Response to recent articles by CPUSA leadership

By James Thompson

The USA is in a highly unusual period. There is a global economic crisis which reaches from Asia to the Middle East to Africa to Europe to South America and North America. No capitalist country is immune to this looming disaster. Oil prices are down, inventories are up, sales are down, stockmarkets are down, interest rates are in purgatory, profits are down, unemployment is up and, understandably, the working class is angry.

At the same time, there is no organized communist or socialist movement on the globe. Historically, communist parties around the globe have fought for the interests of the working class. However, at this juncture, no such party or movement is effective or even exists. To some, it might seem that after years of repression, wars and rumors of wars, the working class has capitulated since the bourgeoisie has the workers on their knees.

The CPUSA has distinguished itself by becoming the vanguard party of the bourgeoisie. The so-called leadership of the CPUSA has recently posted a number of articles which are blatantly anti-Communist and anti-socialist. Let’s take a look.

Susan Webb

The first article appeared on January 4, 2016 to welcome in the New Year. It was posted on the People’s World website since the CPUSA no longer has a printed newspaper. It has been reproduced on this blog in an effort to promote public discussion. It was written by Susan Webb who is the ex-wife of former CPUSA chairman, Sam Webb. Sam Webb and his new partner, Elena Mora, have been slowly, meticulously and surely dismantling and liquidating the CPUSA. Ms. Mora recently wrote a letter of resignation from the CPUSA. Susan Webb has been standing by her man (even though he is no longer her man) and at times seems to be attempting to outdo Mr. Webb and Ms. Mora in their efforts to destroy the party. Susan Webb’s article is entitled “Everyone’s talking about socialism, but what is it?”

Ms. Webb’s article sings the praises of Bernie Sanders while condemning the great socialist experiment which was called the Soviet Union. Ms. Webb attempts to outdo the apologists for capitalism by condemning anything which might be considered socialist. She even condemns what she calls “cheesy socialist realism paintings.” In doing so, she condemns the likes of Diego Rivera, David Siqueiros, Charles White and John Biggers. These artists painted some of the greatest murals in the world. A recent article in the Houston Chronicle puts a value on one of John Biggers’ murals at over $1 million.

Ms. Webb quotes Bernie Sanders as he praises Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Martin Luther King Jr., and Pope Francis. In a speech that, according to Ms. Webb, Sen. Sanders delivered at Georgetown University, he stated, “Our government belongs to all of us, and not just the 1%.” He also said, according to Ms. Webb, “you cannot have freedom without economic security” and detailed this as “the right to a decent job at decent pay, the right to adequate food, clothing, and time off from work, the right for every business, large and small, to function in an atmosphere free from unfair competition and domination by monopolies. The right of all Americans to have a decent home and decent healthcare.”

Those of sound mind will quickly recognize here a mixture of fantasy and reality. In the USA, under capitalism, the government serves only one function: To protect the interests of the bourgeoisie. In the history of the USA, there has never been a period in which working people have had any economic security. Unemployment in the USA varies, but has always been high. Access to food, clothing, paid leave, freedom from unfair competition and the right to a decent home and decent healthcare has always been nonexistent.

The problem here is not to achieve a kinder, gentler capitalism. The problem is to chart a reasonable, feasible path of struggle to the goal of socialism. Reforming capitalism can never result in the goals that Ms. Webb and her idol, Bernie Sanders set. Exploitation, repression, wars, racism, sexism, unemployment and other forms of hatred and abuse are inherent in any capitalist society.

Ms. Webb attempts to reduce socialism to co-ops, privately owned companies, individually owned businesses and sets tactics to achieve these goals to include worker decision-making, expanding town halls, implementing proportional representation, taking money out of political campaigns and making voting easy.

Such simplification is merely obfuscation of the main strategic goal of any Communist Party which is to bring about socialism.

Ms. Webb, in her article, returns to a maniacal rant against the Soviet Union. Interestingly, all of her criticisms of socialism and the Soviet Union are based on US propaganda. Her criticisms could have been written by Joseph McCarthy or J Edgar Hoover. She even goes so far as to say that the Soviet Union was not “socialist.” This may be an historical first.

She throws out red flags, Che and Lenin with the bathwater. She does not condemn Democratic Party president Harry Truman for the atom bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and betraying the US ally, the Soviet Union, after their great contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany. After FDR’s death, Truman changed the course of US foreign policy which resulted in a very expensive Cold War and nuclear arms race which drained the resources of the working class and did irreparable damage to the planet. She did not condemn Democratic Party governor George Wallace for his virulent racism. She did not condemn the nasty, degenerate, vicious Dixiecrats.

You get the picture. Ms. Webb’s article is filled with filthy, destructive anti-communism which has always been a knife in the heart of the working class.

Let’s look at how Ms. Webb’s article measures up to Lenin’s 21 conditions (previously posted on this blog).

Lenin maintained that the political work of the party should have a “really communist character” and should be devoted to the cause of the proletariat. He stated “in the columns of the press, at public meetings, in the trades unions, and the cooperatives-wherever the members of the Communist International can gain admittance-it is necessary to brand not only the bourgeoisie but also its helpers, the reformists of every shade, systematically and pitilessly.” Ms. Webb obviously violates this condition. She seems to want to do away with the CPUSA and instead support a progressive candidate of the Democratic Party. Bernie Sanders apparently wants to reform capitalism to make it more comfortable for some sectors of the population in the USA. This is not a bad thing, but it is hardly the only thing that needs to be done. No one knows whether Sen. Sanders has any chance of attaining state power, and if he does, whether he will use that power in the interest of the working class. He is certainly not a communist or socialist.

Lenin goes on “Every organization that wishes to affiliate to the Communist International must regularly and methodically remove reformists and centrists from every responsible post in the labor movement (party organizations, editorial boards, trades unions, parliamentary factions, cooperatives, local government) and replace them with tested communists, without worrying unduly about the fact that, particularly at first, ordinary workers from the masses will be replacing “experienced opportunists.”

Ms. Webb advocates elevating a reformist, centrist opportunist, Bernie Sanders, to the highest office of the land.

Lenin discusses the class struggle but Ms. Webb seems to think that the class struggle is irrelevant to working people.

Lenin discusses the role of the Communist Party in working to prevent new imperialist wars. Apparently, Ms. Webb must believe that imperialism is also irrelevant.

Lenin advocates the elimination of petty bourgeois elements within the party. Ms. Webb embraces not only petty bourgeois, but fully bourgeois elements.

Lenin clearly states “all those parties that wish to belong to the Communist International must change their names. Every party that wishes to belong to the Communist International must bear the name Communist Party of this or that country.” He goes on “The Communist international has declared war on the whole bourgeois world and on all yellow social Democratic parties. The difference between the Communist Parties and the old official ‘social Democratic’ or ‘socialist’ parties that have betrayed the banner of the working class must be clear to every simple toiler.” Again, Ms. Webb extols the virtues of the social Democrats while damning socialists and communists.

Lenin wrote “those party members who fundamentally reject the conditions and theses laid down by the Communist International are to be expelled from the party. Ms. Webb and her partners in crime, Mr. Webb, Ms. Mora and Mr. Bachtell have worked diligently to expel any members of the party who have expressed opposition to collaboration with the social Democrats.

Sam Webb

On January 29, 2016, Sam Webb, former chairman of the CPUSA, and his hand-picked puppet, John Bachtell, the current chairman of the CPUSA, launched two articles simultaneously. These articles have been reproduced on this blog in their entirety in an effort to promote public discussion. Webb’s article is entitled “Bernie or Bust.” As background information, it is important to know that Mr. Webb has advocated publicly abandoning the use of the words “œcommunist” or “Leninist.”

The thrust of his article is to maintain that the only viable strategy of people on the left is to fight the ultra right. His concept of the ultra right equates to members of the Republican Party. He maintains that if Sen. Bernie Sanders does not prevail in his effort to be the Democratic Party nominee for president, people on the left, particularly communists, should fall in lockstep with Hillary Clinton or anyone else that the DNC chooses to anoint. Presumably, if the DNC could resurrect George Wallace and nominate him for president, by Webb’s reckoning, communists should throw all their support behind him.

Webb argues that Hillary Clinton is a far superior candidate than any of the Republican contenders. He allows that Clinton’s foreign policy would most likely be “more aggressive and military-inclined then Obam’s.”

Mr. Webb’s convoluted, contradictory thinking is exemplified in this paragraph: “In sharp contrast to her Republican adversaries, Hillary has a democratic sensibility and the commitment, even if hemmed in by her centrist politics and class leanings. She may not want to break up banks too big to fail, or rein in US military presence and activity worldwide, or embrace single-payer health care (arguably for good reasons), but she will fight for the full range of democratic rights-collective bargaining rights, wage rights, job rights, women’s rights, civil rights, gay rights, voting rights, immigrant rights, and, not least, health rights-as well as defend the integrity of democratic structures, governance, and traditions.”

Que contrar, Mr. Webb. It is well known that the Clintons have fought the unions, failed to support the employee free choice act, and as you have cited, opposed single-payer health care. However, even if a hypothetical President Clinton II took office, if she led the USA in further and more intense military provocation of Russia, and China, all humans on the planet could be transformed into cockroach food. As Pete Seeger sang “we can all be cremated equally.” After mass cremation, all of the above reforms become moot issues.

Mr. Webb does not seem to recall that former Secretary of State Clinton committed international war crimes when she presided over the destruction of a sovereign state, Libya, and the barbarous assassination of its leader, Moammar Qaddafi. He doesn’t seem to recall that Hillary Clinton’s husband, former Pres. Bill Clinton (who would return to the White House if his wife is elected president) presided over the destruction of the sovereign state of Yugoslavia and the persecution of its leaders. He does not recognize that this set the stage for George W. Bush to preside over the destruction of the sovereign nation of Iraq and the barbarous assassination of its leader, Saddam Hussein.

He only recognizes the extreme right elements within the Republican Party. He turns blind eyes and ears to the extreme right elements within the Democratic Party.

Again, Mr. Webb, like Ms. Webb, violates Lenin’s conditions by denigrating the Communist Party and touting Social Democrats and reformists while working tirelessly to liquidate the CPUSA. One of the tactics Mr. Webb has employed was to elevate his favorite henchman, John Bachtell, to the position of chairman of the CPUSA.

John Bachtell

It is no coincidence that Mr. Bachtell posted his article “Taking a sober look at the 2016 election” on the CPUSA website on the same day that Mr. Webb posted his article on his own personal blog. Both articles make reference to “Bernie or Bust.”

Mr. Bachtell apes the Webb line of “defeat the extreme right” which translates into support for the Democratic Party candidates, no matter how reactionary they may be. Much of the article is extremely poorly written with grammatical errors that would make anyone blush. His sentences don’t have any logical cohesion. They are presented in a staccato fashion which is highly confusing and raises party obfuscation to a new level.

Bachtell writes “We have to continue to emphasize the issues, promoting the best of both Sanders and Clinton, especially the most advanced positions. For example, there is growing discussion among the candidates about a financial transaction tax on Wall Street.” Bachtell does not seem to think that the class struggle is an issue worth discussing. Imperialism, socialism, and/or Leninism are not on the table for discussion either. However, the class struggle, and imperialism/fascism are the evils which plague the working class. Marxism Leninism and socialism are the tools which historically have been most effective in fighting the evils mentioned above.

Bachtell fecklessly quotes the New York Times and other sources of the bourgeois media and continues to confuse these voices of the bourgeoisie with the voices of the working people.

Bachtell talks about building a grand coalition to defeat the ultra right. Unfortunately, his predecessor, Sam Webb, has been very successful in dismantling and almost liquidating the party. It would be interesting to know what the party has done over the last 10 years to build any coalitions. The only coalitions that the party seems capable of building is a convergence of various sources of hot air. They also have been successful in infusing reality with a heavy dose of fantasy about their own importance.

Again, Bachtell follows in Webb’s footsteps and violates Lenin’s conditions in all regards.

On this eve of the Iowa primary and caucuses, is there any hope that the working class will inch towards the achievement of state power in the coming election cycle in the USA? Lenin said bourgeois elections do not solve anything. The great CPUSA chairperson, Gus Hall, urged communists that choose to engage in electoral struggle to “Aim to win.” When he said that, the CPUSA fielded candidates for various electoral offices around the country with little success. It is likely that he would be horrified at the state of the CPUSA today. Communists and socialists have been reduced to the position of deluding themselves into thinking that if a Democrat wins office, it is a victory for the working class. On the contrary, some might argue that support of bourgeois candidates is “Aiming to lose.”

The choices we must make are disgusting at best. It is like being forced to make a decision whether to drink poison and die or drink castor oil and get sick. The reality is that it is better to get sick and recover rather than to die and be gone forever.

Mr. Bachtell and Mr. Webb seem to think that there is no danger of fascism in the USA. Some might argue that it is already here. Much of Pres. Obama’s foreign policy might be characterized as fascist. His failure to support working people on many levels is not antithetical to fascism. The same can be said of both Sen. Sanders’ and former Secretary of State Clinton’s platforms. Sen. Sanders is clearly more progressive on more issues than former Secretary of State Clinton.

Will working people decide to drink castor oil or drain the poison? We will know more tomorrow. For sure, the class struggle will be very intense in the coming years.

More in Congress Sign On As CoSponsors of HR 676, Single Payer Healthcare Bill

In December six representatives, Danny Davis (IL), Grace Napolitano (CA), Emanuel Cleaver (MO), Jerry McNerney (CA), Robin Kelly (IL), and Alan Lowenthal (CA), added their names as cosponsors on HR 676, Congressman John Conyers' Expanded and Improved Medicare for All, the national single payer legislation. 

The total number of cosponsors is now 59, not including chief sponsor Conyers. 

The more cosponsors that are added, the more quickly this real solution becomes politically viable. The more representatives who speak boldly for HR 676, the higher single payer advances on the nation's agenda.  

Call your representative and ask her or him to sign on to HR 676. The Capitol switchboard number is (202) 224-3121.  Ask to speak to your representative by name. If you need to look up a representative, you can do
so here.

When talking with representatives who have already signed on, encourage them to speak up for HR 676 on the House floor, to the press, in town hall meetings, and to put their support for HR 676 on their website. If they
need further information, spend the time to bring the facts about HR 676 to their attention. This clear and simple statement of Dr. Marcia Angell may help. 

The list of representatives who have already signed on to HR 676 is here.

The list of representatives who were cosponsors of HR 676 in earlier Congresses but have not yet signed on in the 114th is below. This is a good place to start. 

Rep. Xavier Becerra, California 34th
Rep. Sanford D. Bishop, Jr., Georgia 2nd
Rep. Corrine Brown, Florida 5th 
Rep. G. K. Butterfield, North Carolina 1st 
Rep. Andre Carson, Indiana 7th, 
Rep. Marcia Fudge, Ohio 11th, 
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, Texas 30th, 
Rep. David Loebsack, Iowa 2d 
Rep. Nita M. Lowey, New York 17th 
Rep. Ben Ray Lujan, New Mexico 3d 
Rep. Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts 8th 
Rep. Gregory W. Meeks, New York 5th 
Rep. Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey 10th 
Rep. Jared Polis, Colorado 2nd 
Rep. David Scott, Georgia 13th 
Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi 2nd 
Rep. Nydia M. Velazquez, New York 7th 
Rep. Peter J. Visclosky, Indiana 1st  
Rep. Maxine Waters, California 43rd   

"According to myth…a single-payer system is a good idea, but unrealistic.... What is truly unrealistic is anything else."

--Marcia Angell, MD, former editor-in-chief, New England Journal of Medicine, June 10, 2009 


#30# 

 HR 676 would institute a single payer health care system by expanding a greatly improved Medicare to everyone residing in the U. S. Patients will choose their own physicians and hospitals.

 HR 676 would cover every person for all necessary medical care including prescription drugs, hospital, surgical, outpatient services, primary and preventive care, emergency services, dental (including oral surgery, periodontics, endodontics), mental health, home health, physical therapy, rehabilitation (including for substance abuse), vision care and correction, hearing services including hearing aids, chiropractic, durable medical equipment, palliative care, podiatric care, and long term care.

 HR 676 ends deductibles and co-payments. HR 676 would save hundreds of billions annually by eliminating the high overhead and profits of the private health insurance industry and HMOs.

 In the current Congress, HR 676 has 59 co-sponsors in addition to Congressman Conyers.

 HR 676 has been endorsed by 622 union organizations including 151 Central Labor Councils/Area Labor Federations and 44 state AFL-CIO's (KY, PA, CT, OH, DE, ND, WA, SC, WY, VT, FL, WI, WV, SD, NC, MO, MN, ME, AR, MD-DC, TX, IA, AZ, TN, OR, GA, OK, KS, CO, IN, AL, CA, AK, MI, MT, NE, NJ, NY, NV, MA, RI, NH, ID. 

For a list of union endorsers, or a sample endorsement resolution, contact:

Kay Tillow 

All Unions Committee for Single Payer Health Care--HR 676
c/o Nurses Professional Organization (NPO)
1169 Eastern Parkway, Suite 2218
Louisville, KY 40217

(502) 636 1551 

Email: nursenpo@aol.com   
http://unionsforsinglepayer.org
https://www.facebook.com/unionsforsinglepayer 

Africa/Global: Health Challenges & Threats

AfricaFocus Bulletin
October 13, 2015 (151013)
(Reposted from sources cited below)

Editor’s Note

Last week was the first week since March 2014 that no new cases of
Ebola were reported in the affected West African countries. And late
last month the World Health Organization announced official
guidelines for beginning antiretroviral therapy for all persons
infected with HIV even before they show symptoms of AIDS. Fully
eradicating either disease and building sustainable health system
remain  formidable challenges, however. At the same time, U.S.
policy to promote greater protection for large pharmaceutical
companies in trade negotiations poses a still rising threat to
global efforts to guarantee the universal right to health.

For a version of this Bulletin in html format, more suitable for
printing, go to http://www.africafocus.org/docs15/rth1510.php, and
click on “format for print or mobile.”

To share this on Facebook, click on
https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http://www.africafocus.org/docs15/rth1510.php

This AfricaFocus Bulletin contains one short article on the threat
to health in the least developed countries from hard-line U.S.
policy on protection for pharmaceutical companies, followed by links
with short excerpts from other recent articles on Ebola, the cost of
medicine and the current dysfunctional pharmaceutical system,
HIV/AIDS, and a promising advance in  medical technology providing
cost-effective blood auto-transfusion in developing countries.

While progress has been made both on the long-term pandemic HIV/AIDS
and the West African Ebola epidemic more recently, neither battle is
completely won. Neither have the economic, personal, and societal
damages been repaired, nor the world’s health systems prepared for
new epidemics, nor the necessary resources invested to guarantee the
universal right to health.

For previous AfricaFocus Bulletins on health and related issues,
visit http://www.africafocus.org/intro-health.php

The WHO Ebola Situation Report is available at
http://apps.who.int/ebola/ebola-situation-reports

Updates on AIDS are available at http://www.unaids.org

Frequent updates on the status of access to medicines are available
on the MSF / Doctors Without Borders website on this issue at
http://www.msfaccess.org/

++++++++++++++++++++++end editor’s note+++++++++++++++++

LDCs be damned:  USTR and Big Pharma seeks to eviscerate Least
Developed Countries’ insulation from pharmaceutical monopolies

Professor Brook K. Baker, Health GAP and Northeastern U. School of
Law

HealthGap blog, October 12, 2015

http://www.healthgap.org/blog – Direct URL:
http://tinyurl.com/pbhd94q

Professor Brook K. Baker, Health GAP (Global Access Project) &
Northeastern U. School of Law, Program on Human Rights and the
Global Economy
Honorary Research Fellow, Faculty of Law, Univ. of KwaZulu Natal, SA

In November of 2001, at the height of the global AIDS pandemic,
every WTO member country in the world, including the United States,
voted unanimously in the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and
Public Health that WTO Least Developed Countries members should be
granted an unconditional extension of any obligation to grant or
enforce patents, data protections, or exclusive marketing rights on
pharmaceutical products.  These countries desperately needed access
to affordable generic medicines and freedom from the pillage of Big
Pharma’s monopoly pricing.  This sensible and humane transition
policy was confirmed by votes of the WTO TRIPS Council and General
Council in 2002.

Fast forward to 2015, and LDCs are again seeking an extension of
that same no-pharmaceutical-monopolies policy, which expires on
January 1, 2016.  Their request has reportedly received approval in
nearly every capital of the world – except Washington D.C. (with
some weakening opposition from Australia, Canada, and Switzerland).
Nothing in the plight of least developed countries has changed –
they remain desperately poor, they continue to lead the world in
negative health statistics and early death, and they continue to
struggle with development challenges and inadequate capacity in
their industrial, technological, and administrative sectors.  More
to the point, they continue to need access to affordable medicines,
and, if possible, new manufacturing capacity and expertise to
produce at least some medicines on their own.

What the LDCs seek is simple: rather than another time limited
extension (even a relatively long 15 year one like the one they
first got), is an extension that lasts as long as they remain an
LDC.  Once an LDC member transitions to lower-middle income status,
its obligation to begin to process, grant, and enforce patents and
data protections on medicines would change.  But in the meantime,
countries that were still LDCs could import cheaper generics legally
from abroad or manufacture them locally with no intellectual
property restrictions whatsoever.

What does the United States Trade Representative want – what pound
of flesh is it seeking from LDCs for an further extension that is
guaranteed to them by paragraph 7 of the Doha Declaration and by
Article 66.1 of the TRIPS Agreement?  After all those documents
state that initial TRIPS transition periods, like LDCs had for
pharmaceuticals, were granted without prejudice to further
extensions and that WTO member “shall, upon duly motivated request
by a least-developed country Member, accord extensions [of LDC
TRIPS-compliance transition periods].”  In this context, “shall”
means “must,” no “ifs,” “ands,” or “buts.”

Instead of acceding to these clear TRIPS mandates, the USTR is
unwilling to discuss an extension for as long as an LDC remains an
LDC and instead is demanding a more miserly, time-limited extension.
The US has been unwilling to state its position publicly.  Instead,
it has selectively listened to corporate “stakeholders” at home,
namely PhRMA and BIO, who oppose an unlimited extension because …
well, because of what they say to back up every IP monopoly demand:
“We need more profits, even from the poorest countries in the world,
in order to research the next generation of life saving medicines.”

Unfortunately, the USTR has not listened to access-to-medicines
advocates who wrote a letter urging US support for the LDC extension
over a month ago with no response to date.  Nor is the USTR
listening to other “key” US stakeholders including Senator Sanders,
and Representatives Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.),
Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), Raúl M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Keith Ellison
(D-Minn.), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), and Sam Farr (D-Calif.), elected
officials who have all have expressed unequivocal support for the
LDC request.  Even the European Commission has voted unanimously in
favor of the unlimited extension.

At a meeting in Geneva with 15 Ambassadors from the LDC Group on
Friday October 9, Ambassador Michael Punke, Deputy United States
Trade Representative and U.S. Ambassador and Permanent
Representative to the World Trade Organization, and gave a
startling, unbelievably craven and subservient justification for the
US demand for a short-duration extension.  He said that Big Pharma
was disappointed with the additional intellectual property and
pharmaceutical protections the US secured for it in Trans Pacific
Partnership negotiations and thus that the US could not give ground
on the LDC extension.

Right, the poorest countries in world should get shortchanged on
their desperately needed access to more affordable generic medicines
because Big Bio did not get 12 years of data exclusivity monopoly
protections on their $100,000-plus per-patient-per-year biologics.

The USTR’s policy positions on the LDC extension request are deadly.
They cynically safeguard Big Pharma’s global monopoly empire with
potential catastrophic effects on LDCs ability to strengthen their
human and technological well-being.  At a time when we see migrants’
bodies washing onto European beaches, the USTR wants to make sure
that pharmaceutical capacity is stillborn in many of the countries
those migrants come from.  This dour and ethically demented policy
position cannot stand.

Is President Obama’s administration so out of touch with
humanitarian values and common decency that it wants the US to be
the sole country at the WTO to oppose a mandatory, unconditional
pharmaceutical extension for LDCs that is their legal right?

*************************************************************

Links on Ebola (with very short excerpts)

(1)http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda – Direct URL:
http://tinyurl.com/q7trnqv

Amy Maxmen, “To Prevent The Next Plague, Listen To Boie Jalloh,” NPR
Goats & Soda, Oct. 8, 2015

“This is a landmark week in West Africa. For the first time since
the Ebola outbreak, there were no new cases reported in Guinea,
Liberia and Sierra Leone.

There are many unsung heroes who deserve credit for this milestone.
One of them is Dr. Boie Jalloh, age 30. Ten days after he showed up
for his medical residency at 34th Military Hospital in Freetown,
Sierra Leone, he received a letter requesting his presence at the
hospital’s newly constructed Ebola unit.”

“To me, first and foremost, I wish the government and our
international partners would invest in medical education. We really
need more doctors and nurses here — we needed them before Ebola. You
can supply all the drugs you want, but people won’t be able to get
those drugs if there is only one health care provider for 10,000
people. [Note: According to the World Bank, the number is 1.8 —
compared to 100 in the U.S.]”

(2) http://www.eboladeeply.org / Direct URL:
http://tinyurl.com/obf26pm

Brooks Marmon, “In Liberia, Paying Tribute to Those Who Sang Against
Ebola,” Ebola Deeply, Sept. 22, 2015

Last week, the conference room of Monrovia’s Young Men’s Christian
Association (YMCA) was decked out in red, white and blue balloons:
the colors of Liberia’s Lonestar flag. The event? A tribute by the
Musicians’ Union of Liberia (MULIB) to the artists – singers, hip-co
stars, songwriters and other musicians – who joined the Ebola fight.

Bernard Benson, better known as D.J. Blue, the manager of Hott FM,
one of Liberia’s most popular radio stations, was the M.C. for the
event. He set the tone by noting, ‘We took Ebola from 100 percent to
0.0 … no one must underestimate what Liberian music did. It
resonated to every Liberian, to the people that matter.’ G. Bennie
Johnson, MULIB’s vice president, echoed his words, adding that
‘musicians have the power, real power, to do something good for this
country.’

Nearly a dozen videos accompanying Ebola awareness songs were
screened as part of the festivities.”

[see full article at link above for embedded videos.]

*************************************************************

Links on Cost of Medicines (with very short excerpts)

(1) http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org – Direct URL:
http://tinyurl.com/qchbgz5

MSF / Doctors without Borders, “The Cost of Medicine,” Alert, Fall
2015, pages 10-12 on “Fundamental Changes Needed in the Biotechnical
Innovation System.”

“A primary driver of biomedical innovation is public funding coupled
with the granting of patents and other intellectual property rights
that give pharmaceutical companies exclusive domain to make and sell
a new medicine or vaccine for a stipulated period of time. This in
turn gives companies monopoly control over the market for that
product, allowing them to charge high prices and inhibiting
competition that would drive down costs.

Companies therefore decide where to allocate resources based on the
revenues they believe a particular product could generate, not the
public health burden they could address. What this means in
practical terms is that public health priorities and needs rarely
determine how corporate efforts are directed. In the current
ecosystem, companies watching their profit margins and stock prices
are effectively dis-incentivized from focusing resources and
attention on diseases and conditions that primarily affect people in
the developing world, people who don’t represent a lucrative market.

From our vantage point, it’s a broken system that is both
inefficient and ineffective at responding to the most pressing
global public health needs. And our field teams witness these costs
on a daily basis.”

“In addition, there is a lack of transparency from the
pharmaceutical industry, so we don’t really know what the R&D costs
are for specific products, what proportion of a given product was
publicly financed, or how much it costs to manufacture. The accuracy
of industry-funded estimates on the cost of developing a drug is
questionable at best.

(2) http://www.msfaccess.org/ / Direct URL:
http://tinyurl.com/o7yj4ms

MSF Access, “TPP trade pact will deepen global crisis of exorbitant
drug prices unless dangerous terms are removed.” Press release,
Sept. 25, 2015

“As public outrage about exorbitant drug prices features in new
headlines in the US and around the world, negotiators and trade
ministers from the 12 Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) countries are
converging in Atlanta to potentially finalize the trade pact, which
has been negotiated in secret over a period of more than five years.
Recent leaked copies of the TPP’s intellectual property chapter
confirm the inclusion of harmful rules that will lock in high prices
and block affordable generic medicines for years.  MSF urges all TPP
countries to firmly reject provisions that will deepen the global
crisis of unaffordable medicines and health products.”

Also includes link to 4-page briefing paper on the TPP: “Trading
Away Health”

*******************************************************

Links on HIV/AIDS (with very short excerpts)

(1)http://www.healthgap.org/blog – Direct URL:
http://tinyurl.com/qdbyf52

Health GAP,  “Celebration and Call to Action – New WHO Guidelines on
HIV Treatment and PrEP

“(September 30, 2015) Health GAP welcomes the World Health
Organization’s release of new global guidelines on HIV treatment,
recommending that all people living with HIV be started on HIV
treatment regardless of disease stage and encouraging expanded
availability of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to groups at
particularly high risk of contracting HIV.

Earlier guidelines recommended that health care providers wait until
people with HIV reached a certain level of disease progression
before starting treatment, despite the fact that years ago many
wealthy countries including the United States had already begun
providing treatment immediately upon diagnosis  to all people living
with HIV regardless of how advanced their disease. The shift in
guidelines comes after new results from the NIH-funded START trial,
which provided conclusive evidence of the benefits of immediate
initiation in May of this year.”

“Only 15 million people are currently on treatment and 37 million
are infected, meaning that an additional 22 million people are now
eligible for immediate treatment. HIV testing has to be
significantly increased, people need to be enrolled in treatment
when they test positive, and they will need durable connection to
quality care.”

“Unfortunately donors and major funders are acting as if additional
resources are not needed. Just a few days ago the US announced a
major initiative to expand treatment and to reduce infections among
young women, but it identified no additional resources. ‘Preliminary
estimates show that the US must add at least $300 million new
dollars each year over the next few years to existing global AIDS
funding to help meet the new treatment and prevention goals,’ said
Professor Brook Baker, Health GAP’s Senior Policy Analyst.”

(2) http://www.thelancet.com/ – Direct URL:
http://tinyurl.com/nq5btzp

“Vancouver Consensus: antiretroviral medicines, medical evidence,
and political will,” The Lancet, August 8, 2015

“In 1996, the global HIV community gathered in Vancouver, Canada,
for the XI International AIDS Conference and shared the clear
evidence that triple-combination antiretroviral treatment held the
power to stem the tide of deaths from AIDS. The HIV treatment era
had begun. As we gathered again in Vancouver in July, 2015, it was
clear that a new transformative moment is upon us. The Vancouver
Consensus statement,1 which emerged at the recently concluded 8th
International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Pathogenesis, Treatment
and Prevention (IAS 2015), signals the scientific affirmation that,
rather than limiting access to those who are immune compromised,
immediate access to antiretroviral medicines holds the power to
rapidly advance the fight to end AIDS.

The consensus—signed by more than 500 researchers, clinicians, and
civil society experts—is clear: ‘All people living with HIV must
have access to antiretroviral treatment upon diagnosis. Barriers to
access in law, policy, stigma and bias must be confronted and
dismantled. And as part of a combination prevention effort, PrEP
(Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis) must be made available to protect those
at high risk of acquiring HIV. The strategic use of ARVs—through
treatment and other preventive uses—can save countless millions of
lives, reduce new infections, and move us vastly closer to our goal
of ending the epidemic. A new era of opportunity against this
epidemic has dawned, and we must seize it.’

…

Medical evidence is unambiguous. At this point, further delays
threaten not only millions of lives but also threaten a resurgence
of this pandemic. But if we act rapidly, we can drive down HIV
incidence, death, and long-term costs. Political will is needed to
complete the work of what can be one of the most effective public
health interventions in history.”

*****************************************************

Links on technical advances for developing countries

Sisu Global Health (http://www.sisuglobalhealth.com/)

A recent start-up led by three women from Michigan, Sisu Global
Health was initially based in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and has
recently moved to Baltimore, near the Inner Harbor.

“The Hemafuse [now being tested by doctors in Zimbabwe and Ghana] is
a manual autotransfusion device is that used to retransfuse a
patient’s own blood during an internal hemorrhage, specifically
ruptured ectopic pregnancies or road traffic accidents. The current
procedure commonly used in Sub-Saharan Africa consists of salvaging
blood with a kitchen soup ladle and filtering it with gauze.
Compared to this soup ladle autotransfusion, Hemafuse takes 1/3 of
the time, 1/9 of the staff, and is significantly safer. The Hemafuse
functions much like a giant syringe to suction blood through a
filter when a handle is pulled up. When the handle is pushed down
the blood is transferred directly to a blood bag in a closed
system.”

“This device is surgical – meaning that it can intervene during a
pivotal moment in an individual’s care. Compared to most moments
when autologous blood transfusion occurs, the Hemafuse, as an
intervention, will be both more urgent and more evident in terms of
results. Its handheld, sleek design reduces both blood flow issues
and failure modes from a slippery, gloved hand mid-surgery. In many
of the surgical suites that we’ve been in, space is at a premium.
Improvements on hospitals and buildings are not keeping up with the
increase in patient admittance and population growth, meaning
smaller rooms for more people.

This device, as one Tanzanian doctor put it, will eliminate a
‘messy’ and sometimes futile process.

All opinions from these doctors point to the success of this device,
however, the glaring fact that autotransfusion, the recycling of a
person’s own blood, has been debated solely in Western countries. Of
all the published material concerning African healthcare, only 1-2%
have contributions from the continent’s own physicians.
Additionally, these articles and the repository services that
attempt to collect thousands of articles are often not
internationally indexed to include African medical papers. They come
from a continent that has been performing autotransfusion for years,
but whose voices have not been given the mechanism to be heard in
the medical community.”

*****************************************************

AfricaFocus Bulletin is an independent electronic publication
providing reposted commentary and analysis on African issues, with a
particular focus on U.S. and international policies. AfricaFocus
Bulletin is edited by William Minter.

AfricaFocus Bulletin can be reached at africafocus@igc.org. Please
write to this address to subscribe or unsubscribe to the bulletin,
or to suggest material for inclusion. For more information about
reposted material, please contact directly the original source
mentioned. For a full archive and other resources, see
http://www.africafocus.org

AfricaFocus Bulletin
July 29, 2015 (150729)
(Reposted from sources cited below)

Editor’s Note

In analyzing high-profile presidential visits, it is difficult to
sort out symbolism from substance in the sheer volume of news
coverage and commentary. And despite the flurry of announcement of
“deals” at each stop, the main lines of policy are rarely altered
and often reflect continuity not only within one presidential
administration but also from one administration to another. The
content of private conversations of lower-level officials as well as
others involved in the visits may be just as significant as the
formal meetings of presidents. Even more significant may be the
issues not discussed because common assumptions go unquestioned on
both sides.

For a version of this Bulletin in html format, more suitable for
printing, go to http://www.africafocus.org/docs15/usaf1507.php, and
click on “format for print or mobile.”

To share this on Facebook, click on
https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http://www.africafocus.org/docs15/usaf1507.php

As regular readers know, AfricaFocus seeks to select and repost
particularly insightful news and commentary that readers might not
have seen elsewhere. With such a visible event, that is difficult.
The “news” is available to anyone who has internet access and is
paying attention. And almost all the commentary is predictable and
repetitive.

So this issue of AfricaFocus is different, and consists primarily of
links for readers to explore as they wish, to supplement what they
have already seen or read.

I have included (1) links to the speeches that seemed to me most
significant, (2) suggestions for custom google searches that might
turn up a wide variety of other sources, (3) links to a few
commentaries, including audio from radio programs in which your
editor was included, and (4) links to previous AfricaFocus Bulletins
covering questions that were “off the radar screen” in the visit as
well as in media commentary.

++++++++++++++++++++++end editor’s note+++++++++++++++++

President Obama’s Speeches

Among the speeches and other events made available by the White
House in video form or transcripts, these stand out, particularly
the first. Unfortunately neither the introduction by his sister in
Kenya nor the remarks by African Union Chairperson Nkosazana Dlamini
Zuma were kept on-line by the White House, although they were
available in the live webcast.

President Obama’s Speech to Kenyan People, July 26, 2015
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_Kw9YnNXJk
Transcript: http://tinyurl.com/qbh23t9

President Obama’s Speech to African Union, July 28, 2015
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNife3N3X0Q
Transcript: http://allafrica.com/stories/201507281847.html

Custom Google Searches

Note: With the “site:” operator, one can limit a google search to a
single website or to all websites with the same country code, to get
a better idea of how an event or a topic is covered. Some examples
for President Obama’s trip include these, including the two
principal international organizations focusing on human rights
issues:

* Obama visit to Africa 2015
* Obama visit to Africa 2015 site:nytimes.com
* Obama visit to Africa 2015 site:amnesty.org
* Obama visit to Africa 2015 site:hrw.org
* Obama visit to Africa 2015 site:allafrica.com (includes many
articles from African press)
* Obama visit to Africa 2015 site:saharareporters.com
* Obama visit to Africa 2015 site:.ke  (from websites in Kenya)
* Obama visit to Africa 2015 site:.et (from websites in Ethiopia)
search web not news since .et not well-represented in news)

Additional country codes can be found at
http://www.web-l.com/country-codes/

Several short articles I found worth noting:

Simon Allison, “Barack Obama’s convenient truths,” Daily Maverick,
July 27, 2015
Oped: http://tinyurl.com/o64s46p

Simon Allison, “Obama at the African Union,” Daily Maverick, July
28, 2015
News: http://tinyurl.com/oduwce4

Hassen Hussein, “What exactly is Obama’s Africa legacy?,” Al
Jazeera,
July 28, 2015
Opinion: http://tinyurl.com/ne2f28y

Paul Korin, “A visit of firsts, but Obama’s Africa policy mostly
symbolic,” Globe and Mail, July 28, 2015
http://tinyurl.com/pnj3sp6

Audio of radio interviews in which I participated:

KPFA Sunday Show, July 26, 2015, 1st hour, interview with William
Minter, Editor, AfricaFocus Bulletin
Audio: https://kpfa.org/player/?audio=210725

KPFA Upfront, July 27, 2015
Horace Campbell, Syracuse University and William Minter, Editor,
AfricaFocus Bulletin
Audio: https://kpfa.org/player/?audio=211164 (start at 34 minutes)

WPFW, July 29, 2015 1pm-2pm Eastern US time – Mwiza Munthali with
Nii Akuetteh and William Minter – will be live at
http://www.wpfwfm.org/radio/
and later archived at
http://www.wpfwfm.org/radio/programming/archived-shows

Aspects of Topics Avoided, with some links to previous AfricaFocus
Bulletins

* On Counter-Terrorism

With the exception of President Obama’s diplomatic critique of
Kenyan and Ethiopian use of the threat of terrorism as an excuse
human rights violations, there was little reference to other
critiques of the policies of USA, Kenya and Ethiopia.  For
alternative views, see in particular the background history and
commentary on the USA, Kenya, and Ethiopian involvement in Somalia
at http://www.africafocus.org/country/somalia.php, particularly
http://www.africafocus.org/docs15/gar1504.php,
http://www.africafocus.org/docs15/som1502.php,
http://www.africafocus.org/docs11/som1108.php, and
http://www.africafocus.org/docs07/som0701a.php

* On Corruption & “Illicit Financial Flows”

While President Obama spoke eloquently about corruption in Africa,
and briefly mentioned “illicit financial flows” in response to a
remark by African Union Chairperson Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma, there
was clearly no recognition of the critical role played by
multilateral institutions in the United States and the international
financial system more generally in extracting capital from Africa.
For coverage of this, see, in particular, the recent
AfricaFocus Bulletin on “Stop the Bleeding”
(http://www.africafocus.org/docs15/iff1507.php) as well as previous
AfricaFocus Bulletins on related issues
(http://www.africafocus.org/intro-iff.php)

See also the July 27 article by Soren Ambrose of ActionAid
International, “Opinion: Developing Nations Set to Challenge Rich
Ahead of SDG [Sustainable Development Goals] Summit,”
http://tinyurl.com/nr7po7g

* On Economic Policy

Despite brief mentions of the need to address inequality and jobs,
the dominant assumption in President Obama’s speeches was the
“trickle-down” theory that all “trade and investment” will
eventually pay off for all, and that the primary engine of growth is
the private sector. And while there was much mention in the press of
the competition between China and the United States, there was scant
mention, if any, of alternate African and global perspectives on
sustainable development strategies deviating from the dominant U.S.
market fundamentalism.

For previous AfricaFocus Bulletins including material on economic
growth and strategies, visit http://www.africafocus.org/econexp.php

* On Climate Change

Although there was much talk of “Power Africa,” the approach
paralleled the Obama administration’s domestic policy in its stance
toward fossil fuels and renewable energy, namely “all of the above.”
Despite brief references to off-the-grid and renewable energy, much
of the private investment to come under the “Power Africa” label is
likely to support traditional fossil fuels, particularly natural gas
power generation. And there were no new commitments to major
increases in global funding to support climate change mitigation.

For a wider discussion of these issues in previous AfricaFocus
Bulletins, visit http://www.africafocus.org/intro-env.php

* On Health

In spite of token references to AIDS and Ebola, the visit did not
focus major attention on health challenges, including the need for
adequate financing for major investments in public health

See http://www.africafocus.org/intro-health.php for AfricaFocus
talking points and previous Bulletins.

*****************************************************

AfricaFocus Bulletin is an independent electronic publication
providing reposted commentary and analysis on African issues, with a
particular focus on U.S. and international policies. AfricaFocus
Bulletin is edited by William Minter.

AfricaFocus Bulletin can be reached at africafocus@igc.org. Please
write to this address to subscribe or unsubscribe to the bulletin,
or to suggest material for inclusion. For more information about
reposted material, please contact directly the original source
mentioned. For a full archive and other resources, see
http://www.africafocus.org