

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

A supermajority of people in G7 countries believe that governments should ensure pharmaceutical companies share the formulas and technology to their vaccines, according to new polling from the People's Vaccine Alliance.
The public believes that pharmaceutical companies should be fairly compensated for developing vaccines, but should be prevented from holding a monopoly on the jabs.
It comes as G7 foreign and development ministers meet in London, the group's first in-person meeting in two years, and the general council of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) meets today online, while India's death toll climbs.
Across G7 nations, an average of 70% of people want the government to ensure vaccine know-how is shared, according to analysis by the People's Vaccine Alliance. Support for government intervention is highest in Italy, where 82% of respondents were in favour, followed by Canada, where 76% agree.
74% in the United Kingdom want the government to prevent Big Pharma monopolies, despite Prime Minister Boris Johnson attributing the country's successful vaccine rollout to "greed and capitalism".
UK support for intervention cuts across political boundaries, backed by 73% of Conservative voters, 83% of Labour and 79% of Liberal Democrats, as well as 83% of Remain and 72% of Leave voters in the EU referendum.
In the United States, where President Joe Biden has voiced his "hope and expectation" for sharing vaccine know-how, 69% of the public support the measure, including 89% of Biden and 65% of Trump voters in 2020. In Japan, 58% of the public want similar action.
European Union member-nations were also strongly in favour, with support from 70% in Germany and 63% in France.
Heidi Chow, Senior Campaigns and Policy Manager at Global Justice Now, said:
"The public doesn't want big pharma to hold monopolies on vaccines that were developed largely with public money. These vaccines are a global public good that should be available to everyone, everywhere. That much is obvious to the public across G7 nations, but political leaders are burying their heads in the sand while people die around them."
Despite widespread support for sharing vaccine know-how, G7 governments have continued to support pharmaceutical monopolies on Covid-19 jabs.
More than 100 countries, led by India and South Africa, have supported a temporary waiver of Intellectual Property rights on Covid-19 vaccines at the WTO, but the proposal has been blocked by countries including the US, UK, Japan, Canada, and the EU. The Biden administration has confirmed it is reconsidering American opposition to the waiver.
Pharmaceutical companies have so far refused to share their vaccine know-how with the world. No company with a successful vaccine has joined the World Health Organisation's Covid-19 Technology Access Pool (C-TAP), which was established to facilitate sharing blueprints for vaccines and treatments.
Saoirse Fitzpatrick, STOPAIDS Advocacy Manager said:
"The horrific situation in India should shake G7 leaders to their core. Now is not the time for an ideological defence of intellectual property rules. Bilateral deals with pharmaceutical companies have not worked. Governments need to step in and force pharmaceutical companies to share their intellectual property and vaccine know-how with the world."
As G7 chair, the UK has proposed a Pandemic Preparedness Plan, to be discussed by ministers this week, which ignores the issue of monopolies and intellectual property. Pharmaceutical corporations such as Pfizer are on the team preparing the proposal, but developing country governments and vaccine producers have not been asked to join.
Steve Cockburn, Head of Economic and Social Justice at Amnesty International, said:
"G7 governments have clear human rights obligations to put the lives of millions of people across the world ahead of the interests of the pharmaceutical companies that they have funded. It would be a gross failure of leadership to continue blocking the sharing of life-saving technologies, and would only serve to prolong the immense pain and suffering caused by this pandemic."
Last month, 175 former world leaders and Nobel laureates, including Gordon Brown, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf and Francoise Hollande wrote to President Biden to support the temporary waiving of intellectual property rights for Covid-19 vaccines.
150 faith leaders, including Rowan Williams, the former archbishop of Canterbury, Thabo Makgoba, the Anglican archbishop of Cape Town, and Cardinal Peter Turkson of the Roman Catholic Church have called for G7 leaders to treat Covid-19 as a "global common good.0.
Anna Marriott, Health Policy Manager at Oxfam, said:
"People are dying by the thousands in low and middle income countries while rich nations have jumped the vaccine queue. G7 leaders need to face up to reality. We don't have enough vaccines for everyone and the biggest barrier to increasing supply is that a few profit hungry pharmaceutical corporations keep the rights to produce them under the lock and key. It's time to waive the intellectual property rules, ramp up production and put people's lives before profits. It's time for a People's Vaccine."
Two-thirds of world-leading epidemiologists surveyed warned that the continued spread of the virus could allow vaccine-resistant strains of Covid-19 to render our current vaccines ineffective within a year. Independent SAGE, who provide independent public health advice in the United Kingdom, have called for a patent waiver to address supply issues.
Moderna, Pfizer/BioNtech, Johnson & Johnson, Novovax and Oxford/AstraZeneca received billions in public funding and guaranteed pre-orders, including $12 billion from the US government alone. An estimated 97% of funding for the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine came from public sources.
The companies have paid out a combined $26 billion in dividends and stock buybacks to their shareholders this year, enough to vaccinate at least 1.3 billion people, equivalent to the population of Africa.
ENDS
The People's Vaccine Alliance has analysed polling from across G7 countries conducted by YouGov, Leger360, and Nippon Research Center.
When asked if they support the statement 'Governments should compensate fairly for any COVID-19 vaccine developed by a pharmaceutical company but ensure they don't have a monopoly by sharing these formulas and technology with other approved companies', views reflected by public in each country were:
YouGov UK polling
Sample Size: 1788 UK Adults
Fieldwork: 23rd - 24th February 2021
74% supported the statement. 73% of Conservative voters, 82% of Labour, 79% of Liberal Democrat. 83% of Remain voters and 72% of Leave voters.
YouGov France polling
Sample Size: 1010 adults in France
Fieldwork: 24th - 25th February 2021
63% support the statement
YouGov Germany polling
Sample Size: 2039 adults in Germany
Fieldwork: 24th - 26th February 2021
70% support the statement
YouGov US polling
Sample Size: 1351 adults in the US
Fieldwork: 23rd - 24th February 2021
69% support the statement. 82% of Biden voters and 65% of Trump voters in 2020.
YouGov Italy polling:
Sample size: 1019 adults in Italy
Fieldwork 4th - 5th March 2021
82% support the statement
Leger360 Canada polling:
Sample size: 1526 Canadian adults
Fieldwork 5th - 7th March 2021
76% support the statement
Nippon Research Center Japan polling:
Sample size: 1,278
Fieldwork:17 March 2021
58% supported the statement
Global Justice Now is a democratic social justice organisation working as part of a global movement to challenge the powerful and create a more just and equal world. We mobilise people in the UK for change, and act in solidarity with those fighting injustice, particularly in the global south.
020 7820 4900"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war."
Pope Leo XIV used his Palm Sunday sermon to take what appears to be a shot at US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
In his sermon, excerpts of which he published on social media, the pope emphasized Christian teachings against violence while criticizing anyone who would invoke Jesus Christ to justify a war.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war," Pope Leo said. "He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them."
The pope also encouraged followers to "raise our prayers to the Prince of Peace so that he may support people wounded by war and open concrete paths of reconciliation and peace."
While speaking at the Pentagon last week, Hegseth directly invoked Jesus when discussing the Trump administration's unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.
Specifically, Hegseth offered up a prayer in which he asked God to give US soldiers "wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy," adding that "we ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ."
Mother Jones contributing writer Alex Nguyen described the pope's sermon as a "rebuke" of Hegseth, whom he noted "has been open about his support for a Christian crusade" in the Middle East.
Pope Leo is not the only Catholic leader speaking against using Christian faith to justify wars of aggression. Two weeks ago, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, said "the abuse and manipulation of God’s name to justify this and any other war is the gravest sin we can commit at this time."
“War is first and foremost political and has very material interests, like most wars," Cardinal Pizzaballa added.
"Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to launch some kind of ground assault on Iran in the coming weeks, but one prominent military strategy expert believes he's heading straight for defeat.
The Washington Post on Saturday reported that the Pentagon is preparing for "weeks" of ground operations in Iran, which for the last month has disrupted global energy markets by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz in response to aerial assaults by the US and Israel.
The Post's sources revealed that "any potential ground operation would fall short of a full-scale invasion and could instead involve raids by a mixture of Special Operations forces and conventional infantry troops" that could be used to seize Kharg Island, a key Iranian oil export hub, or to search out and destroy weapons systems that could be used by the Iranians to target ships along the strait.
Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the Post that taking over Kharg Island would be a highly risky operation for American troops, even if initially successful.
“I just wouldn’t want to be in that small place with Iran’s ability to rain down drones and maybe artillery,” said Eisenstadt.
Eisenstadt's analysis was echoed by Ret. Gen. Joseph Votel, former head of US Central Command, who told ABC News that seizing and occupying Kharg Island would put US troops in a state of constant danger, warning they could be "very, very vulnerable" to drones and missiles launched from the shore.
Lawrence Freedman, professor emeritus of war studies at King's College London, believes that the president has already checkmated himself regardless of what shape any ground operation takes.
In an analysis published Sunday, Freedman declared Trump had run "out of options" for victory, as there have been no signs of the Iranian regime crumbling due to US-Israeli attacks.
Freedman wrote that Trump now "appears to inhabit an alternative reality," noting that "his utterances have become increasingly incoherent, with contradictory statements following quickly one after the other, and frankly delusional claims."
Trump's loan real option at this point, Freedman continued, would to simply declare that he had achieved an unprecedented victory and just walk away. But even in that case, wrote Freedman, "this would mean leaving behind a mess in the Gulf" with no guarantee that Iran would re-open the Strait of Hormuz.
"Success in war is judged not by damage caused but by political objectives realized," Freedman wrote in his conclusion. "Here the objective was regime change, or at least the emergence of a new compliant leader... Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," said one critic.
The New York Times is drawing criticism for publishing articles that downplayed the significance of Saturday's No Kings protests, which initial estimates suggest was the largest protest event in US history.
In a Times article that drew particular ire, reporter Jeremy Peters questioned whether nationwide events that drew an estimated 8 million people to the streets "would be enough to influence the course of the nation’s politics."
"Can the protests harness that energy and turn it into victories in the November midterm elections?" Peters asked rhetorically. "How can they avoid a primal scream that fades into a whimper?"
Journalist and author Mark Harris called Peters' take on the protests "predictable" and said it was framed so that the protests would appear insignificant no matter how many people turned out.
"There's a long, bad journalistic tradition," noted Harris. "All conservative grass-roots political movements are fascinating heartland phenomena, all progressive grass-roots political movements are ineffectual bleating. This one is written off as powered by white female college grads—the wine-moms slur, basically."
Media critic Dan Froomkin was event blunter in his criticism of the Peters piece.
"Putting anti-woke hack Jeremy Peters on this story is an act of war by the NYT against No Kings," he wrote.
Mark Jacob, former metro editor at the Chicago Tribune, also took a hatchet to Peters' analysis.
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," he wrote. "Instead of being impressed by 3,000-plus coordinated protests, NYT dismisses the value of 'hitting a number' and asks if No Kings will be 'a primal scream that fades into a whimper.' F off, NY Times. We'll defeat fascism without you."
The Media and Democracy Project slammed the Times for putting Peters' analysis of the protests on its front page while burying straight news coverage of the events on page A18.
"NYT editors CHOSE that Jeremy Peters's opinions would frame the No Kings demonstrations and pro-democracy movement to millions of NYT readers," the group commented.
Joe Adalian, west coast editor for New York Mag's Vulture, criticized a Times report on the No Kings demonstrations that quoted a "skeptic" of the protests without noting that said skeptic was the chairman of the Ole Miss College Republicans.
"Of course, the Times doesn’t ID him as such," remarked Adalian. "He's just a Concerned Youth."
Jeff Jarvis, professor emeritus at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, took issue with a Times piece that offered five "takeaways" from the No Kings events that somehow managed to miss their broader significance.
"I despise the five-takeaways journalistic trope the Broken Times loves so," Jarvis wrote. "It is reductionist, hubristic in its claim to summarize any complex event. This one leaves out much, like the defense of democracy against fascism."
Journalist Miranda Spencer took stock of the Times' entire coverage of the No Kings demonstrations and declared it "clueless," while noting that USA Today did a far better job of communicating their significance to readers.
Harper's Magazine contributing editor Scott Horton similarly argued that international news organizations were giving the No Kings events more substantive coverage than the Times.
"In Le Monde and dozens of serious newspapers around the world, prominent coverage of No Kings 3, which brought millions of Americans on to the streets to protest Trump," Horton observed. "In NYT, an illiterate rant from Jeremy W Peters and no meaningful coverage of the protests. Something very strange going on here."