Category: Health Care
Mission Miracle, a wonderful gift to humanity from Venezuela and Cuba
| March 8, 2015 | 6:41 pm | Cuba, Health Care, political struggle, Venezuela | Comments closed
By Arthur Shaw
Axis of Logic
Friday, Jul 6, 2007

 

Mission Miracle, the three-year old Venezuelan-Cuban anti-blindness program initially for Latin America and the Caribbean, has already restored the sight of about 700,000 people from 30 countries and aims to restore the sight of about 6,000,000 blind people in the region by 2015.

The services that Mission Miracle offers to its patients are free.

Mission Miracle has drawn quite of bit of attention from the revolutionary and progressive media. With only a handful of exceptions, the bourgeois media, both in Latin America and the USA, have largely ignored the astonishingly successful ophthalmologic program. Ironically, it is the extreme reactionary sector of the US bourgeois media that shows the most interest in the program.

One of the partial exceptions to this non-coverage or bigoted coverage of Mission Miracle in the bourgeois media is John Otis’ piece in the Houston chronicle, a moderate bourgeois newspaper, which gives a surprisingly factual account of the tremendous success of Mission Miracle with the customary or inescapable anti-socialist bias, mandatory in the capitalist press, largely held in the background of the story.

The Mission Miracle has, among others things, medical, political, and moral sides.

Medical side of Mission Miracle

According to the World Health Organization, there are more than 37 million people in the world who have lost their sight as a result of preventable causes; of these, more than a million and a half are children below the age of 16.

The prevalence of preventable blindness varies in relation to the level of economic development in each country. While in highly developed capitalist countries, blindness hovers at 0.25%. In poorly developed capitalist countries with insufficient health care services, this figure can reach 1% of the populace.

In Third World countries, which are mostly poorly developed capitalist countries, the main causes of blindness are cataracts, glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, infectious diseases such as trachoma and onchocerciasis, and Vitamin A deficiencies. Other ophthalmologic diseases such as pterygium, ptosis and strabism are very frequent in both children and adults.

Since cataracts are the cause of more than 50% of preventable cases of blindness in the world, one must perform between 2000 and 4000 cataract operations for each million people annually if one wishes to gradually eradicate this disease.

Glaucoma causes 15% of the blindness in the world. Between 1 and 2% of the world population suffers from this disease, and these figures double in black populations.  These cases require a high percentage of filter or trabeculoplasty laser surgery.

On July 5, 2004, the Cuban  President  Fidel Castro and Venezuelan  President Hugo Ch�vez agreed to start Mission  Miracle to aid patients with eye diseases, as a result of the complaints from many workers in the joint Venezuelan-Cuban literacy program in Venezuela about many of their students whom they were trying to teach to read but who couldn�t even see, according to John Otis� article in the Houston Chronicle.

In the early days of the program in 2004, Cuba mostly supplied the experts and Venezuela mostly the money for Mission Miracle, but today Venezuelan doctors, many educated at Cuban medical schools or at Venezuelan medical schools where Cuban doctors teach, are very much involved on the operational side of the program.

Now, three years later, in addition of flying hundreds of thousands of patients to Cuba and Venezuela for operations and treatment, Cuba has also constructed and donated 36 ophthalmologic centers which are already functioning in 8 countries in Latin American, the Caribbean and Africa (13 centers in Venezuela, 2 in Haiti, 12 in Bolivia, 2 in Guatemala, 2 in Ecuador, 1 in Honduras, 1 in Panama, 1 in Mali and 1 in Nicaragua [2 more are currently under construction in Nicaragua].) where, so far, 686,442 Latin American, African and Caribbean patients have already been operated on, as of June 13, 2007. More than 690 Cuban public health professionals are working in these ophthalmologic centers. These centers contain state-of-the-art equipment and supplies, most of which are manufactured in Cuba.

Another point on the medical side of Mission Miracle is that its incomparable success points to the existence of a medical and organizational infrastructure that can also be deployed to battle other diseases that plague humanity.

The elements of the infrastructure seem to be:

  1. The scientific know-how to battle a given pestilence

  2. Medical institutions in either patient’s country or Cuba and Venezuela to treat hundreds of thousands of patients

  3. Means of international transportation, mostly passenger jets, to move hundred of thousands of patients

  4. Financial resources to pay for the enormous program

  5. Organizational and administrative abilities to run efficiently such a massive operation

  6. Construction workers who are skilled enough and tough enough to promptly build clinics and hospitals in the difficult conditions of poorly developed capitalist countries of the Third World

  7. The procurement or manufacture of the necessary equipment that the treatment requires

  8. The procurement or manufacture of the necessary supplies, especially the all-important drugs, the program requires

  9. The revolutionary or moral will or both to act in accordance with revolutionary and moral principles

  10. A population of largely moral or revolutionary people or both which will support or, at least, tolerate the program

The magnificent performance of Mission Miracle which has bestowed sight on almost 700,000 people from 30  different countries in only three years demonstrates unquestionably that all of the elements of this infrastructure — this cluster of technical, transportation, communication, organizational, physical, and financial resources — exists for a universal battle against preventable blindness and, perhaps, against pestilence and epidemics of other kinds, such as AIDS.

It is the demonstrable existence of this international and humanitarian infrastructure of the Venezuelans and Cubans that alarms or terrifies the US imperialists more than the beneficence or the good works of Mission Miracle.

It is possible that even the Cubans and Venezuelans, as yet, don�t appreciate what they have and the immensity of the good they have done for humanity.

Lamentably, most of us tend to judge the worth and the significance of things by the degree of coverage the thing gets in the bourgeois media.

The greatest obstacle to this proposed universal battle against international epidemics, which is something supremely moral, is the evil in high places in the USA that indomitably opposes such an operation. A “Mission Miracle” that battles AIDS, for example, is blocked by the unavailability of infrastructure item No. 8 or  “the procurement or manufacture of the necessary supplies, especially the all-important drugs, the program requires.”

The US imperialists control most of the AIDS drugs. In 2006, almost four million people died from the lack of these drugs.

If you like � go ahead � make excuses for the US imperialists or continue to ignore the holocaust.

But while you make your excuses for or ignore the holocaust, keep in mind that over 40 million people are currently at risk. And the number is rising rapidly.

Political side of Mission Miracle

Although the US capitalist media love to play up, as a big propaganda show, isolated cases where somebody in the USA airlifts one or two patients from a poor country to the USA for operations and treatments, the truth is that neither the imperialist US regime, the US bourgeois media, US medical profession, US religious community, nor the US bourgeoisie is doing hardly anything about the millions and millions of cases of preventable blindness in the countries of Latin America and Caribbean, so-called neighbors of the USA.

Indeed, most of these US political and ideological forces don�t seem too concern about blindness in the USA, not to mention the Third World.

Today, the political struggle or politics in Latin America and Caribbean is not, for the most part, over whether the state is a democracy or a dictatorship; the struggle, for the most
part, is over whether the democracy is bourgeois or proletarian.

In a concrete way, Mission Miracle strengthens the argument that proletarian democracies are politically and morally superior to bourgeois democracy.

The form of the state — that is, how power is exercised — may be identical is both proletarian and bourgeois democracies. But the content of the state — that is, what social class chiefly exercises power and for what class power is chiefly exercised — is very different between proletarian and bourgeois democracies.

Mission Miracle is a specific exercise of power by two democratic states � the Cuban and Venezuelan governments �  with chiefly proletarian content. It is an exercise of power aimed chiefly  for the benefit of working and poor peoples of all of Latin America and the Caribbean.

[Bourgeois ideologists deny that both Cuba and Venezuela are democracies of any kind � bourgeois or proletarian. In the case of Cuba, their denial of its democracy rests mainly on the Cuban preference for multi-candidate elections rather multi-party elections and the alleged lack of the so-called “free press,” meaning essentially, journalistic space for each sector of the bourgeoisie — that is, liberal, centrist, and reactionary — to own and dominate a sector of the mass media independent of government control. Since any Cuban citizen, whatever his or her party or ideological identity can run for public office in Cuba and the Communist Party doesn’t campaign for any candidate, multi-candidate elections may be at par with multi-party elections. Cuba certainly doesn’t have a “free press” as bourgeois ideologists define it, but the Cuban press seems more truthful than the bourgeois media and that should count for something. Truth disables the bourgeois media which must be free to lie (the norm) or report factually. The arguments of bourgeois ideologists against the authenticity of Venezuelan democracy are of course transparent lies.]

Most democracies in Latin America and the Caribbean are definitely bourgeois democracies, but Mission Miracle springs from two proletarian democracies � or almost proletarian in the case of Venezuela. In Cuba, about 97 percent of the government officials are workers. In Venezuela, a growing and powerful minority of the state officers are workers. That Mission Miracle springs from these two countries is not an accident.

So, Mission Miracle makes the point, in a concrete way, to its almost 700,000 patients from 30 countries who got their sight back and to the millions of relatives and friends of these 700,000 patients that states in which workers chiefly exercise power and exercise it chiefly for the workers and for the poor are better than states in which the bourgeoisie chiefly exercise power and exercise power exclusively for the benefit of bourgeoisie and foreign imperialists. 

The 700,000 patients and their millions of relatives and friends will have to figure out in future elections in the 30 or so democracies in Latin America and the Caribbean which candidates, if any, are class conscious workers and will exercise power chiefly in the interests of the workers and the poor.

To be sure, Fidel and Hugo Chavez are clever dudes.

Evil � that is, to know, like, and do wrong � is always a bad thing, but it is really bad when it has power. In the USA, it has power.

Conversely, good is always good, but it is really good when it has power. In Cuba and Venezuela, it has power.

The moral side of the Miracle

One of the moral points related to Mission Miracle is that the program repudiates the vile mercantile concept of the medical profession as a mean vendor of medical services as if these services were ordinary commodities bought and sold in the so-called “free market” with prices fixed by supply and demand. In neo-liberal or laissez faire capitalism, if a person can’t afford the medical service, then he does without.  In this case, he does without sight. The idea that human beings are entitled to medical services independent of their financial status is the gist of the concept of “socialized medicine” that Mission Miracle concretely expresses.

“The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage-laborers,” wrote Marx and Engels in the Manifesto of the Communist Party.

For the most part, middle class and bourgeois physicians are today eager converts to wage-laborers.  Increasingly, the bourgeoisie substitutes horns for the former halo that hovered over heads of its physicians. Rather than reverent awe, many patients in bourgeois society are shocked and appalled by the hustler mentality they find in their doctors. Although many physicians are today only paid wage-laborers, bossed around like peons or dish-washers by insurance companies, HMOs, drug companies, and the bean-counters from the business offices of their hospitals, these physicians � getting at least $4,000 a week in the USA � are highly paid wage-laborers.

Mission Miracle helps to restore the dignity or the halo to the practice of medicine.

Upon seeing good being done in the world by their foes or by anybody else, the US imperialists, their regime, and the reactionary sector of the US people are all furious. They are especially  displeased with Honduras and Guatemala, close allies of US imperialism, for participating in Miracle.

In the May 2004 Report of the US Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba, a document in which the US imperialist regime outlines its plot to pull off a counter-revolution in Cuba , Mission Miracle wasn�t mentioned because it didn�t then exist. This May 2004 Report only said that “Reports from Venezuela also indicate that Cuban doctors are engaging in overt political activities to boost Chavez�s popularity.”  No doubt, these “overt political activities” in which Cuban doctors were allegedly engaged was the competent practice of medicine. Two years later, after the wondrous success of Mission Miracle was widely acknowledged by millions of people in Latin America and Caribbean whose kin and friends had their vision restored in Cuba or in Venezuela or by the Cuban doctors in patient�s own country, the eyes of US imperialism were glued to the program. So, the July 2006 Report of the US Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba Report, which updates the imperialist plot against the people of Cuba, recommends that the dictatorship in Washington stop US companies from exporting to Cuba any equipment and supplies to health institutions in Cuba which treat foreign patients or to Cuban programs that care for foreign patients in the patient�s own country.  Both proposals violate a 2001 US law that exempts food and medicine from the US economic blockade of Cuba. On July 10, 2006, Bush signed this July 2006 Report, effectively making Report the foreign policy of the US regime toward Cuba.

The US dictatorship lobbies and bribes foreign medical associations and foreign health authorities not to let Cuban doctors practice in their countries and not to let citizens of their own country educated in Cuban medical schools practice in their own country.  In April 2007, Mr. George W. Bush publicly scrolled Haitian President Rene Preval for the ties between Haiti and Cuba/Venezuela. Mission Miracle is one of the most important of these ties.  In June 2007, Mr. Bush lectured the heads of government of 14 Caribbean states about their ties with Cuba and Venezuela. Some of these Caribbean leaders were not amused by the arrogance and conceit of this alleged devil who illegally and unconstitutionally occupies the White House.

So, the US regime which does next to nothing for the  blind of Latin America and the Caribbean ties to stab in the back the Cubans and Venezuelans who giving or restoring sight to hundred of thousands of people.

This is evil that befits the devil.

But it is unfair to blame Mr. Bush for all of this evil, for this evil also attaches to the regime over which Mr. Bush presides and clings to the people the regime represents.

Since Mr. Bush has never been elected president of the United States,  neither he nor his regime
constitutionally represents anybody.  His regime is a dictatorship.

Apart from constitutional illegitimacy, Mr. Bush  enjoys the political support of US reactionaries, known as the “GOPs,”  about a third of the US people and electorate. The rest of the US people, the independents and the liberals, understandably seem to despise Mr. Bush.

Thus, the Miracle hints at the moral make-up of the US regime and the people regime represents as well as the moral make-up of the Cuban and Venezuelan regimes and the people the two regimes represent.

How do people in the United States view Mission Miracle?

For the most part, the liberals, about a third of the US people and electorate, have never heard of the Miracle, but if they were ever to hear about it, the Miracle will please them and they will likely do what they can do to stop Mr. Bush from destroying the Miracle. To the liberals, the Miracle is good, something of an oasis in the desert.

Similarly, the independents, who are also about a third of the US people and electorate, haven�t for the most part heard about the Miracle. But they differ from the liberals. The independents will feel no different if they knew about the Miracle than before they knew. They will do nothing after they know that they weren�t doing before they knew. They will not stop doing anything after they know that they were doing before they knew. To the independents among the US people and electorate, the Miracle is irrelevant — that is, it doesn�t put anything in their pockets nor takes skin off of their backs.

Of the three sectors of the US people and electorate — liberals, independents, and reactionaries — the reactionaries in the USA know the most about the Miracle. But evil thrills US reactionaries and they want very much to see more evil; so, these reactionaries are adverse to the Miracle. Those who know about the Miracle want it stopped. Those who don�t know about it would be distressed if they did. Over the last year or so, political support for Mr. Bush, the infamous GOP leader, has fallen from about 33 percent to somewhere like 24 percent. This 9-point drop doesn�t imply a shrinkage of the reactionary sector of the US people and electorate, because many GOPs are dismayed or disappointed with Mr. Bush because he is not MORE evil in Iraq, with AIDS, poverty, blindness, homelessness (like the one million children who live on US streets), etc.

Therefore, there is good reason, in the USA, for our high hopes in both the electoral and legislative struggles ahead, because about two-thirds of the US people and electorate are not evil.

Still,  about a third is � and very much so.

If liberals, progressives and revolutionaries fail to find some way to check the evil that resides in high places in the USA, Mission Miracle and its future extensions and expressions may never reach their desperately-needed potentials.

As for the moral make-up of the Venezuelans and Cubans from what we can divine about it from the Miracle, let�s just say that nothing more dramatically describes and distinguishes the fundamental differences in politics and morality between, on the one hand, the proletarian ruling class of Cuba and increasingly a similar class in Venezuela and, on the other hand, the smug bourgeois ruling class of the USA than the stark contrast between Mission Miracle which has, in three years, miraculously bestowed sight to almost 700,000 people from 30 countries while the US imperialist aggression and occupation of Iraq has, in four years, occasioned the lost of  over 700,000 Iraqi lives.

� Copyright 2007 by AxisofLogic.com

Please note: Reprints of this article may be published on the condition that the author and original source (Axis of Logic) be cited. We also ask that the article appear without modification, linked to the original source. Thank you!


Read additional articles by Arthur Shaw, Axis of Logic Columnist

You can reach Arthur Shaw at: Belial4444@aol.com

Two Different Approaches in Fighting Ebola
| March 3, 2015 | 7:09 pm | Africa, Analysis, Cuba, Ebola, Health Care, International, National, political struggle | Comments closed
And Two Different Results
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/03/03/two-different-approaches-in-fighting-ebola/
by MATT PEPPE

In recent weeks the Ebola epidemic in West Africa has slowed from a peak of more than 1,000 new cases per week to 99 confirmed cases during the week of February 22, according to the World Health Organization. For two countries that have taken diametrically opposed approaches to combating the disease, the stark difference in the results achieved over the last five months has become evident.

The United States, which sent about 2,800 military troops to the region in October, has announced an end to its relief mission. Most soldiers have already returned. Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Admiral John Kirby declared the mission a “success.” The criteria for this determination is unclear, as the troops did not treat a single patient, much less save a single life.

President Barack Obama proclaimed the American response to the crisis “an example of American leadership.” As is the case “whenever and wherever a disaster or disease strikes,” according to Obama, “the world looks to us to lead.” The President claimed that the troops contributed not only by their own efforts, but by serving as a “force multiplier” that inspired others.

Obama says the “American values” displayed “matter to the world.” They are an example of “what makes us exceptional.”

By virtue of American supremacy, apparently, these values are superior to those of people from any other nation.When you look behind the President’s and the Pentagon’s rhetoric, it is difficult to find concrete measures of success. From the beginning, the capacity of American troops to make a difference in containing and eliminating a medical disease was questionable, to say the least.

In October, the Daily Beast reported that soldiers would receive only four hours of training in preparation for their deployment to Africa. That is half of a regular work day for people with no medical background. When they arrived, they did not exactly hit the ground running. “The first 500 soldiers to arrive have been holing up in Liberian hotels and government facilities while the military builds longer-term infrastructure on the ground,” wrote Tim Mak.

The DoD declared on its Web site that “the Defense Department made critical contributions to the fight against the Ebola virus disease outbreak in West Africa. Chief among these were the deployment of men and women in uniform to Monrovia, Liberia, as part of Operation United Assistance.” So, the chief contribution of the DoD was sending people in military uniforms to the site of the outbreak.

The DoD lists among its accomplishments training 1,539 health care workers & support staff (presumably non-technical and cursory); creating 10 Ebola treatment units (which you could count on your fingers); and constructing a 25-bed medical unit (for a country that has had 10,000 cases of Ebola).

USAID declares that “the United States has done more than any other country to help West Africa respond to the Ebola crisis.” Like the DoD, they are short on quantitative measurements and long on vague business-speak. USAID says they “worked with UN and NGO partners,” “partnered with the U.S. military,” and “expanded the pipeline of medical equipment and critical supplies to the region.”

USAID and other government personnel have clearly helped facilitate the delivery of equipment and supplies, but claims that the U.S. has done more than any other country are dubious.

By the end of April, all but 100 U.S. troops will have left West Africa. There will then be a transition to what Obama called the “civilian response.” This appears equally as vague as the military response.The U.S. response did involve many people and several hundred millions of dollars, which is, indeed, more than most countries contributed. But an examination of the facts shows that the U.S. played mostly a supporting role, collaborating with other actors in the tangential aspects of the crisis. U.S. government employees were not directly involved in treating any patients. Their role was rather to help other health workers and officials on the front lines who actually did. To say this is an example of American leadership and exceptionalism seems like a vast embellishment.

The other country who has taken a very public role in the Ebola crisis is Cuba. Unlike the U.S., Cuba sent nearly 500 professional healthcare workers – doctors and nurses – to treat African patients who had contracted Ebola. These included doctors from the Henry Reeve Brigade, which has served over the last decade in response to the most high-profile disasters in the world, including in Haiti and Pakistan. In Haiti, the group was instrumental in detecting and treating cholera, which had been introduced by UN peace keepers. The disease sickened and killed thousands of Haitians.

Before being deployed to West Africa, all the Cuban doctors and nurses completed an “intense training” of a minimum of two weeks, where they “prepared in the form of treating patients without exposing themselves to the deadly virus,” according to CNN.

After Cuba announced its plan to mobilize what Cubans call the “army of white robes,” WHO Director-General Margaret Chan said that “human resources are clearly our most important need.”

“Money and materials are important, but those two things alone cannot stop Ebola virus transmission,” she said. “We need most especially compassionate doctors and nurses” to work under “very demanding conditions.”

Like their American counterparts, Cuban authorities also recently proclaimed success in fighting Ebola. They used a clear definition of what they meant.

“We have managed to save the lives of 260 people who were in a very very bad state, and through our treatment, they were cured and have gotten on with their lives,” said Jorge Delgado, head of the medical brigade, at a conference in Geneva on Foreign Medical Teams involved in fighting the Ebola crisis.

The work of the Henry Reeve Brigade was recognized by Norwegian Trade Unions who nominated the group for the Nobel Peace Prize “for saving lives and helping millions of suffering people around the world.”

The European Commission for humanitarian aid and crisis management last week also “recognized the role Cuba has played in fighting the Ebola epidemic.”

For more than 50 years, Cuba has carried out medical missions across the globe – beginning in Algeria after the revolution in 1961 and taking place in poor countries desperately needing medical care throughout Africa, Asia and Latin America. They have provided 1.2 billion consultations, 2.2 million births, 5 million operations and immunizations for 12 million children and pregnant women, according to Granma.

“In their direct fight against death, the human quality of the members of the Henry Reeve brigade is strengthened, and for those in need around the world, they represent welcome assistance,” writes Nuria Barbosa León.

The mission of the DoD is one of military involvement worldwide. As Nick Turse reports in TomDispatch, U.S. military activity on the African continent is growing at an astounding rate. The military “averages about one and a half missions a day. This represents a 217% increase in operations, programs, and exercises since the command was established in 2008,” Turse writes. He says the DoD is calling “Africa the battlefield of tomorrow, today.”

Turse writes that the U.S. military is quietly replicating its failed counterinsurgency strategy in Africa, under the guise of humanitarian activities. “If history is any guide, humanitarian efforts by AFRICOM (U.S. Africa Command) and Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa will grow larger and ever more expensive, until they join the long list of projects that have become ‘monuments of U.S. failure’ around the world,” he writes.

There are some enlightening pieces of information listed by the DoD as part of the “transition to Operation Onward Liberty.” The DoD “will build partnership capacity with the Armed Forces of Liberia” and will “continue military to military engagement in ways that support Liberia’s growth toward enduring peace and security.”

It is unclear what role the U.S. military will help their Liberian counterparts play, unless peace and security is considered from the perspective of multinational corporations who have their eyes on large oil reserves, rather than the perspective of the local population.

The U.S. military, unsurprisingly, seems to be using the Ebola crisis as a pretext to expand its reach inside Africa, consistent with the pattern of the last seven years that Turse describes. The deployment of several thousand troops to West Africa can be understood as a P.R. stunt that is the public face of counterinsurgency.

U.S. troops are used as props. What may sound like a massive effort is little more than propaganda. The idea is to associate troops with humanitarianism, rather than death, destruction and torture. In reality, one doctor can save more lives than hundreds of soldiers. A true humanitarian mission would be conducted by civilian agencies and professionals who are trained and experienced specifically in medicine, construction and administration, not by soldiers trained to kill and pacify war zones.

In Liberia, as in most of Africa, Washington’s IMF and World Bank-imposed neoliberal policies have further savaged a continent devastated by 300 years of European colonialism. Any U.S. military involvement in Liberia and elsewhere is likely to reflect the economic goals of the U.S. government, which is primarily concerned with continuing the implementation of the Washington consensus.Karen Greenberg, director of the Center on National Security at Fordham Law, warned last fall about the dangers of using a “war on terror template” in response to a disease such as Ebola.

“Countering Ebola will require a whole new set of protections and priorities, which should emerge from the medical and public health communities. The now sadly underfunded National Institutes of Health and other such organizations have been looking at possible pandemic situations for years,” Greenberg writes. “It is imperative that our officials heed the lessons of their research as they have failed to do many times over with their counterparts in public policy in the war on terror years.”

This is the opposite of the strategy the Obama administration elected to take. It would be wise to question the alarming militarization of American foreign assistance. The continued expansion of the national security apparatus occurs at the direct expense of vital civilian agencies. The Cuban model is evidence of what is possible with an alternative approach.Matt Peppe writes about politics, U.S. foreign policy and Latin America on his blog. You can follow him on twitter.

Houston Socialist Movement: Rally against Republicans!

You can view the videos of the Rally against Republicans held on 2/28/2015 in Houston which was organized by the Houston Socialist Movement at the following links:

http://youtu.be/eH5gteUx_HQ

 

http://youtu.be/dQZmH5LH-ug

 

http://youtu.be/55MI956srIc

 

http://youtu.be/SugVZPSzoJE

 

http://youtu.be/NeqoRM8X2d4

 

http://youtu.be/HekqSmY0QHw

 

http://youtu.be/CKpvEzZOm-Q

Jackson Tennessee Central Labor Council Supports HR 676
| February 20, 2015 | 8:34 pm | Economy, Health Care, Labor, National, political struggle | Comments closed

 

On January 5, 2015, the Jackson Central Labor Council meeting in regular session “voted unanimously to endorse and support HR 676, the National Single Payer Legislation,” reports Joe Coleman, President of the CLC.  Art Sutherland III, MD, of Physicians for a National Health Program and Terry Hash of PAX Chrisiti in Memphis spoke at an earlier meeting and urged the CLC to endorse this legislation.

The CLC resolution states, “Unions have battled to achieve the highest standards of health care for members and their families, and those gains have lifted up health benefits for all workers, even those who have no union.  All of these achievements are now under constant attack as costs rise and employers seek to shift those costs to workers.”

“HR 676 will save hundreds of billions annually by eliminating the high overhead and profits of the private health insurance industry and by using our purshasing power to rein in the drug companies,” the resolution continues.

“By standing up for all working people and leading the effort to win healthcare for all, we will affirm labor’s rightful role as a leader in the fight for social justice.  Bold action by our unions can rally the nation to pass HR 676,” the resolution concludes.

CLC President Coleman said “The Jackson Central Labor Council is grateful for the dedication and perseverance of all who work tirelessly to forge the support that keeps this vital legislation at the forefront of organized labor,”

Working with Physicians for a National Health Program, Unions for Single Payer will provide speakers to unions and other labor organizations interested in learning more about single payer health care.  Just contact us using the information below.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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 47 co-sponsors in addition to Congressman Conyers.

HR 676 has been endorsed by 617 union organizations including 149 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 & NM).

For further information, 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 

02/16/2015

H.R. 676, Single Payer, Reintroduced into Current (114th) Congress
| February 20, 2015 | 8:30 pm | Action, Health Care, National, political struggle | Comments closed

Washington, DC.    On Tuesday, February 3, 2015, Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) reintroduced HR 676, his single payer Improved Medicare for All  legislation, in the current 114th session of Congress.  The bill was introduced with 44 co-sponsors in addition to Conyers. 

Calls to congressional offices by supporters of single payer healthcare have already increased the number of co-sponsors to 46.

“Under H.R. 676, every resident of the United States would receive a card at birth that would guarantee access to a full range of medically-necessary services that include primary care, dental, prescription drugs, mental health and long term care,” said Conyers.  The bill assures to all patients free choice of physician or health care provider.

Kay Tillow, coordinator of the All Unions Committee for Single Payer Healthcare HR 676, urged everyone to call their congressperson or email them asking that they sign on as a co-sponsor of HR 676.

You can call the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask for your representative by name. If you cannot speak to the representative, leave a message and request a response.

You can look up representatives by zip code here:  http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ 

A complete list of co-sponsors of HR 676 can be found here. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/676/cosponsors?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22HR+676%22%5D%7D  

The Physicians for a National Health Program news release is here.

Doctors group hails reintroduction of Medicare-for-all bill

Single-payer health program would cover all 42 million uninsured, upgrade everyone’s benefits and save $400 billion annually on bureaucracy, physicians say

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, February 4, 2015

 

Contact:
Mark Almberg, PNHP communications director, mark@pnhp.org

 

A national physicians group today hailed the reintroduction of a federal bill that would upgrade the Medicare program and swiftly expand it to cover the entire population.

 

The “Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act,” H.R. 676, introduced last night by Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., with 44 other House members, would replace today’s welter of private health insurance companies with a single, streamlined public agency that would pay all medical claims, much like Medicare works for seniors today. The full text of the bill is available here.

 

Proponents say a Medicare-for-all system, also known as a single-payer system, would vastly simplify how the nation pays for care, improve patient health, restore free choice of physician, eliminate copays and deductibles, and yield substantial savings for individuals, families and the national economy.

 

“The global evidence is very clear: single-payer financing systems are the most equitable and cost-effective way to assure that everyone, without exception, gets high-quality care,” said Dr. Robert Zarr, president of Physicians for a National Health Program, a nonprofit research and educational group of 19,000 doctors nationwide.

 

“Medicare is a good model to build on, and what better way to observe Medicare’s 50th anniversary year than to improve and extend the program and its benefits to people of all ages?”

 

Zarr, a Washington, D.C.-based pediatrician, continued: “An expanded and improved Medicare-for-All program would assure truly universal coverage, cover all necessary services, and knock down the growing financial barriers to care – high premiums, co-pays, deductibles and coinsurance – that our nation’s patients and their families are increasingly running up against, often with calamitous results.

 

“Such a plan would save over $400 billion a year currently wasted on private-insurance-related bureaucracy, paperwork and marketing. That’s enough money to provide first-dollar coverage for everyone in the country – without increasing U.S. health spending by a single penny.

 

“Such a program would also have the financial clout to negotiate with drug and medical equipment suppliers for lower prices, and would further save money through lump-sum budgeting for hospitals.

 

“In short,” Zarr said, “the enactment of Rep. Conyers’ bill would take us much further down the road to a humane, just and sustainable health care system than the 2010 health law, which, despite its modest benefits, will not be able to control costs and will still leave 31 million people uninsured in 2024, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Millions more will be inadequately insured, with skimpy coverage.”

 

Zarr pointed out that the Census Bureau reports there were 5.9 million uninsured children in 2013.

 

“Surveys have repeatedly shown that about two-thirds of the public supports a Medicare-for-all approach,” he said, “and recent surveys show physician support is also strong and growing. Hundreds of labor, civic and faith-based organizations have endorsed this model of deep-going reform.

 

“As a doctor who sees the children of hard-pressed parents every day, I can tell you that the need for fundamental health care reform has never been greater,” he said. “It’s time to stop putting the interests of private insurance companies and Big Pharma over patient needs. It’s time to adopt a single-payer, improved-Medicare-for-all program in the United States.”

 

A summary of the basic provisions of H.R. 676 is available here.

 

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2015/february/doctors-group-hails-reintroduction-of-medicare-for-all-bill

Issued by:

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

02/09/2015

Africa: Privatizing Land and Seeds
| February 18, 2015 | 9:01 pm | Africa, Analysis, Ebola, Economy, Health Care, International | Comments closed

AfricaFocus Bulletin
February 18, 2015 (150218)
(Reposted from sources cited below)

Editor’s Note

“The G8 New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition was launched in
2012 by the eight most industrialised countries to mobilise private
capital for investment in African agriculture. To be accepted into
the programme, African governments are required to make important
changes to their land and seed policies. … [for example] Despite
the fact that more than 80% of all seed in Africa is still produced
and disseminated through ‘informal’ seed systems (on-farm seed
saving and unregulated distribution between farmers), there is no
recognition in the New Alliance programme of the importance of
farmer-based systems of saving, sharing, exchanging and selling
seeds.” – Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa and GRAIN, January
2015

For a version of this Bulletin in html format, more suitable for
printing, go to http://www.africafocus.org/docs15/ag1502.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/ag1502.php

Countless reports by global and African agencies highlight the
critical role for agriculture in African development. Almost all
agree that small farmers are key to addressing poverty and food
insecurity. But many policies, such as those described in this new
report from the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa and GRAIN,
lead in practice to empowerment of agribusiness giants rather than
small farmers. By imposing legal frameworks based on Western
industrial agriculture, powerful interests make a mockery of
international pledges to help small farmers.

This AfricaFocus Bulletin contains excerpts from the report “Land
and Seed Laws under Attack: Who is pushing changes in Africa?” (full
report available at http://tinyurl.com/m5g8zje)

For summary talking points and previous AfricaFocus Bulletins on
food and agriculture issues, visit
http://www.africafocus.org/intro-ag.php

There are a host of reports on specific cases of land grabs and
sometimes on successful challenges to them. The sources cited below
are only a sampling.

For a report by Nigerian and international groups on a recent
contested case of land grabbing in Taraba state in eastern Nigeria
(a rice plantation under the control of U.S.-based agribusiness firm
Dominion Farms), see http://tinyurl.com/pr463qr

For a recent case in Senegal, researched by ActionAid, visit
http://tinyurl.com/mrhhuy4 For more information on ActionAid work on
land rights, visit http://tinyurl.com/pdt7kny

For a case in Ghana, where Herakles Farms abandoned its investments
after community protests, see the report by the Africa Faith and
Justice Network (http://afjn.org; direct URL:
http://tinyurl.com/mfftstg).

In addition to the organizations cited in this report, and the cases
just cited, AfricaFocus particularly recommends, for case studies
and current information on the status of land grabbing in Africa,
the website of the Oakland Institute at
http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/land-rights-issue The Oakland
Institute and other groups are active in a campaign to have the
World Bank stop promoting land grabs through its “doing business”
ratings. Visit http://ourlandourbusiness.org/ for more details.

For extensive research on seeds and food sovereignty in Africa, see
also the website of the African Centre for Biosafely (
http://www.acbio.org.za/)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ebola Perspectives

[AfricaFocus is regularly monitoring and posting links on
Ebola on social media. For
additional links, see http://www.facebook.com/AfricaFocus]

New and of particular interest:

Jina Moore, Buzzfeed, February 12 http://tinyurl.com/mjagccr – map
showing Liberia “very close” to end of Ebola. Total number of days
since last case over 21 in all counties except Montserrado
(Monrovia)

WHO, Situation Report, February 11 http://tinyurl.com/lygs4b5
Not quite as optimistic. “Total weekly case incidence increased for
the second consecutive week, with 144 new confirmed cases reported
in the week to 8 February.” Cases up in Guinea and Sierra Leone,
although still low in Liberia.

Shawn Radcliffe, Healthline, “Ebola Crisis Eases in Africa. Now
What?” February 12 http://tinyurl.com/n8p7csf
Need for vigilance, plus long-term planning for recovery of
economies & building sustainable health systems

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

Land and Seed Laws under Attack: Who is pushing changes in Africa?

Report

Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA; http://afsafrica.org)
and GRAIN ( http://www.grain.org)

[Full text of report at http://tinyurl.com/m5g8zje and
http://www.grain.org /e/5121]

January 2015

Who is pushing changes in Africa?

A battle is raging for control of resources in Africa — land,
water, seeds, minerals, ores, forests, oil, renewable energy
sources. Agriculture is one of the most important theatres of this
battle. Governments, corporations, foundations and development
agencies are pushing hard to commercialise and industrialise African
farming.

Many of the key players are well known. They are committed to
helping agribusiness become the continent’s primary food commodity
producer. To do this, they are not only pouring money into projects
to transform farming operations on the ground — they are also
changing African laws to accommodate the agribusiness agenda.

Privatising both land and seeds is essential for the corporate model
to flourish in Africa. With regard to agricultural land, this means
pushing for the official demarcation, registration and titling of
farms. It also means making it possible for foreign investors to
lease or own farmland on a long-term basis. With regard to seeds, it
means having governments require that seeds be registered in an
official catalogue in order to be traded. It also means introducing
intellectual property rights over plant varieties and criminalising
farmers who ignore them. In all cases, the goal is to turn what has
long been a commons into something that corporates can control and
profit from.

This survey aims to provide an overview of just who is pushing for
which specific changes in these areas — looking not at the plans
and projects, but at the actual texts that will define the new
rules. It was not easy to get information about this … We did
learn a few things, though:

* While there is a lot of civil society attention focused on the
G8’s New Alliance for Food and Nutrition, there are many more actors
doing many similar things across Africa. Our limited review makes it
clear that the greatest pressure to change land and seed laws comes
from Washington DC — home to the World Bank, USAID and the MCC
[Millennium Challenge Corporation].

* Land certificates — which should be seen as a stepping stone to
formal land titles — are being promoted as an appropriate way to
“securitise” poor peoples’ rights to land. But how do we define the
term “land securitisation”? As the objective claimed by most of the
initiatives dealt with in this report, it could be understood as
strengthening land rights. Many small food producers might conclude
that their historic cultural rights to land — however they may be
expressed — will be better recognised, thus protecting them from
expropriation. But for many governments and corporations, it means
the creation of Western-type land markets based on formal
instruments like titles and leases that can be traded. … So in a
world of grossly unequal players, “security” is shorthand for
market, private property and the power of the highest bidder.

* Most of today’s initiatives to address land laws, including those
emanating from Africa, are overtly designed to accommodate, support
and strengthen investments in land and large-scale land deals,
rather than achieve equity or to recognise longstanding or
historical community rights over land at a time of rising conflicts
over land and land resources.

* Most of the initiatives to change current land laws come from
outside Africa. Yes, African structures like the African Union and
the Pan-African Parliament are deeply engaged in facilitating
changes to legislation in African states, but many people question
how “indigenous” these processes really are. It is clear that
strings are being pulled, by Washington and Europe in particular, to
alter land governance in Africa.

* When it comes to seed laws, the picture is reversed. Subregional
African bodies — SADC, COMESA, OAPI and the like — are working to
create new rules for the exchange and trade of seeds. But the
recipes they are applying — seed marketing restrictions and plant
variety protection schemes — are borrowed directly from the US and
Europe.

* The changes to seed policy being promoted by the G8 New Alliance,
the World Bank and others refer to neither farmer-based seed systems
nor farmers’ rights. They make no effort to strengthen farming
systems that are already functioning. Rather, the proposed solutions
are simplified, but unworkable solutions to complex situations that
will not work — though an elite category of farmers may enjoy some
small short term benefits.

* With seeds, which represent a rich cultural heritage of Africa’s
local communities, the push to transform them into income-generating
private property, and marginalise traditional varieties, is still
making more headway on paper than in practice. This is due to many
complexities, one of which is the growing awareness of and popular
resistance to the seed industry agenda. But the resolve of those who
intend to turn Africa into a new market for global agroinput
suppliers is not to be underestimated. The path chosen will have
profound implications for the capacity of African farmers to adapt
to climate change.

This report was drawn up jointly by the Alliance for Food
Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA) and GRAIN. AFSA is a pan-African
platform comprising networks and farmer organisations championing
small African family farming based on agro-ecological and indigenous
approaches that sustain food sovereignty and the livelihoods of
communities. GRAIN is a small international organisation that aims
to support small farmers and social movements in their struggles for
community-controlled and biodiversity-based food systems.

The report was researched and initially drafted by Mohamed
Coulibaly, an independent legal expert in Mali, with support from
AFSA members and GRAIN staff. …

Initiatives targeting both land and seed laws

G8 New Alliance on Food Security and Nutrition – Initiated by the G8
countries: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, UK and US

– Timeframe: 2012-2022

РImplemented in 10 African countries: Benin, Burkina Faso, C̫te
d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Ghana, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal and
Tanzania

The G8 New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition was launched in
2012 by the eight most industrialised countries to mobilise private
capital for investment in African agriculture. To be accepted into
the programme, African governments are required to make important
changes to their land and seed policies. The New Alliance
prioritises granting national and transnational corporations (TNCs)
new forms of access and control to the participating countries’
resources, and gives them a seat at the same table as aid donors and
recipient governments. As of July 2014, ten African countries had
signed Cooperative Framework Agreements (CFAs) to implement the New
Alliance programme. Under these agreements, these governments
committed to 213 policy changes. Some 43 of these changes target
land laws, with the overall stated objective of establishing “clear,
secure and negotiable rights to land” — tradeable property titles.

The New Alliance also aims to implement both the Voluntary
Guidelines (VGs) on Responsible Land Tenure adopted by the Committee
on World Food Security in 2012, and the Principles for Responsible
Agriculture Investment drawn up by the World Bank, FAO, IFAD and UN
Conference on Trade and Development. This is considered especially
important since the New Alliance directly facilitates access to
farmland in Africa for investors. To achieve this, the New Alliance
Leadership Council, a self-appointed body composed of public and
private sector representatives, in September 2014 decided to come up
with a single set of guidelines to ensure that the land investments
made through the Alliance are “responsible” and not land grabs. As
to seeds, all of the participating states, with the exception of
Benin, agreed to adopt plant variety protection laws and rules for
marketing seeds that better support the private sector. Despite the
fact that more than 80% of all seed in Africa is still produced and
disseminated through ‘informal’ seed systems (on-farm seed saving
and unregulated distribution between farmers), there is no
recognition in the New Alliance programme of the importance of
farmer-based systems of saving, sharing, exchanging and selling
seeds.

African governments are being co-opted into reviewing their seed
trade laws and supporting the implementation of Plant Variety
Protection (PVP) laws. The strategy is to first harmonise seed trade
laws such as border control measures, phytosanitary control, variety
release systems and certification standards at the regional level,
and then move on to harmonising PVP laws. The effect is to create
larger unified seed markets, in which the types of seeds on offer
are restricted to commercially protected varieties. The age old
rights of farmers to replant saved seed is curtailed and the
marketing of traditional varieties of seed is strictly prohibited.

Concerns have been raised about how this agenda privatises seeds and
the potential impacts this could have on small-scale farmers.
Farmers will lose control of seeds regulated by a commercial system.
There are also serious concerns about the loss of biodiversity
resulting from a focus on commercial varieties.

The World Bank

The World Bank is a significant player in catalysing the growth and
expansion of agribusiness in Africa. It does this by financing
policy changes and projects on the ground. In both cases, the Bank
targets land and seed laws as key tools for advancing and protecting
the interests of the corporate sector.

The Bank’s work on policy aims at increasing agricultural production
and productivity through programmes called “Agriculture Development
Policy Operations” (AgDPOs).

Besides financing AgDPOs, the World Bank directly supports
agriculture development projects. Some major World Bank projects
with land tenure components are presented in Annex 2, with a focus
on the legal arrangements developed to make land available for
corporate investors. These projects are much more visible than the
AgDPOs and their names are well known in each country: PDIDAS in
Senegal, GCAP in Ghana, Bagrépole in Burkina. …

Initiatives targeting land laws

African Union Land Policy Initiative

The African Union (AU), together with the African Development Bank
(AfDB) and the UN Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA), has been
spearheading a Land Policy Initiative (LPI) since 2006. Mainly a
response to land grabbing on the continent, the LPI is meant to
strengthen and change national policies and laws on land. It is
funded by the EU, IFAD, UN Habitat, World Bank, France and
Switzerland. LPI is expected to become an African Centre on Land
Policies after 2016.

The LPI is designed to implement the African Declaration on Land
Issues and Challenges, adopted by the AU Summit of Heads of State in
July 2009. …

One important undertaking of the LPI is the development of a set of
Guiding Principles on Large-Scale Land-Based Investments (LSLBI)
meant to ensure that land acquisitions in Africa “promote inclusive
and sustainable development”. The Guiding Principles were adopted by
the Council of agriculture ministers in June 2014, and are awaiting
endorsement by the AU Summit of Heads of States and government.

The Guiding Principles have several objectives, including guiding
decision making on land deals (recognising that large scale land
acquisitions may not be the most appropriate form of investment);
providing a basis for a monitoring and evaluation framework to track
land deals in Africa; and providing a basis for reviewing existing
large scale land contracts. The Guiding Principles draw lessons from
global instruments and initiatives to regulate land deals including
the Voluntary Guidelines and the Principles for Responsible
Agricultural Investments in the Context of Food Security and
Nutrition. They also take into account relevant human rights
instruments. But because the Guiding Principles are not a binding
instrument and lack an enforcement mechanism, it is far from certain
that they will prove any more effective than other voluntary
frameworks on land. They are, however, widely accepted and supported
on the continent as the first “African response” to the issue of
land grabbing.

[For more on other similar initiatives see full report]

Initiatives introducing seed laws

Under the rubric “seeds laws” there are various types of legal and
policy initiatives that directly affect what kind of seeds small
scale farmers can use. We focus on two: intellectual property laws,
which grant state-sanctioned monopolies to plant breeders (at the
expense of farmers’ rights), and seed marketing laws, which regulate
trade in seeds (often making it illegal to exchange or market
farmers’ seeds).

Plant Variety Protection

Plant variety protection (PVP) laws are specialised intellectual
property rules designed to establish and protect monopoly rights for
plant breeders over the plants types (varieties) they have
developed. PVP is an offshoot of the patent system. All members of
the World Trade Organization (WTO) are obliged to adopt some form of
PVP law, according to the WTO’s Agreement on Trade- Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). But how they do so is up to
national governments.

African Regional Intellectual Property Organisation (ARIPO) draft
PVP Protocol

– Draft PVP Protocol to be implemented in the 19 ARIPO member
states: Botswana, Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique,
Namibia, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe,
Somalia, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

ARIPO is the regional counterpart of the UN’s World Intellectual
Property Organisation (WIPO) for Anglophone Africa. It was
established under the Lusaka Agreement signed in 1976. In November
2009, ARIPO’s Council of Ministers approved a proposal for ARIPO to
develop a policy and legal framework which would form the basis for
the development of the ARIPO Protocol on the Protection of New
Varieties of Plants (the PVP Protocol). Adopted in November 2013,
the legal framework was formulated into a Draft PVP Protocol in 2014
during a diplomatic conference.

The Draft PVP Protocol establishes unified procedures and
obligations for the protection of plant breeder’s rights in all
ARIPO member states. These rights will be granted by a single
authority established by ARIPO to administer the whole system on
behalf of its member states.

The Protocol is based on the rules contained in the 1991 Act of the
UPOV Convention. It therefore establishes legal monopolies
(“protection”) on new plant varieties for 20-25 years, depending on
the crop. Farmers will not be able to save and re-use seed from
these varieties on their own farms except for specifically
designated crops, within reasonable limits, and upon annual payment
of royalties. Under no circumstances will they be able to exchange
or sell seeds harvested from such varieties. …

The Protocol is hotly contested by civil society. AFSA, for
instance, is on record for vehemently opposing the ARIPO PV Protocol
on the grounds that it, inter alia, severely erodes farmers’ rights
and the right to food. On the other hand, industry associations have
been consulted extensively in the process of drafting the ARIPO PVP
Protocol. …

[For more on other similar initiatives, see full report.]

Seed marketing rules

The second category of seed laws consists of rules governing seeds
marketing in and among countries. A number of current initiatives
aim to harmonise these rules among African states belonging to the
same Regional Economic Community. But through harmonisation, states
are actually being encouraged to “liberalise” the seed market. This
means limiting the role of the public sector in seed production and
marketing, and creating new space and new rights for the private
sector instead. In this process, farmers lose their freedom to
exchange and/or sell their own seeds. This legal shift is
deliberately meant to lead to the displacement and loss of peasant
seeds, because they are considered inferior and unproductive
compared to corporate seeds.

Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA)

The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) was established
in 2006 by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller
Foundation. It is currently funded by several development
ministries, foundations and programmes, including DFID, IFAD and the
Government of Kenya. AGRA’s objective is to “catalyse a uniquely
African Green Revolution based on small- holder farmers so that
Africa would be food self-sufficient and food secure.” AGRA focuses
on five areas: seeds, soil health, market access, policy and
advocacy and support to farmers’ organisations.

On seeds, AGRA’s activities are implemented through the Programme
for Africa’s Seed Systems (PASS). PASS focuses on the breeding,
production and distribution of so-called “improved” seeds. AGRA’s
action on seeds policies and laws, however, is carried out through
its Policy Programme, whose goal is to establish an “enabling
environment”, including seed and land policy reforms, to boost
private investment in agriculture and encourage farmers to change
practices. This specifically includes getting the public sector out
of seed production and distribution.

AGRA’s seed policy work aims to strengthen internal seed laws and
regulations, reduce delays in the release of new varieties,
facilitate easy access to public germplasm, support the
implementation of regionally harmonised seed laws and regulations,
eliminate trade restrictions and establish an African Seed
Investment Fund to support seed businesses.

In Ghana, for example, AGRA helped the government review its seed
policies with the goal of identifying barriers to the private sector
getting more involved. With technical and financial support from
AGRA, the country’s seed legislation was revised and a new pro-
business seed law was passed in mid-2010. Among other things it
established a register of varieties that can be marketed. In
Tanzania, discussions between AGRA and government representatives
facilitated a major policy change to privatise seed production. In
Malawi, AGRA supported the government in revising its maize pricing
and trade policies. AGRA is also funding a $300,000 seeds project
for the East African Community that started in July 2014 and will be
implemented over the next two years. Its objective is to get EAC
farmers to switch to so-called improved seeds and to harmonise the
seed and fertilizer policies of Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and
Uganda.

[For more on other similar initiatives, see full report]

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

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

Cuban Doctor Returns to Fight Ebola in Africa
| January 15, 2015 | 7:50 pm | Africa, Cuba, Ebola, Health Care, International | Comments closed

HAVANA, Cuba, Jan 15 (acn) Cuban doctor Felix Baez, who overcame the Ebola virus, which he got in Sierra Leone, returned to that Western African nation to continue fighting the disease along his comrades with the Henry Reeve international medical brigade.

Cubadebate website published a series of photos of the doctor along his comrades in Sierra Leone announcing his return.

An internal medicine specialist, Baez announced in December 2014 that he would return to the African nation to finish the job he started, once he fully recovered from the disease.

The 43-year-old doctor returned to Cuba after having been released from the Geneva-based Cantonal University Hospital, where he received treatment against Ebola.

In response to the World Health Organization call to fight Ebola in Africa, Cuba sent three brigades to Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea to fight the virus.

According to the World Health Organization over 8 thousand 800 people have died from the Ebola virus in Africa.

================================================
LAST MEMBERS OF CUBAN FIVE RETURNING TO CUBA: