political support for the island, a stance some critics have described as overly provocative. She noted that Mr Blinken had recently made a phone call calling for Paraguay’s president to maintain his country’s formal relations with Taiwan despite pressure from Beijing, and that the US ambassador to Palau, an archipelago state in the western Pacific, had recently joined a diplomatic delegation from that country to Taiwan.

“This is really outside of normal diplomatic practice,” said Ms. Glaser. “I think that was pretty unexpected.”

However, Ms. Glaser does not support a more explicit US commitment to Taiwan’s defense. Like many other analysts and American officials, she fears that such a policy change could provoke China.

“Maybe then Xi will be pushed into a corner. This could really lead to China making the decision to invade, ”she warned.

Others fear that a concrete American security guarantee would encourage Taiwan’s leaders to officially declare independence – an act which, given the island’s over 70 years of autonomy, symbolic as it may seem, would cross a clear red line for Beijing.

“Taiwan independence means war,” a spokesman for the Chinese Defense Ministry, Wu Qian, said in January.

Some analysts say the Biden government could manage to deter China without provoking it with more forceful warnings on the brink of explicit promises to defend Taiwan. US officials can also issue private warnings to Beijing that will not put Mr. Xi at risk of losing face in public.

“We only need China to understand that we would come to Taiwan’s defense,” said Elbridge A. Colby, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and troop development under Trump.

The United States has long provided Taiwan with military equipment, including billions in arms sales under the Trump administration that included fighter jets and air-to-surface missiles that Taiwanese planes could use to attack China. Such devices are designed to reduce Taiwan’s need for American intervention if attacked.

But Mr Colby and others say the United States needs to develop a more credible military deterrent in the Pacific to keep up with recent advances by the Chinese military.

HR McMaster, a national security advisor to Mr. Trump, testified before the Senate Armed Forces Committee last month that the current ambiguity was sufficient.

“The message to China should be, ‘Hey, you can assume the United States won’t answer” – but that was also the assumption made when North Korea invaded South Korea in June 1950, “McMaster said.

Categories
Entertainment

Lil Nas X Is No. 1 Once more With ‘Montero (Name Me by Your Title)’

Lil Nas X Is No. 1 Again With 'Montero (Call Me by Your Name)'

Exactly two years ago, a young rapper enthusiastically released a remix for TikTok with Billy Ray Cyrus, and a pop culture juggernaut was born.

Lil Nas X’s song “Old Town Road” – a “country trap” hybrid that mixed a booming bass line with an acoustic sample from Nine Inch Nails and contained winking lyrics about the lives of the outlawed cowboys – became a phenomenon 1st place for a record-breaking 19 weeks and shaping Lil Nas X as a master of music marketing and character building in the age of social media.

This week, Lil Nas X, now 21, is back at number one with a new song and a fresh online sensation, “Montero (Call me by your name),” with a video partly set in Hell and one Company brouhaha over online sales of “Satan Shoes” (modified Nike Air Max 97s, allegedly with a drop of blood in the soles – a lawsuit from Nike) is, in a way, a recreation of the controversy over Madonna’s “Like a Prayer” video from the Year 1989 from the 21st century. As with Madonna’s song, which provoked right-wing condemnation and panic from Pepsi the riot, is mainly to give Lil Nas X even more attention. (This time around, a whopping Twitter feed from the star adds another dimension of entertainment and self-expression.)

According to MRC Data, Billboard’s tracking service, Montero opened with 47 million streams in the US at the top of the Billboard Hot 100 table with 47 million streams.

On this week’s album chart, the rapper and singer Rod Wave started with “SoulFly” at number 1, which corresponds to a turnover of 130,000, including 189 million streams and 4,000 copies, which were sold as a complete package.

Two more new albums landed at the top of the list. Michigan rapper NF is number 3 with “Clouds (The Mixtape)” with the equivalent of 86,000 sales and Carrie Underwood’s “My Savior” – with versions of hymns like “Amazing Grace” and “How Great Thou Art” in time for Easter – starts at No. 4 with 73,000.

Last week’s top album, Justin Bieber’s Justice, dropped to # 2, and Morgan Wallen’s Dangerous: The Double Album, which dominated the album charts for 10 weeks earlier this year, dropped two places 5 in his 12th week off.

Categories
Business

South Asia faces a get up name because it trails in world gender equality

South Asia faces a wake up call as it trails in global gender equality

South Asia is on the brink of a wake-up call as it watches the world in its efforts to close the gender gap, an expert told CNBC.

The World Economic Forum predicts that it could now take 195 years to achieve gender equality in the region – 59 years more than the global average.

Corporations have a huge responsibility to fill that void, Sharmini Wainwright, senior managing director at Michael Page Australia recruiting agency, told CNBC.

“It may be a good time to wake up here,” said Wainwright on Thursday.

India in particular still has a long way to go in this regard. The pandemic and other cultural and demographic issues made it an “incredibly challenging year” for the country. Currently, only 13% of senior executives in India are women.

“There is still a long way to go,” said Wainwright. “Big Indian companies really need to push for change.”

The results come from a larger WEF study of the impact of the pandemic on the gender gap. It is now estimated that it will take 135.6 years to achieve gender equality – a generation longer than previously thought.

Western Europe has been a leader in gender equality. The gap is expected to close in 53 years, followed by North America (62 years) and Latin America and the Caribbean (69 years).

Thailand leads the Asia-Pacific region

However, other parts of the Asia-Pacific region showed signs of progress. In Thailand in particular, more than half (53%) of management positions were filled by women in 2020.

Those senior female executives This has usually been a combination of international and local talent, especially within multinational companies in manufacturing and in the supply chain.

“What you have is an economy and a market that is very fast moving and very aggressively pursuing talent,” said Wainwright.

She added that this was also the result of a concerted effort by certain industries such as manufacturing over the past few decades to attract and nurture a pipeline of female executives.

“Now, 20 years later, you have seen the benefits of people who have really taken the opportunity to enjoy exceptional careers in this sector and really advance to leadership positions within the sector,” she said.

More women needed in the top chair

Nevertheless, too few women today occupy the top management position, namely the role of CEO.

According to the report, the top three job titles for female executives were chief finance officer, marketing director and legal director.

Wainwright described this as the next “big breakthrough that has to take place” and urged men to be better allies.

“How do we manage to get that first place? It’s still to come,” she said.

“This conversation is about both men and women. They are usually the ones with the greatest influence in making a change and making a decision.”

Categories
Business

Black Executives Name on Companies to Combat Restrictive Voting Legal guidelines

Black Executives Call on Corporations to Fight Restrictive Voting Laws

Dozens of the best-known black business leaders in America are banding together to call on corporations to fight a wave of voting laws put forward by Republicans in at least 43 states. The campaign appears to be the first time that so many powerful black leaders have organized themselves to directly alert their colleagues that they are not advocating for racial justice.

The effort, led by Kenneth Chenault, a former executive director of American Express, and Kenneth Frazier, executive director of Merck, are in response to the swift passage of a Georgian law that they claim will make it harder for blacks to vote. With the debate over the law raging for the past few weeks, most large corporations – including those headquartered in Atlanta – have not commented on the legislation.

“There is no middle ground here,” said Chenault. “You are either in favor of getting more people to vote or you want to suppress the vote.”

The executives did not criticize specific companies but called on all American companies to stand up publicly and directly against new laws that would restrict the rights of black voters and use their clout, money and lobbyists to open the debate with the To influence legislators.

“This affects all Americans, but we also need to recognize the history of voting rights for African Americans,” said Chenault. “And as African American executives in Corporate America, we wanted Corporate America to understand this and to work with us.”

The letter was signed by 72 black executives. These included Roger Ferguson Jr., the executive director of TIAA; Mellody Hobson and John Rogers Jr., the co-directors of Ariel Investments; Robert F. Smith, managing director of Vista Equity Partners; and Raymond McGuire, a former Citigroup executive who is running for Mayor of New York.

In the days leading up to the passing of the Georgian law, almost no large corporations spoke out against the legislation, which introduced stricter requirements for identifying voters for postal voting, limited drop boxes and an extension of the legislature’s power to vote.

Large Atlanta-based corporations, including Delta Air Lines, Coca-Cola, and Home Depot, made general statements of support for voting rights, but none took any particular stance on the bills. The same was true for most of the executives who signed the new letter, including Mr. Frazier and Mr. Chenault.

Mr Frazier said he only paid marginal attention to the matter before the Georgian law was passed on Thursday. “When the law was passed, I started paying attention,” he said.

When Mr. Frazier realized what was in the new law and that similar bills were being proposed in other states, he and Mr. Chenault decided to take action. On Sunday, they began emailing and texting a group of black executives to discuss what other companies could do.

“Nobody seems to be talking,” said Mr Frazier. “We thought if we spoke up it could lead to a situation where others felt a responsibility to speak up.”

In business today

Updated

March 30, 2021, 6:28 p.m. ET

Among the other executives who signed the letter were Ursula Burns, a former executive director of Xerox; Richard Parsons, former Citigroup Chairman and Managing Director of Time Warner; and Tony West, the chief legal officer at Uber. The leadership group, with support from the Black Economic Alliance, bought a full-page ad in Wednesday’s New York Times.

Executives hope that big companies will help keep dozens of similar bills from becoming law in other states.

“The Georgian legislature was the first,” said Frazier. “If the American company doesn’t get up, we’ll pass these laws in many places in this country.”

In 2017, Mr. Frazier became the first executive to publicly step down from President Donald J. Trump’s corporate advisory council after the president responded unequivocally to violence by white nationalists in Charlottesville, Virginia. His resignation caused other executives to distance themselves from Mr. Trump and the advisory groups disbanded.

“As African American business people, we don’t have the luxury of being spectators of injustice,” said Frazier. “We don’t have the luxury of being on the sidelines when injustices like this occur all around us.”

In recent years, companies have taken a stance on government legislation, often with great effect. In 2016 and 2017, when conservatives in states like Indiana, North Carolina, Georgia, and Texas rolled out so-called bathroom bills, large corporations threatened to relocate their business if the laws were passed. These invoices were never legally signed.

Last year, the human rights campaign began to convince companies to join a pledge in which they expressed their “clear opposition to harmful laws restricting LGBTQ people’s access to society”. Dozens of large companies, including AT&T, Facebook, Nike, and Pfizer, have signed up.

For Mr. Chenault, the contrast between the response of the business community to this problem and the electoral restrictions that disproportionately harm black voters was significant.

“They had 60 big companies – Amazon, Google, American Airlines – that joined the statement in which they clearly opposed harmful laws restricting LGBTQ people’s access to society,” he said. “So, you know, it’s bizarre that we don’t have companies that can stand up to this.”

“This is not new,” added Mr. Chenault. “When it comes to racing, there is a different treatment. That’s the reality. “

Activists are now calling for boycotts against Delta and Coca-Cola over their lukewarm engagement before Georgia passed the law. And there are signs that other companies and sports leagues are getting more into the issue.

The head of the Major League Baseball Players Association said he “looks forward to” a discussion of the All-Star Game’s move from Atlanta, where it is scheduled for July. And JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon released a statement Tuesday reiterating his company’s commitment to voting.

“Votes are fundamental to the health and future of our democracy,” he said. “We regularly encourage our employees to exercise their basic right to vote, and we oppose efforts that may prevent them from doing so.”

This language echoed the statements made by many large companies before the Georgian law was passed. The executives who signed the letter will likely seek more.

“People ask,” What can I do? “Said Mr. Chenault.” I’ll tell you what you can do. You can speak out publicly against discriminatory laws and any measures that restrict Americans’ eligibility. “

Categories
Health

World Leaders Name for an Worldwide Treaty to Fight Future Pandemics

World Leaders Call for an International Treaty to Combat Future Pandemics

BRUSSELS – Citing what they call “the greatest challenge facing the global community since the 1940s,” the leaders of more than two dozen countries, the European Union and the World Health Organization signed an international treaty on Tuesday to protect the world World closed before pandemics.

In a joint article published in numerous newspapers around the world, leaders warn that the current coronavirus pandemic will inevitably be followed by others at some point. You outline a treaty that is intended to enable universal and equitable access to vaccines, drugs and diagnostics. This proposal was first made in November by Charles Michel, President of the European Council, the body that represents the heads of state and government of EU countries.

The article argues that an international understanding similar to that after World War II that led to the United Nations is required to build cross-border collaboration before the next global health crisis stirs economies and lives. The current pandemic is “a strong and painful reminder that no one is safe until everyone is safe,” write the leaders.

The proposed treaty is a recognition that the current system of international health institutions, symbolized by the relatively powerless World Health Organization, a United Nations agency, is inadequate to deal with the problem.

“There will be other pandemics and other major health emergencies. No single government or multilateral agency can counter this threat alone, ”state the heads of state and government. “We believe that nations should work together to develop a new international treaty for preparing for and responding to pandemics.”

The treaty would call for better warning systems, data sharing, research, and the manufacture and distribution of vaccines, medicines, diagnostics and personal protective equipment.

“At a time when Covid-19 has taken advantage of our weaknesses and divisions, we must seize this opportunity and unite as a global community for peaceful cooperation that goes beyond this crisis,” write the heads of state and government. “Building our capacities and systems to achieve this will take time and will require sustained political, financial and social commitment over many years.”

However, the article is not clear about what would happen if a country chooses not to cooperate fully or to delay exchanges of scientific information, as China has been accused of cooperating with WHO

At least so far, China has not signed the letter. Neither does the United States.

At a press conference in Geneva on Tuesday, the Director General of the World Health Organization, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, said that “all member states will be represented” at the start of the treaty discussions.

When asked if the leaders of China, the United States and Russia had been asked to sign the letter, he said that some leaders had decided to sign up.

“The comments from member states, including the US and China, have actually been positive,” he said. “The next steps will be to involve all countries and that is normal,” he added. “I don’t want it to be seen as a problem.”

In addition to European countries and the WHO, nations in Africa, Asia and Latin America were also among those who signed the letter.

Categories
World News

World leaders name for extra cooperation

World leaders call for more cooperation

A staff member checks information about a woman who has just finished quarantine at a quarantine center on March 16, 2020 in Shanghai, China.

China News Service | China News Service | Getty Images

World leaders on Tuesday jointly called for a pandemic treaty, arguing that the Covid-19 crisis represented the “greatest challenge facing the global community since the late 1940s”.

The joint letter, published in newspapers around the world, was signed by more than 20 global leaders and representatives from Europe, Africa, South Africa and Asia, including British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

“Today, as we are together in the fight against the Covid-19 pandemic, we are equally united in the hope that we can build a more robust international health architecture that provides better protection for future generations,” the signatories said.

“There will also be pandemics and other major health crises in the future. No national government or multilateral organization can face such a threat alone. It is only a matter of when the time comes.”

The Director General of the World Health Organization, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, as well as the President of the European Council, Charles Michel, one of the first officials to call for an international agreement to combat future pandemics, also signed the letter.

They will make one more comment on a possible contract at a WHO press conference Tuesday morning before WHO awaits its joint investigation with China into the causes of the Covid-19 pandemic, which is widely expected to deliver the first results recently presented repeated month.

In February, the WHO and China team of experts reported that the coronavirus “most likely” came from animals before it spread to humans, rejecting the theory that the disease had leaked from a laboratory in the Chinese city of Wuhan.

However, there were unanswered questions about whether the team was able to fully investigate the matter in the face of delays in the investigation (the WHO-led team of experts traveled to China in early 2021, more than a year after the pandemic first emerged) and China’s acute sensitivity to the pandemic.

Beijing has denied allegations of withholding information and was slow to warn global health officials of the new coronavirus when it emerged and vehemently denied that it was responsible for the initial outbreak that severely damaged and nearly killed the global economy so far 2 , 8 million people.

According to a draft copy received from The Associated Press, the conclusion of the joint WHO-China study, due to be released later Tuesday, will reiterate initial findings that the virus was most likely from animals and suggest further research on each scenario – except for the laboratory leak hypothesis.

Need for more transparency

Transparency, or a lack of it, has been a persistent flaw throughout the coronavirus pandemic, a global health crisis for which few governments seemed prepared. The UK has already announced that it will set up a new health security agency to ensure the country is prepared for future pandemics. The lack of international coordination during the pandemic also appears grave, with vaccine delivery and distribution being the most recent source of sharpness between countries, particularly between the EU and the UK

International leaders now calling for an international pandemic treaty say the deal’s main objective is “to promote a nationwide and societal approach that strengthens national, regional and global capacities and resilience to future pandemics”.

The proposed system would provide for increased international cooperation to improve alert systems, data and research sharing, and “local, regional and global development and distribution of medical and public health measures such as vaccines” . Medicines, diagnostics and personal protective equipment. “

Perhaps just as importantly, the treaty would aim to promote “more transparency, cooperation and accountability” among the signatories, the heads of state and government hope.

“Such a treaty would lead to more mutual accountability and responsibility, transparency and cooperation in the international system according to its rules and norms,” ​​they said.

“To achieve this, we will work with world leaders and all stakeholders, including civil society and the private sector. We believe that, as leaders and leaders of international institutions, we have a responsibility to ensure that the World is learning the lessons of the Covid-19 pandemic. “

The Industrialized Nations Group of Seven (G-7) is expected to further investigate the idea of ​​the pandemic treaty at a summit in Cornwall, UK in June.