Aggregated News & Analyses
Today’s posts in bigger type–>
Prior 2 days are in smaller type.
Guernsey’s bill to allow terminally ill people the right to medical help to die shows Westminster the way
Guernsey is an unlikely pioneer, but it might be the first place to break Britain’s last great taboo – the right to die peacefully at a time of your own choosing. The island’s parliament votes in May on an assisted dying bill, allowing terminally ill people the right to medical help to die, so long as they have only six months to live and are mentally competent. This may succeed, with the support of the island’s chief minister, Gavin St Pier.
Assisted dying is illegal in the UK under the Suicide Act of 1961, punishable with a sentence of up to 14 years in prison. Attempts to change the law at Westminster have been thwarted despite overwhelming public support, 82% in the latest poll. But religious objectors have blocked it time and again, with both Houses curiously packed with a disproportionate number of believers in this mostly atheistic country.
....Anti-right to die campaigners claim that families would intimidate inconvenient old folk into signing their own death warrants to save nursing home fees. But cost is inevitably a part of the reason why we need this law: people receiving a diagnosis of dementia not only fear for themselves, but fear their savings will be wasted on nursing home fees to pointlessly prolong their lives.
Hard truths will not be faced. How do we pay for the massive increase in care for those with dementia?
Dementia is now the leading cause of death, the first time it has caused more deaths than heart disease. That stark fact should frighten us all, as the worst possible death is now the most likely. St Joseph, patron saint of the “good death”, who died of natural causes with Jesus and Mary at his side, will be working overtime: tradition does not record if he still had all his marbles. But the good death is what everyone wants: the right to choose it is as basic as all the other hard-earned freedoms we have over our own bodies.
A new study says that even in the ‘unrealistic’ event of a total halt to the flow of agricultural chemicals the damage will persist for 30 years
The enormous “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico will take decades to recover even if the flow of farming chemicals that is causing the damage is completely halted, new research has warned.
Intensive agriculture near the Mississippi has led to fertilizers leeching into the river, and ultimately the Gulf of Mexico, via soils and waterways. This has resulted in a huge oxygen-deprived dead zone in the Gulf that is now at its largest ever extent, covering an area greater than the state of New Jersey.
A new study has found that even if runoff of nitrogen, a fertilizer chemical, was fully stemmed, the Gulf would take about 30 years to recover. Even this scenario is “not only considered unrealistic, but also inherently unsustainable”, researchers stated in the work, published in Science.
Mining for lignite - or brown coal - in Greece is a huge industry. Together with Germany and Poland, the country accounts for more than one-third of the world’s coal production. But for residents of villages in the extraction areas of West Macedonia, it has many impacts, from displacement to health problems.
....Greece, along with Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic accounts for over a third of the world’s coal production. However, coal is among the worst sources of toxic air pollutants globally. In 2012 alone, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported that 7 million people died as a result of exposure to air pollution. In Europe, each death attributable to such exposure occurs prematurely by an estimated 11 years.
In a letter to the Greek Ministry of Heath, the deputy regional health manager wrote that seven out of 10 deaths in Ptolemaida are related to cancer or thromboembolic disease (stroke, stroke, pulmonary embolism). Cancer cases have risen by 16% since 1950, and the number currently stands at 30.5%. Life expectancy in the region has been falling.
EU’s subsidy system, that benefits big farming rather than sustainability, needs to change to prevent ongoing collapse in birds and insect numbers, warn green groups
Europe’s crisis of collapsing bird and insect numbers will worsen further over the next decade because the EU is in a “state of denial” over destructive farming practices, environmental groups are warning.
European agriculture ministers are pushing for a new common agriculture policy from 2021 to 2028 which maintains generous subsidies for big farmers and ineffectual or even “fake” environmental or “greening” measures, they say.
In a week when two new studies revealed drastic declines in French farmland birds – a pattern repeated across Europe – the EU presidency claimed that the CAP continued to provide safe food while defending farmers and “protecting the environment”.
“The whole system is in a state of denial,” said Ariel Brunner, head of policy at Birdlife Europe. “Most agriculture ministers across Europe are just pushing for business as usual. The message is, keep the subsidies flowing.”
Farm subsidies devour 38% of the EU budget and 80% of the subsidies go to just 20% of farmers, via “basic payments” which hand European landowners £39bn each year.
Because these payments are simply related to land area, big farmers receive more, can invest in more efficient food production – removing hedgerows to enlarge fields for instance – and put smaller, less intensive farmers out of business. France lost a quarter of its farm labourers in the first decade of the 20th century, while its average farm size continues to rise.
Fifty years after the publication of his controversial book The Population Bomb, biologist Paul Ehrlich warns overpopulation and overconsumption are driving us over the edge
A shattering collapse of civilisation is a “near certainty” in the next few decades due to humanity’s continuing destruction of the natural world that sustains all life on Earth, according to biologist Prof Paul Ehrlich.
In May, it will be 50 years since the eminent biologist published his most famous and controversial book, the Population Bomb. But Ehrlich remains as outspoken as ever.
The world’s optimum population is less than two billion people – 5.6 billion fewer than on the planet today, he argues, and there is an increasing toxification of the entire planet by synthetic chemicals that may be more dangerous to people and wildlife than climate change.
Make modern contraception and back-up abortion available to all and give women full equal rights, pay and opportunities
Ehrlich also says an unprecedented redistribution of wealth is needed to end the over-consumption of resources, but “the rich who now run the global system – that hold the annual ‘world destroyer’ meetings in Davos – are unlikely to let it happen”.
The Population Bomb, written with his wife Anne Ehrlich in 1968, predicted “hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death” in the 1970s – a fate that was avoided by the green revolution in intensive agriculture.
Many details and timings of events were wrong, Paul Ehrlich acknowledges today, but he says the book was correct overall.
“Population growth, along with over-consumption per capita, is driving civilisation over the edge: billions of people are now hungry or micronutrient malnourished, and climate disruption is killing people.”
Puerto Ricans and Ultrarich “Puertopians” Are Locked in a Pitched Struggle Over How to Remake the Island
California judge William Alsup put out a list of questions for a climate change ‘tutorial’ in a global warming case
Group of campaigners arrested after spray painting mayor’s offices as part of a series of direct action protests over of the capital’s illegal air pollution
Dozens of species have seen their numbers decline, in some cases by two-thirds, because insects they feed on have been poisoned
More than a million viewers watch online as Sanders joins likes of Michael Moore and Elizabeth Warren to talk poverty
Unprofessional journalists are 'roasted'
Demonstrators in Washington, London, Tokyo and elsewhere will demand US Congress pass sweeping change on gun control
Illustration: The Nation
....A recent study of voter opinion by the political scientist Larry Bartels found that about one-fourth of Hillary Clinton’s supporters espoused downright Trumpian views on “cultural” issues, while still endorsing (and, ostensibly, prioritizing) conventionally liberal convictions about the role of government in the economy. Meanwhile, Bartels found that a majority of Republican voters approved of “government efforts to regulate pollution, provide a decent standard of living for people unable to work, and ensure access to good health care, while substantial minorities favor reducing income differences and helping families pay for child care and college.”
This study, along with multiple others, testifies to a basic truth about American politics, circa 2018: If Democrats could only get voters to cast their ballots on the basis of their views on economic policy, they would dominate all levels of government.
But the party will make little progress toward that objective so long as it instructs its candidates in blue-collar, rural districts to disavow any policies that draw too sharp a contrast with Paul Ryan’s agenda.
In reality, there’s reason to suspect that bold, easy-to-understand progressive policies like a jobs guarantee might actually make Democrats more competitive in such places, by increasing the electoral salience of class identity. In the Data for Progress poll, Republicans who earned less than $25,000 a year were more supportive of a jobs guarantee than Democrats who made over $150,000.
None of this is to suggest that every progressive economic policy is a political winner in every district in the United States. Conor Lamb’s reluctance to endorse a $15 minimum wage in rural Pennsylvania was not wholly irrational; given the median income in that part of the country, it’s likely that the $15 figure strikes some of his constituents as too high (although Lamb could have explained that the new wage floor would be phased in gradually). The point is simply that, contrary to conventional wisdom, there is no ironclad relationship between how politically pragmatic a given policy idea is, and how far “left” it would fall on an ideological scale.
A jobs guarantee is radical in theoretical terms, but has a strong claim to common sense in political ones: The idea that the government has a responsibility to provide opportunities for gainful employment to all its constituents is thoroughly bipartisan. Any speech about economic policy — from any candidate from either party — affirms this premise. There’s no (official) disagreement about the goal of maximizing employment in American politics; only about the means through which to do so. Republicans insist that reducing taxes on the wealthy and regulations on corporations is the silver bullet; Democrats have generally told a more complicated story involving education, innovation, diversity, and redistribution.
A federal jobs guarantee offers Team Blue a prescription for how the government can increase employment opportunities that’s just as simple as the GOP’s, but far more intuitive — namely, “directly hire all of the unemployed people.” And once one stipulates that American voters do not actually have any implacable hostility to “big government,” it becomes obvious that this pitch should be an easier sell than the GOP’s “give yet another tax break to the rich.”
For this reason, it’s heartening that top Democratic think tanks are hashing out detailed versions of the policy, and that top Democratic presidential hopefuls like Kirsten Gillibrand are embracing it.
Demonstrators in Washington, London, Tokyo and elsewhere will demand US Congress pass sweeping change on gun control
American students make signs calling for stricter gun control before a solidarity rally with March For Our Lives in front of the US embassy in Tel Aviv, Israel Friday. Photograph: UPI / Barcroft Images
Hundreds of thousands of marchers are expected to descend on Washington DC on Saturday for a landmark gun control rally as calls for reform reach a fever pitch following the Parkland school shooting last month.
March for Our Lives events led by young people in over 800 locations around the world – including London, Sydney, Tokyo, Mumbai, plus hundreds of places in the US – will also take place as demonstrators demand that the US Congress, for decades dormant on gun control, pass sweeping legislative change.
....Trump, who has flip-flopped on his support for gun control measures and vowed to support the NRA, which spent more than $30m to back his campaign for the White House, left town on Friday evening and flew to Mar-a-Lago, his Florida resort.
By focusing on the love and care that we have for one another, we can bring about real change.
Activist and poet Johnny Soto paints a sign to be carried at the upcoming March for Our Lives Los Angeles on March 22, 2018 in Los Angeles, California. More than 500,000 are expected to march for gun control at rallies nationwide on March 24. The marches have been organized by students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School where 17 people were killed in a mass shooting February 14. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)
....Assault weapons have been, by far,the most used weapon in mass shootings in recent history. They are used for a number of reasons: they are easy to acquire, and they aredesigned to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time. The shooter who killed 59 people in Las Vegas on October 1st last yearused a semi-automatic gun modified with a bump stock, turning it into an automatic rifle. The 19-year-old shooter who killed 17 people at his former school on February 14th of this yearused an AR-15, a semi-automatic weapon.
The fact assault weapons are so frequently used to kill enormous numbers of people in this country, and that bump stocks are not illegal, are issues that we must address. AQuinnipiac University poll found that six in ten Americans (61%) support a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons, and an NPR-Ipsos poll found that 82% support banning bump stocks.
Illustration by Eric Hanson
The good thing about John Bolton, President Trump’s new national security adviser, is that he says what he thinks.
The bad thing is what he thinks.
"Wars and conflicts are driving hunger in a way we've never seen before," says head of World Food Program
Female and malnourished child sit on a hospital cot. (Photo: Marco Frattini/WFP)
Largely due to armed conflicts, there has been "a staggering and stomach-churning 55 percent increase" in the number of acutely hungry people worldwide over the past two years, according to the head of the U.N. food agency.
"The consequences of conflict and climate change are stark: millions of more people severely, even desperately, hungry. The fighting must stop now and the world must come together to avert these crises."
World Food Program
Addressing the U.N. Security Council by video on Friday, World Food Program (WFP) executive director David Beasley explained that the number of hungry people across the globe is rapidly growing because "people won't stop shooting at each other."
"Wars and conflicts are driving hunger in a way we've never seen before," he said.
The WFP found that the number of acutely hungry people—meaning they could soon die without food—rose to 124 million. Beasley pointed out that 60 percent of the 815 million chronically hungry people—those who do not know where they will get their next meal—live in areas experiencing armed conflicts.
"Conflict leads to food insecurity. And food insecurity can also stoke instability and tension which trigger violence," he explained. "The link between hunger and conflict is as strong as it is destructive."
Beasley issued a specific warning about mounting conflicts in Africa's greater Sahel region, noting, "In the five core countries of the Sahel—Burkina Faso, Chad, Niger, Mali and Mauritania—acute malnutrition has risen 30 percent in the past five years."
Two federal MPs among more than 100 people arrested challenging 1,000km line from Alberta’s tar sands to the Pacific coast
Romilly Cavanaugh, one of more than 115 people detained this week. Photograph: Rogue collective
....On Friday two federal MPs – Green party leader Elizabeth May and MP Kennedy Stewart of the New Democratic party – were arrested after they joined protesters attempting to block construction work related to the expansion. Elsewhere, more than 60 actions unfolded across Canada in a show of solidarity with the protests.
Spearheaded by Texas-based Kinder Morgan, the C$7.4bn project proposes expanding an existing pipeline to lay nearly 1,000km of new pipeline from Alberta to Vancouver’s coastline.
The project, which still needs be obtain numerous local permits and approvals, would nearly triple the flow of Alberta’s landlocked bitumen to the west coast and dramatically increase oil tanker traffic in the Pacific.
After Kinder Morgan launched preparatory work this month in Burnaby, near Vancouver, indigenous leaders called on people to raise their voices.
“Bold action is needed now,” said Will George, a member of Tsleil-Waututh Nation. “This is the moment to either stand with Indigenous Nations in the fight for a safe climate and clean water, or else watch as Kinder Morgan continues business as usual and destroys any chance for a safe and livable planet.”
An estimated 10,000 people heeded the call, marching through the streets of Burnaby two weeks ago. The protests have continued ever since, attracting between 50 and a few hundred protesters each day, from toddlers to octogenarians.
Five new reports unveiled at a UN biodiversity summit in Colombia are sounding the alarm over the rapidly deteriorating state of biodiversity on our planet. But they also provide the tools to fight back.
Too many people, fewer and fewer animals
Delegates at a major international summit on biodiversity in Medellín, Colombia have been rattled after being presented with stark new evidence about the state of the world's biodiversity.
The 750 delegates from 115 countries are meeting for the sixth plenary of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, often called the "IPCC for biodiversity."
The platform was tasked by the United Nations in 2012 to provide the best-available evidence to inform better policy decisions on how to protect nature in the face of growing pressure on the planet.
The five reports, which were prepared over three years by 550 international experts, give regional assessments of biodiversity in Africa, the Americas, Asia Pacific, Europe and Central Asia. A fifth report assesses the state of land degradation globally.
The reports conclude that in the Americas, there are about about 31 percent fewer species than was the case at the time of European settlement. With the growing effects of climate change added to the other drivers, this loss is projected to reach 40 percent by 2050.
In Africa, 500,000 square km of land is already estimated to have been degraded by overexploitation of natural resources, erosion, salinization and pollution. In the European Union, only 7 percent of marine species and 9 percent of marine habitat types show a ‘favourable conservation status’. 66 percent of habitat types' assessments show an ‘unfavourable conservation status’, with the others categorised as 'unknown'.
The Asia-Pacific region showed more hopeful results. Over the past 25 years, marine protected areas in the region increased by almost 14 percent and terrestrial protected area increased by 0.3 percent. Forest cover increased by 2.5 percent.
The reports found a significant lack of progress on various UN biodiversity plans, including the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and its biodiversity targets, which were agreed by parties to the UN Convention on Biodiversity at their meeting in Aichi, Japan in 2010.
"If we continue the way we are ... the sixth mass extinction, the first one ever caused by humans, will continue," the summit's chair Robert Watson told AFP news agency.
After the massacre at our high school, our lives have changed forever – so we’re proposing these changes to halt mass shootings
....Where Republicans use tax policies and privatization to stab us in the heart, Democrats leverage monetary policies and bilateral/multilateral treaties to stick a shiv in our spines—the end result is the death of the American dream. Both parties are bleeding our resources and suffocating our hopes. Instead of realizing this reality and rising up to reclaim our government, we keep falling for the bamboozle of the politico-media complex. Politicians, pundits and media personalities alike have us fighting among each other and conditioning us like Pavlov’s dog to bark the minute they throw red meat at us. It is at once comical and maddening to see otherwise rational people turn themselves into human pretzels in order to stay true to their political ideologies.
Voltaire once said that it is hard to free fools from the chains they adore. But even he could not have imagined a day where liberals who were once peaceniks are now parroting Joseph McCarthy and demanding a confrontation with Russia that could lead to a nuclear war. Likewise, conservatives who once made a show of their piety and espoused morality are now prostrating themselves before a man who was twice divorced, makes weird sexual comments about his own daughter and cheated on his current wife less than a year after she had his son. The hardest thing to do in this world is to admit you were wrong; this is why liberals and conservatives alike would rather adore their chains instead of saying they got duped.
"We need a healthcare system that puts patients first—not insurance companies."
Acknowledging that Medicare for All must be the end goal for an ultra-wealthy nation in which tens of thousands die each year due to lack of health insurance, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) introduced legislation on Wednesday aimed at making immediate fixes to the current system to protect consumers from the "nasty tricks" of the private insurance industry, lower prescription drug costs, and shield low-income families from premium hikes.
"We need Medicare for All—and until we get it, there's no reason private insurers can't provide coverage that lives up to the high standards of our public health care programs."
—Sen. Elizabeth Warren"
So long as private health insurance exists, there is no reason to allow our health care to be held hostage by insurance companies that refuse to do better," Warren said in a statement unveiled alongside her legislation, which is co-sponsored by Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), and Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.). "Our bill will hold them accountable while significantly improving access to healthcare for millions of Americans."
Warren summarized the main objectives of her bill—titled the Consumer Health Insurance Protection Act (pdf)—in a video published on Twitter Wednesday:
Mulvaney’s decision allowed the Department of Labor to knowingly omit data that would harm tip-based workers
In a move that threatens to take hundreds of millions of dollars from American workers who rely on tips to make a living, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Mick Mulvaney sided with Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta and overruled the White House regulatory affairs chief by releasing a contentious rule about tip-pooling and knowingly withholding accurate data.
The rule, which has been pushed by the Department of Labor in recent months, would legally allow employers to profit off workers' tips — collectively pocketing an estimated $640 million more for employers — so long as the workers are at least paid the federal minimum wage. The Economic Policy institute, a progressive think tank, estimated that the real total employers could pocket could be as high as $5.8 billion.
"This is dangerous news for the country and the world. I hear the drumbeats of war."
Theresa May’s transition deal hints at the best option: remaining in the single market – plus the customs union
....The smart money in Brussels was always on the Norway option. The so-called European Economic Area was a simple “off-the-shelf” basis for a bespoke deal with the UK. The challenge lay not in negotiating it but in overcoming Theresa May’s belief that her fate depended on some 50 backbench leavers and the editors of the Sun and the Daily Mail. She was terrified of them.
Even so, the assumption was that, as the March 2019 deadline approached and the impossibility of a “frictionless” hard Brexit became ever clearer, Theresa May would be forced into a series of tactical retreats. The tough Lancaster House and Florence speeches, and Chequers last month, were dollops of fudge to keep hard Brexiteers on board. But this week’s transition deal would mark a parting of the ways. So it has appeared. The sight of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and assorted friends shuffling miserably into line, whimpering over dead fish, was heart-warming. So in a sense has been May’s and Johnson’s distraction over Russian poison, hysterically comparing Vladimir Putin to Stalin and Hitler.
A detailed analysis of the Norway option in last month’s Economist was unequivocally favourable. Norway in 1994 went through the same referendum debate as Britain, with the same drift towards compromise. The country remained in the European Free Trade Association (Efta). It stayed open to a single European market in goods, capital and labour, but it held aloof from the common fisheries and agriculture policies. Norway also stayed outside the EU customs union, to secure its own trade deals elsewhere. It is hard to see what substantive argument a Brexiter could have against this.
Norway fiercely denies it is a “vassal state”. It is rated by the Economist Intelligence Unit as the “most democratic” in the world. It must abide by EU rules on trade in goods within the EU. But so must EU members, who can be overruled by majority voting. On matters of joint concern, such as energy, Norway is consulted and heard. Its lobbying office next to the Berlaymont building is more effective than any council vote. As for the European court, the Efta court liaises with it and is rarely in conflict.
We trust our friends far more than any institution – a vulnerability Cambridge Analytica exploited via Facebook. But we won’t be so trusting again
....As the now-suspended CEO, Alexander Nix, put it so well: “It sounds a dreadful thing to say, but these are things that don’t necessarily need to be true as long as they’re believed.”
In his snooty British accent, Nix is only saying – and converting into highly effective digital marketing – what Trump has long believed: lies don’t matter as long as they’re believed.
So while it might seem grandiose for Nix to boast that he played a central role in getting Trump elected, he also identifies several key truths that Trump supporters may refuse to believe.
First, the use of posts from fake activist groups that blur the lines between a campaign and outside groups. “This stuff infiltrates the online community, but with no branding, so it’s unattributable, untrackable,” Nix helpfully explained to undercover reporters.
Election laws will surely change as a result of Nix’s bragging and Facebook’s arrogant and inept response to this snowballing scandal. Nobody could get away with such brazenly political manipulation in TV ads. Why should they do so on Facebook or any other part of the web?
Michael Isikoff and David Corn lay bare the evidence that Trump and Putin have been striving to collaborate for years
If even oil companies accept human-caused global warming, why doesn’t everybody?
Deniers still want to debate the science of climate change
Deniers filed briefs in support of the defense, but they contradicted Chevron’s tutorial. For example, one brief filed by a group led by Christopher Monckton and Willie Soon began by stating, “The “consensus” about global warming is 0.3%, not 97%” (this is obviously incorrect). Another brief filed by William Happer, Steve Koonin, and Richard Lindzen argued that “It is not possible to tell how much of the modest recent warming can be ascribed to human influences.” Chevron and the IPCC disagree.
While it’s normal for climate deniers to deny the 97% expert consensus that humans are driving global warming, those submitting briefs on behalf of Big Oil were clearly not on the same page as its lawyer. Perhaps the oil companies should have sent the deniers a memo to stay out of this case. Clearly these groups are accustomed to denying climate science on the oil industry’s behalf.
Two-faced oil companies
The judge mandated that those submitting briefs detail their funding sources, and they listed a litany of oil companies and fossil fuel-funded think tanks. Among those listed by Monckton and Soon’s group were ExxonMobil, the Heartland Institute, and the Charles G. Koch Foundation. Among those listed by Happer, Koonin, and Lindzen were the Heritage Foundation, Peabody Coal, the Cato Institute, and the Texas Public Policy Foundation.
It’s a perfect example of the oil industry’s two-faced behavior. For decades their own scientists quietly published peer-reviewed research concluding that humans are causing global warming. That was the face we saw from Chevron’s lawyer. But at the same time, oil companies were funding contrarian scientists and think tanks to spread denial and doubt about that same science. That was the face revealed in the denier briefs.
The rights group said selling weapons to Saudis had a devastating effect on civilians in Yemen. Germany announced it would not backtrack on the sale of patrol boats to Saudi Arabia.
Amnesty International (AI) slammed the United States and Britain on Friday for their continued arms sales to Saudi Arabia, which has been militarily engaged in neighboring Yemen's three-year civil war.
The rights group said the arms sales have been an "enormous harm to Yemeni civilians" over the course of the war, adding that all of the warring factions, including the Houthi rebels backed by Iran, have violated international law.
The Houthis have been battling the internationally recognized government that is allied with the Saudi-led military coalition. Shortly after the Houthis seized control of the Yemeni capital, Sanaa, the Saudi-led coalition began an aerial bombing campaign against the rebel forces.
"Three years on, Yemen's conflict shows no real signs of abating, and all sides continue to inflict horrific suffering on the civilian population," said Lynn Maalouf, Amnesty's Middle East research director. "Schools and hospitals lie in ruins, thousands have lost their lives and millions are displaced and in dire need of humanitarian aid.
"But this has not deterred the USA, the UK and other states, including France, Spain and Italy, from continuing transfers of billions of dollars' worth of such arms," Maalouf added. "As well as devastating civilian lives, this makes a mockery of the global Arms Trade Treaty."
Copyright © 2018 The Baltimore Chronicle and the SENTINEL. All rights reserved.
Republication or redistribution of Baltimore Chronicle and Sentinel content is expressly prohibited without their prior written consent.