30 June 20
Simply put, this is an organization that lives and dies with the support of its readership. We are asking for your support to continue our work.
Thank you sincerely.
If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043
Citrus Hts, CA 95611
30 June 20
'Intelligence emerged earlier this year that Russia had concocted a specific plan to pay bounties to mercenaries to kill American soldiers.' (photo: AP)
News broadcasts in Hong Kong about China's plan to impose national security legislation. (photo: Lam Yik Fei/NYT)
The ground crew at the Los Angeles International Airport unload pallets of supplies of medical personal protective equipment from a China Southern Cargo plane upon its arrival on April 10, 2020. (photo: Richard Vogel/AP)
Lee Fang, The Intercept
Fang writes: "Many controversial shipments, such as tear gas or overseas weapons sales, are made by air freight. The global arms trade escapes transparency, in part, because of gaps in disclosure."
n the first months of the Covid-19 outbreak — when U.S. hospitals faced a critical shortage of protective gear and exposed front-line medical workers to needless risk — hundreds of tons of medical face masks were loaded onto planes at U.S. airports and flown to China and other destinations for foreign buyers.
While the masks were shipped abroad, the U.S. government failed to address the growing crisis, leaving states to scramble to obtain medical gear as third-party distributors hiked prices and began selling what turned out to be defective masks. While the Trump administration moved slowly to secure needed supplies, some in the Commerce Department even encouraged the export of masks as the disease spread.
The full scale and scope of what happened — including the types of masks shipped, prices, and the destinations for the shipments — are still shrouded in mystery. That’s because detailed disclosures of the airlifts are hidden from public view by the federal government. U.S. Customs and Border Protection only allows public disclosure of detailed cargo data for shipments sent and received by sea, not by air. And almost every crate of face masks destined for foreign markets went by air freight, concealing the full picture of the flow of masks from public view.
The reason for the opaque trade rules? Little-known political maneuvering by the airline industry and its lobbyists on Capitol Hill, which slipped a provision designed to override disclosure requirements into a 1996 law on tariffs.
“Thanks to lobbying from the airline industry, U.S. air freight data isn’t public. In times of crisis, key supplies are almost universally shipped via air freight,” said William George, an analyst with ImportGenius, an import-export business intelligence firm.
Many controversial shipments, such as tear gas or overseas weapons sales, are made by air freight. The global arms trade escapes transparency, in part, because of gaps in disclosure.
ImportGenius and Panjiva, another firm that analyzes trade data, are now in federal court to try to force disclosure of the air cargo manifests, claiming that a plain reading of the law shows that the government is still required to disclose the forms.
CBP did not respond to a request for comment. Airlines for America, the trade group that represents the domestic air freight industry, declined to comment.
The disparity in transparency has gained new attention in recent months as acute shortages have raised questions about U.S. trade policy with respect to critical medical supplies, including N95 masks and other forms of personal protective equipment.
Rick Bright, a federal whistleblower, testified in May that federal agencies failed to take action to obtain masks as alarm bells went off about the Covid-19 pandemic. “We should have been doing everything possible, placing orders early, ramping up supply,” said Bright, who formerly served as a director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, an agency devoted to responding to pandemics.
Many countries, including Russia and China, allow public inspection of air freight cargo manifests, which include product details, the size of shipments, unit prices, and the destination for cargo. The U.S., on the other hand, does not.
Chinese customs disclosures obtained by The Intercept show that Chinese trading firms, municipal governments, and state-owned corporations such as oil giants Sinopec and CNOOC purchased key medical supplies involved in the response to the coronavirus from U.S. suppliers over the first few months of this year. Over 600 tons of face masks of left U.S. airports for China in February alone.
U.S. firms, such as Intel, W.W. Grainger, and Pfizer, also shipped masks from the U.S. to China in February, according to Chinese customs disclosures. The shipments, company representatives said, were made to help secure employees based in China.
Nearly identical data is collected by the CBP but concealed from the public. Air freight cargo imports and export disclosures are limited to anonymized aggregate disclosures of broad customs categories. Critics of the CBP say that the agency is withholding too much and is needlessly showing deference to air freight companies in refusing to release detailed manifests.
The aggregate data alone shows the scale and scope of the exports of protective equipment. In the first three months of this year, exports of masks and personal protective equipment from the U.S. to China grew more than 1,000 percent compared to the same period from last year. But beyond aggregate totals, little is disclosed, making a full accounting of the global PPE trade difficult to grasp.
Trade experts say that acute shortages of medical supplies could be limited in the future with a timely review of emergency medical equipment during the export process.
“Instead of having U.S. commerce officials boosting U.S. exports of masks, the proper approach should have been a needs-based assessment that took into account that the virus would be impacting the United States,” said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizens’ Global Trade Watch.
“We needed the necessary supplies, and we need to be thinking about neighbors, like the many small Caribbean islands who have no production capacity domestically that would be totally reliant on retail supplies.”
The reason air freight manifests are treated differently than sea cargo goes back several decades to the boom in air shipping that began in the 1980s. Since the Tariff Act of 1930, the federal government has collected vessel manifest data, largely for tariff purposes.
During a revamp of the trade regulations in 1984, the airline industry defeated attempts to require public disclosure of manifest information. But pressure from a range of industries concerned with widespread counterfeiting led to reforms with the passage of the Anticounterfeiting Consumer Protection Act of 1996.
During congressional debate over the legislation, then-Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, backed a provision of the bill equalizing the public inspection of sea vessel and air freight cargo disclosures.
“This disclosure of air manifest data and trademark information will be of invaluable assistance in identifying counterfeit merchandise and the location of counterfeiters,” wrote David Biehn, then vice president of Eastman Kodak, in a letter backing the shift.
The ACPA was signed into law on July 2, 1996 and included a provision clearly mandating the public disclosure of aircraft manifests. But as soon as the bill became law, airline industry lobbyists raised objections.
The Air Transport Association of America — a lobby group now known as Airlines for America that represents the airline industry, including United Airlines, American Airlines, and FedEx — pushed back.
“[I]n the interest of cargo security and confidentiality of business data,” ATA claimed in a letter to then-Sen. William Roth, R-Del., “that air cargo manifests remain immune to publication of any form.”
Subsequent arguments were more blunt. One air freight industry lobbyist later told reporters that the industry supplies manifest data to CBP because they require the information. “No other party needs to know — despite the fact they would like to know.”
In a technical correction bill passed in October 1996 with little debate, a provision was added to attempt to delete the previous air freight disclosure requirement in the ACPA.
But the legislative text amended the wrong bill, leading to awkward phrasing left in the federal statute. The current Tariff Act, which has gone through nearly a century of revisions, currently contains a typo, with the phrase “vessel vessel” because of the incorrect legislative text of the October revision.
The federal government has since refused disclosure of air freight manifests, citing the legislative intent of the technical correction bill.
Sharon Yamen, an associate professor at Western Connecticut State University who has studied the issue and currently serves as counsel to the Panjiva-ImportGenius lawsuit, told The Intercept that a plain reading of the law still shows that air freight manifests must be disclosed.
“They amended off the original language and not the amended language from July,” said Yamen. “If you look at the actual statute itself, there is a footnote noting that it was amending incorrectly.”
The original argument by the airline industry, that disclosure of air freight manifests requires a higher level of scrutiny, she added, “falls flat.” Companies also maintain the right to seek exemptions to disclosure for a variety of national security and trade secret purposes.
“Ultimately the reason they gave for the October amendment was because someone stated it was in the interest of security which was a false argument because our waterborne shipping ports are less secure than our airports,” Yamen said. “Anything can come in on a shipping container.”
Yamen argued that there is little reason not to treat air cargo any differently than sea vessels. “This information should be available.”
Terrence Floyd, brother of George Floyd, reacts at a makeshift memorial honoring George Floyd in Minneapolis. (photo: Lucas Jackson/Reuters)
Holly Bailey and Mark Berman, The Washington Post
Excerpt: "A judge tentatively scheduled a March trial date for the four former Minneapolis police officers charged in George Floyd's death, though considerable uncertainty remains about how the case will unfold following a hearing here Monday afternoon."
Three of the four ex-officers appeared in person in a Hennepin County courtroom Monday for a joint hearing, with the one facing the most serious charges — Derek Chauvin, who was filmed driving his knee into Floyd’s neck — appeared remotely from the state prison where he is being held.
It is unclear whether some or all of the officers will be tried together. While prosecutors seem to be pushing for a consolidated trial, defense attorneys are instead expected to push for separate prosecutions.
Chauvin was charged with second-degree murder, while the other three — Tou Thao, Thomas K. Lane and J. Alexander Kueng — were charged with aiding and abetting Chauvin.
The Minneapolis Police Department fired all four of the men in the frenzied aftermath of Floyd’s death, which set off nationwide demonstrations against racial injustice and police violence.
The case or cases are anticipated to draw intense scrutiny through the trial phase, and the publicity and media attention thus far prompted a rebuke from Hennepin County Judge Peter A. Cahill during Monday’s hearing. Cahill stopped short of issuing a gag order in the case, but he sternly warned prosecutors to get public officials to stop talking about it, saying that such actions might result in having to move the trial elsewhere.
Cahill also admonished two members of Floyd’s family — Angela Harrison and Selwyn Jones, Floyd’s aunt and uncle — for visibly reacting to his statements in court. Speaking to reporters afterward, Jones said he was offended by the judge’s comment, pointing out that he was just “feet away” from the officers accused of killing his nephew and was dealing with the resulting emotions.
Jones said the hearing gave him little confidence in the case.
“I know how the system works. I’ve seen the system my whole life — a black man getting shaded, slighted,” he said. “When I walk into a courthouse and I see like 15 white people, I’m like, ‘Oh, hell, we’re going through this again.’ So we’ll see how the process ends up.”
None of the officers entered pleas in court Monday, but after the hearing, Kueng’s attorney filed a document with the court advising that his client intends to plead not guilty. Cahill set two dates for the case or cases ahead, scheduling a pretrial hearing on Sept. 11 and then tentatively slotting the trial to begin on March 8.
Ruhollah Zam. (photo: MEHR)
Associated Press
Excerpt: "Iran has sentenced to death a journalist whose online work helped inspire nationwide economic protests in 2017."
Zam’s online work helped inspire nationwide economic protests in 2017
Ruhollah Zam had returned to Iran under unclear circumstances and was subsequently arrested. Judiciary spokesman Gholamhossein Esmaili announced Zam’s sentence on Tuesday.
Zam had run a website called AmadNews that posted embarrassing videos and information about Iranian officials. He had been living and working in exile in Paris before being convinced into returning to Iran, where he was arrested in October 2019.
Zam later appeared in televised confessions, where he offered an apology for his past activities.
Zam ran a channel on the messaging app Telegram that spread messages about upcoming protests in 2017 and shared videos from the demonstration. That gained him widespread notoriety at the time, including from Iranian authorities wanting to end the protests.
Telegram shut down the channel as a result of Iranian government complaints that it spread information about how to make petrol bombs. The channel later continued under a different name.
Zam is the son of the Shia cleric Mohammad Ali Zam, a reformist who served in a government policy position in the early 1980s. The cleric wrote a letter published by Iranian media in July 2017 in which he said he would not support his son over AmadNews’s reporting and messages on its Telegram channel.
'The South Pole - the most remote place on Earth - has heated more than three times faster than the global average over the last 30 years.' (photo: Andrew Peacock/Getty Images)
his year's record-breaking heat wave in Siberia has drawn attention to the fact that the climate crisis is warming the Arctic about twice as fast as the mid latitudes. But things are also heating up on the other side of Earth.
The South Pole — the most remote place on Earth — has heated more than three times faster than the global average over the last 30 years, a study published in Nature Climate Change Monday found.
"[It's] the ultimate canary in the coal mine," University of Colorado researcher Sharon E. Stammerjohn, who was not involved with the study but wrote a commentary on it, told The New York Times. "One that we can no longer ignore."
The researchers looked at 60 years of data from the South Pole and found that its average temperature had risen by more than 1.83 Celsius degrees since 1989, AFP reported. The pole is now warming at a rate of about 0.6 degrees Celsius per decade, compared with the global average of around 0.2 degrees Celsius.
"While temperatures were known to be warming across West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula during the 20th century, the South Pole was cooling," lead study author and Victoria University of Wellington researcher Kyle Clem told AFP. "It was suspected that this part of Antarctica ... might be immune to/isolated from warming. We found this is not the case any more."
The warming can partly be explained by natural climate cycles. The warming trend at the South Pole began as sea-surface temperatures in the western tropical Pacific also rose as part of an oscillation with decades-long intervals. This tropical warming ultimately warmed the South Pole too, as The New York Times explained:
The warming ocean heated the air, which caused ripples of high and low pressure in the atmosphere that reached all the way to the Antarctic Peninsula, more than 5,000 miles away. Scientists call these kinds of long-distance links teleconnections.
Coupled with the stronger westerly winds, which are part of another long-term pattern, the ripples led to stronger storms in the Weddell Sea, east of the peninsula. These rotating, or cyclonic, storms, swept warmer air from the South Atlantic Ocean into the interior of the continent.
However, while the rapid South Pole warming could all be explained by natural variability, Clem said it was unlikely that it would have warmed so much without the burning of fossil fuels.
The researchers ran more than 200 climate models based on greenhouse gas concentrations recorded from 1989 to 2018 and found that these emissions likely caused one degree of the 1.8 degrees of warming recorded at the South Pole, Clem wrote for The Guardian. The researchers then ran models to see what 30-year temperature swings in the region would look like without greenhouse gas emissions and found that the warming they had detected was too much for 99.9 percent of them.
"It appears the effects from tropical variability have worked together with increasing greenhouse gases, and the end result is one of the strongest warming trends on the planet," Clem wrote.
