Mon Jan 23 2023 - The 200 civilians kidnapped in a Peruvian university by the police reminded the world that Peru is going through a major crisis right now. Protests have intensified

The 200 civilians kidnapped in a Peruvian university by the police reminded the world that Peru is going through a major 

A building on fire, after the march demonstrating against Peru's current president, Dina Boluarte.

During the past weeks, Peruvian demonstrators poured into Lima, the capital, angry at the rising death toll since unrest began last month, and demanding radical change.

The police reported 3,500 demonstrators, but some believe it was more than twice that amount. .

As people in poorer, rural districts express their resentment at the Lima establishment over inequality and rising costs, violent and occasionally murderous protests have resulted in the 

 violence Peru has seen in more than two decades, challenging the copper-rich Andean nation's democratic institutions.

The current leaders of the country must quit, there must be immediate elections, and a new constitution must replace the market-friendly one that dates back to the 1990s under right-wing strongman Alberto Fujimori.

Human rights organizations claim that the police and soldiers used lethal weapons during the protests. 

The protests have been the most violent in decades

According to the police, the demonstrators have utilized explosives and guns.

When police detained demonstrators and locked them up in a university, the turmoil grew and became more intense. 

 this weekend by Peruvian police on suspicion of breaking into Lima university's campus without permission.

Police outside the university campus doors

On Sunday, one day after the police operation on the university, the world finally saw the release of the roughly 200 people who had been detained.

"They treated us like prisoners, as if we had guns." 

They came in violently with tanks, tear gas, and a helicopter. The campus had become a type of haven for citizens from the southern sierra who had traveled to the capital to protest the government of Dina Boluarte since the previous Wednesday.

The police reduced the crowd to about 200 people without the presence of the defense of the town or the fiscal, among whom were older adults and political speakers. 

Even if the demonstrators did not object, as can be seen in numerous films, there was a high level of ferocity in the intervention. They assaulted them, threw them to the ground, blew up doors, checked their belongings, demanded donations of food, and even labeled them "terrorists." 

Then they were weighed, and hours later they were transported to the local jails.

As stated in the act of intervention, the police explain that the operation was justified because of a criminal complaint made by the UNMSM's judicial representative, Abelardo Rojas Palomino, who claimed that the marchers had attacked the university's security staff in order to steal and cause violence, stating the dangers of stealing electronic devices, and other security-related items. 

The university's Office of General Institutional Imagery released a statement on Friday night detailing these events, eight hours prior to the procedure.

Numerous attorneys, human rights activists, and congresspeople from the left warned that they would not be allowed to enter the university city when the intervention was being carried out to check on the detainees' integrity. 

Some academics have compared this police operation to what occurred on May 21, 1991, when former President Alberto Fujimori ordered the military to enter the universities of San Marcos and La Cantuta in order to deal with the subversive elements that had "ideologized" these two places of learning.

In the police operation, it was reported that 192 people were detained on suspicion of aggravated robbery, aggravated usurpation of property, and terrorism-related offenses. 

These four are citizens of the university city of San Marcos. Eliana Revollar, the public defender, said it was necessary to rely on the presence of the fiscal throughout the operation. "Human rights must be guaranteed in an emergency," he declared.

Civil unrest has been a major problem in Peru over the past few months. Police and authorities have been treating protesters harshly. 

The police and authorities have responded by using heavy-handed tactics.  

This excessive force is not only a violation of basic human rights, but is likely to cause more unrest among the citizens of Peru. This sentiment already exists, but it is only being intensified. 

These brutal tactics by the police and authorities are only serving to increase anger and frustration among the civilians. With no resolution in sight, the continued use of violence to quell citizens will almost certainly lead to further unrest. Given the severity of the situation, it is only a matter of time before the citizens of Peru once again take to the streets in protest.

Will the protests be squashed or will there be a new government? 

I think most of it depends on pressure from the outside world. I hope the leaders of the international community and the media can pressure the current government into giving in to the demands. 

Peru's crisis worsens: How far will it go? Will the government give in? 

Early Bird

In an effort to form a unified front before the 2024 elections, Venezuela's opposition national parliament voted on Friday to 

 interim President Juan Guaido, disband his cabinet, and name a commission to oversee the nation's foreign assets.

When I say he was ousted by the opposition, I mean his own "side". 

Those that are fighting against the autocratic dictator Maduro. 

In 2019, Guaido invoked the constitution to take an interim presidency and won support from the United States and other governments. 

He was backed by those that viewed President Nicolas Maduro's 2018 re-election as fraudulent, and has since served as the public face of Venezuela's fractured opposition.

Guaido's interim government controls the overseas assets and is in charge of several embassies, despite being mostly without power inside Venezuela, where Maduro's regime controls practically all institutions, including the security forces.

Although Guaido's temporary administration was in charge of several embassies and some foreign assets, Maduro continued to maintain control over almost all of Venezuela's institutions, including its security forces.

In an effort to remove Guaido, the other three major parties, Justice First, Democratic Action, and A New Era, have been preparing a plan for weeks to establish a board of directors to oversee Venezuela's assets held abroad, particularly Citgo, a U.S.-based refiner and petroleum merchant.

No other country has more crude oil than Venezuela.

But the situation is so dire that even oil companies are suffering significant financial losses.

For defaulting bonds and firm nationalizations carried out under Hugo Chavez, Venezuela owes creditors more than $60 billion. Several people think it may 

My belief is that if you have the most debt and AT THE SAME TIME have the largest reserves of oil, your government leaders are stealing everything. 

The fact that Venezuela is severely behind on payments to oil service companies like Schlumberger, Halliburton, and others is one of the reasons why its problems have gotten worse, accelerating the ousting of Guaido. 

When a nation produces so much oil, it becomes unsustainable. Innovation, commerce, and economic growth are not required. 

The only thing that matter, the only motivation there is, is who controls the oil reserves.

Once you control them, money just gets printed out. 

It appears that Venezuela is currently experiencing this.

A country that focuses solely on selling natural resources, rather than investing in innovation, social wellbeing, and economic growth, can cripple itself in several ways:

Overall, it is important for countries to balance their reliance on natural resource exports with investment in other sectors and industries, in order to create a more stable and sustainable economy.

As a member of the opposition against Maduro in Venezuela, my first priority would be to try to unite the opposition under a single banner and work towards a common goal.

One way to do this would be to hold transparent meetings and discussions with other members of the opposition to identify our shared goals and strategies, and to come up with a plan of action that everyone can agree on. 

It would also be important to try to build support among the general public, by communicating our message and explaining why it is important to stand up against Maduro's regime. 

Another key aspect of uniting the opposition would be to work towards building a more cohesive and effective leadership structure. 

This could involve identifying key leaders within the opposition and working to empower them, as well as working to establish clear lines of communication and decision-making processes within the group. 

While doing this, it would be crucial to build bridges with other opposition groups and leaders. If the opposition against Maduro is fractured, how could it ever prevail?

Another important aspect of uniting the opposition would be to focus on building public support for our cause. 

This could involve reaching out to the general public through various channels, such as social media, to communicate our message and explain why it is important to stand up against Maduro's regime.

In terms of specific examples, one thing we could do to build public support would be to organize large-scale protests and demonstrations, in order to show the Maduro government that we have widespread support among the population. 

We could also work to build alliances with other organizations and groups, such as labor unions, student organizations, and community groups, in order to build a larger coalition of supporters.

Finally, it would be important to work to address the economic and social issues that have contributed to the current crisis in Venezuela. 

This could involve developing and advocating for specific policy proposals that address the root causes of the country's problems, such as corruption, mismanagement, and economic mismanagement.

If this is achieved, perhaps a coherent government could flip the economy. 

A good example could be some oil-rich countries in the Middle East, who created a booming economy with tourism, technology, trade and innovation with the funds from their oil reserves. 

They carry out civilian duties, serve in non-military ministries, and monitor the streets. 

And in many nations after the dictatorships, the military continues to have disproportionate authority.

When he ran for office, Andrés Manuel López Obrador promised to remove the military from Mexico's streets and condemned their involvement in the fight against drug trafficking. 

But he has only increased their power during his term in office. 

He abolished the Federal Police in 2019 and replaced it with the National Guard, which was composed of 80% military men. And in August of last year, he said that the Ministry of Defense would take over control of the new organization created to combat crime, which had previously been under civilian authority.

This final policy, which has not yet been implemented, is just one of many that have given the military more authority and sway over the nation's government. 

In fact, López Obrador has given them responsibility for overseeing the building of several projects and their subsequent administration.

 is but one illustration. Some governments in Latin America have recently had a tendency to give the military roles other than defense, in order to strengthen their economic and social clout.

They are in charge of the most significant economic sectors in both 

Military leaders, both active and retired, have led ministries in 

. The increase of the military's duties in 

runs counter to what the country's laws have established. 

The success of the States and democracies in the region is at risk due to the military's rising stature in Latin America.

Rut Diamint, a specialist in regional security and civil-military relations, enumerates three factors that account for the military's growing political sway in the region:

The nature of military power has changed. 

Its prominence is only increasing, but it is important to remember that the forms today differ from those in the eras of dictatorships. Assuringly, Diamint states, "There are no military takeovers; instead, what we have is a very direct link to political decision-making."

Román Ortiz, a senior analyst at the Francisco de Vitoria University's Center for International Security, concurs: 

"There are two details that stand out to me as crucial. First off, while the military's occupation of state buildings gives them more influence, a coup d'état is not always the result. Point number two is that civilian politicians who are attempting to compensate for the vulnerabilities in their political base with military support are likewise driving this expanded role of the armed forces ".

The absence of a coup d'état threat does not imply that democracy or the operation of the state will necessarily benefit. The armed forces undoubtedly have the infrastructure and resources to handle issues that are bigger than many Latin American administrations. However, the addition of new features is not always necessary or even practical.

According to Ortiz, when the military forces are engaged in activities that have nothing to do with the tasks that are appropriate for them, they are unable to effectively carry out their responsibility for security and defense. 

Additionally, their lack of experience in non-military concerns does not ensure competent administration and could actually work against the State's ability to function.

The expert also emphasizes how these new functions could have a negative impact on civil-military relations.

Ortiz cites the Mexican situation as a specific illustration. 

Despite the fact that he defends military action against organized crime in that nation due to the powerful position some cartels hold, he issues the following warning: 

"The president eliminated the civilian component to carry out tasks at the federal level, which has less to do with the military playing a bigger role. As a result of the demise of the Federal Police, the military now plays a larger role in maintaining public safety." 

Fhola de S. Paulo reported that 92 other members of the armed services in Brazil occupied important posts in state-owned firms in 2021, right before a retired Army general was appointed president of Petrobras, Brazil's enormous state-owned oil corporation.

President Jair Bolsonaro urged them to conduct a parallel vote count in 2022 to ensure the integrity of the recent concluded elections. 

Bolsonaro declared at the official beginning of his prior reelection campaign in July that "the Army is on our side" a declaration that was seen as extremely unsettling for a president-candidate who was casting doubt on the reputable Brazilian electoral body.

President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador has likewise given the military more funding and authority, in violation of both the law and the peace accord that put an end to the country's civil conflict in the 1990s.

Numerous people draw attention to the fact that the president took control of the Legislative Assembly in February 2020 while being escorted by the military and the police in order to compel opponents to accept a budget that would support his Territorial Control Plan. 

The politicization of the armed forces in El Salvador is most evident in this instance, but there are others as well.

As well as using them to impose quarantines during COVID-19, Bukele promised to double the number of troops and has boosted the military budget by 76.8% since 2019.

Each state in the region has its own variations on the Latin American phenomena of military protagonism. 

"I believe that Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay are the three nations that have tried the hardest and done the best job of separating defense from public security issues. It was especially challenging in Chile because, unlike in Argentina or Uruguay, the armed forces still held prestige in addition to authority. Therefore, it was much harder to separate it from political power and its close ties to society "Explained by Diamint.

According to Ortiz, there is a clear politicization of the armed forces in Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua, but he cautions that these countries cannot be compared to the others because they are not democratic. He says that in the other nations, the strength of the democratic institutions will determine how much authority the military ultimately assumes and how it affects the administration of the State. He thinks that the military's authority may occasionally be reversible.

He does, however, note: "I believe that Bukele is an excellent illustration of how things cannot be undone, but they cannot be undone because he has completely destroyed El Salvador's democratic institutional framework, which was already weak and in decline. In an unusual way: by increasing the militarization of public security, utilizing wholly arbitrary systems to carry out enormous detentions without any judicial oversight, and eliminating liberties while taking advantage of the security issue in that nation ".

He does, however, emphasize the differences from what was observed in Latin America in the 1970s and 1980s. "It is a civilian politician that invites in the military to employ them in his strategy to perpetuate himself in power, not the Salvadoran military that has a political objective and subsequently assumes power." a notable distinction.

WARNING: This article is very explicit and NSFW

"My job is to be a whore". This is what María Clemente García Moreno has said about the controversy that surrounds her. She is a politician and activist for the rights of sexual diversity in Mexico. She has been a federal deputy from 2021 until 2024, as a member of the MORENA party, who is currently in power and led by Andrés Manuel López Obrador. 

She has basically drawn criticism for sharing pornographic films of herself on 

María Clemente García Moreno, a federal 

 in Mexico City who made history in 2021 by becoming the first transgender to be elected to the nation's congress, also works as a sex worker, and she disputes that it is within her rights to post anything she pleases.

According to Garca Moreno, "I have human rights, the right to the free development of my personality, and the right to the free self-determination of my body." The creation of pornographic content for digital platforms is a permissible method of performing sex work, according to the Mexican constitution, human rights, and federal labor legislation.

One of the only widely used social media platforms that permits users to submit sexually graphic films is Twitter, which has grown in popularity as a forum for sex workers to promote their businesses and share material. She does it for the same reason other sex workers use Twitter: "to acquire more clients," she added.

The first video she uploaded, which was of a man's penis, had the caption in Spanish: "This is the first one that I'm going to show you, how I suck it like the popsicle that my dad bought me when I was a girl and took me to the park." The videos were posted over a three-day period beginning on September 30.

She shared a graphic video the next day showing her engaging in oral sex with a man, along with the caption, "This papacito stopped by really exhausted from work and I gave him a few sucks and a massage so that he could arrive at his home relaxed." "Uff" while referencing #TransIsHot.

The last video, which was uploaded on October 2 and is currently pinned to the top of her Twitter profile, features a blowjob once more, with the caption "I adore that this papacito who stops over to see me after work to relax with me. As a true man of the workplace, I enjoy spoiling him and giving him massages after I take care of him so that he can recover and snooze after work. Mexican #Maria #TransIsHot

Conservative lawmakers reacted angrily to the posts almost immediately, and several transphobic slurs were also made by regular users and anonymous accounts. A MORENA representative added that the party's ethics commission would l

 before deciding whether or not to sanction her in any way.

“Gender ideologues are quick to say that it is transphobic to criticize [García Moreno] for uploading a porn video. But no, the criticism is for not having even the slightest respect for society and the position. It is a major insult that must have repercussions.” Said an opposition leader. 

"This lady is frustrated because I accept my skin color, not like her who thinks she's white, frustrated because I have jurisdiction and she doesn't, frustrated because I have sex and she doesn't, frustrated because my [MORENA Party] is more badass than her. Poor insane woman"

The day after the third video was published, García Moreno tweeted each page of her first annual report on her congressional legislative efforts. 

According to García Moreno, she plans to introduce new laws that will grant Mexican sex workers the same "social security and rights" as those in other professions. She claimed that since many sex workers are allegedly exploited and threatened by local police, it is especially important in Mexico City, where she serves as an elected representative.

She is taking a big step toward "placing [sex work] in the national public narrative of Mexico, and everywhere outside of Mexico at the international level," in García Moreno's opinion, by having a sex-positive mindset. She hoped that it would especially affect neighboring Latin American nations, where Mexico is a regional powerhouse.

The question remains, is she doing the right things to create a sex-positive environment?

García Moreno said, "It gives me tremendous pleasure to see that the people, society, and ordinary citizens are living with courage, sexual freedom, and that they are prepared to defend the sexual and reproductive rights of others, in this instance mine."

"The youth in Mexico want the freedom to engage in sexual activity, they want access to sexual and reproductive health care, and they want the ability to control how they want to use their bodies."

On Tuesday, the ambassador of Ethiopia to Geneva denied a UN investigation's conclusion that Addis Abeba may have committed crimes against humanity in Tigray, including using hunger as a weapon of war.

Ethiopia's permanent ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Zenebe Kebede, told AFP that there is "no single evidence" that the government utilized humanitarian supplies as a weapon of war.

Since violence broke out in the northern Tigray region in November 2020, the Commission of Human Rights Experts on Ethiopia claimed it had discovered evidence of widespread breaches committed by all parties.

"Reasonable grounds to believe that the Federal Government and affiliated regional State governments have committed and continue to commit the crimes against humanity of persecution on ethnic grounds and other inhumane actions," the report stated.

This included refusing Tigray, a region of six million people where the UN claims famine-like conditions are occurring, badly needed help, including food and medication.

Despite Addis Ababa's opposition, the UN Human Rights Council established the panel last December. It was composed of three independent rights experts.

The commission was "politically driven," according to Ambassador Zenebe, and its conclusions were "self contradictory and biased."

Therefore, he stated, "We are left with no choice but to reject this report, just as we have rejected the resolution that created it and the very creation of this mechanism."

World hunger, which affects around 10% of people worldwide, is increasing after dropping gradually for a decade. As many as 150 million more people become undernourished between 2019 and 2022, a problem mostly fueled by war, climate change, and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Prior to this recent rise, the globe had been making great strides toward reducing hunger.

 issued by more than 200 nongovernmental organizations (ONG) ahead of the opening of the United Nations General Assembly, the number of people dying around the world from food shortage-related causes has increased to the point where one dies every four seconds.

In 2019, 135 million people experienced severe food insecurity, but this number has now risen to 345 million in an environment marked by ongoing conflicts, natural disasters, and collateral effects of the war in Ukraine.

In an open letter urging action as soon as possible to meet the Sustainable Development Goals, organizations from 75 countries state: "Letting people starve to death in a world of abundance is a political decision" (ODS).

Somalia is the biggest food insecurity crisis of the world

50 million people worldwide are on the verge of starvation in 45 different countries, worrying about crises like those in Somalia, South Sudan, Yemen, Afghanistan, Nigeria, and Haiti. They warn that "there are real people behind these data" and that inaction will have "awful consequences for life or death."

The signatories of the ONG believe that governments around the world prioritize their political and economic interests over the welfare of the entire global population, and they offer a number of recommendations to ease hunger, including the release of additional funds that are not designated for any particular emergency and a stepped-up diplomatic effort to prevent conflicts.

The goal is to assist people like Sumaya, a mother of four children living in a camp for displaced people in Egypt, who lives "a life without hope" due to a lack of food and water. "My children are currently dying of hunger. They are on the verge of death. If they cannot get food, I expect them to die ", affirm.

As the Russians keep the gas pipeline off, Germany has decided to answer: 

The “trusteeship” of Rosneft's German companies is instituted "to mitigate the threat to the security of energy supply." In order to protect the energy supplies that have been disrupted as a result of Moscow's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Berlin has assumed control of the German operations of the Russian oil company Rosneft.

The German Federal Network Agency has been given trusteeship of Rosneft's German businesses, which make up roughly 12% of the nation's oil refining capacity, according to a statement from the economy ministry on Friday. It was stated that "the trust management will mitigate the threat to the security of the electricity supply."

Later on Friday, Rosneft released a statement in which it claimed that the action was unlawful and that Berlin's decision might be challenged in court. The seizures take place as Germany struggles to reduce its reliance on Russian fossil fuels. Moscow has ceased sending natural gas through the Nord Stream 1 pipeline to Germany.

The German government can run the refining activities using oil from other nations besides Russia after seizing control of the assets.

Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine has sparked an energy earthquake in Europe, particularly in Germany, with prices soaring as Moscow's supply shrank. Germany is in a precarious position because of its reliance on Russian gas.

Through energy behemoths Rosneft and Gazprom over the years, Moscow had also tightened its control over Germany's gas infrastructure, pipelines, and other oil and gas facilities.

Energy agreements with Russia have long been considered as a component of a German strategy to maintain peace through working with the government of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Russian energy was inexpensive, and this helped to maintain German exports competitive. As a result, before the Ukraine War, Germany's proportion of total imports from Russia had increased to 55%. But Germany has paid the price for that strategy.

Early in April, in response to concerns raised by an opaque change in ownership of the company, the German government took the extraordinary step of temporarily seizing control of Gazprom's German subsidiary.

Germany has also been frantically searching for alternative energy sources as supplies from Russia have decreased as a result of the invasion of Ukraine.

The German government also made the bold decision to restart idled coal power facilities while putting two of its nuclear power reactors on standby until April, as opposed to totally shutting them down by year's end as originally planned.

When Covid-19 struck, four non-governmental global health organizations took on duties traditionally played by governments, but without any official responsibility, to construct a worldwide distribution strategy for Covid instruments to poor nations. 

They are the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Gavi, Wellcome Trust, and CEPI. Gavi is the international vaccine organization that Gates initiated to inoculate people in low-income nations. The Wellcome Trust is a British research foundation that has multibillion dollar funds and had worked with the Gates Foundation previously. The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), is the global vaccine R&D group that Gates helped in 2017.

The Gates Foundation opposed waiving vaccination IP (intellectual property rights, giving the formula for free), and civil society groups opposed Western-dominated committees guiding life-and-death decisions in impoverished nations. Soon, U.S. and European governments backed the four groups.

Due to their political and financial power, the Gates Foundation and other groups directed the international response to the century's most important health event. 

Since the epidemic began in 2020, the Gates Foundation, Gavi, and the Wellcome Trust have donated more to WHO than any other official member state. The ACT-A diagnostics and therapeutics teams only purchased 84 million tests and 1.8 million treatments by June 2021.

COVAX targeted 2 billion vaccine doses by 2021 but only delivered 319 million. Only 20% of Africans were immunized. Leaders of the groups allege wealthier Western countries were slow to supply immunizations and treatments.

“The ACT Accelerator is a multinational collaboration, and 

Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations

 and governments, to raise financial support of accelerated 

, production, and globally-equitable access to COVID-19 tests, therapies, and vaccines. In April 2020 it was launched by WHO, the European Commission, France and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.”

The Gates Foundation stated that they concentrated on inexpensive, equitable vaccine availability for low- and middle-income nations, but then neglected vaccine supply to them. POLITICO and WELT determined that ACT-structure A's reduced accountability because money went directly to initiative participants. 

Gayle Smith, who oversaw the US State Department's global Covid-19 response, questioned ACT-A responsibility. Many poor countries and provinces were ill-equipped to handle the vaccination when the WHO decentralized the ACT-Accelerator program, leaving them to run things on their own without having the capacities to do so. Many potential beneficiaries lost faith in the global health system due to the delays. Only $2.2 billion of ACT- A's $23 billion went to modernizing other countries health services. 

The four groups spent millions to urge the U.S. and EU to adopt their pandemic goals, but global health experts disputed their ability to perform. CEPI will publish its assessment on the four organizations' Covid activities in September. The Gates Foundation and Wellcome have performed internal reviews, but neither has published the results.

Some officials and campaigners worried that the Gates Foundation's network of American billionaires could influence pandemic preparedness and reaction. The Gates Foundation set up a lobbying business in 2019 helmed by a former Obama White House policy aide. No lobbying disclosures have been filed. Throughout these past years, The Gates Foundation met with lawmakers and administration officials to explore pandemic spending.

CEPI and Gavi lobbied U.K. authorities at over 100 meetings from 2020 to 2022. Their organizations received billions in cash. From the beginning of the Covid crisis, the organizations served as coordinators for the global health community and contacted pharmaceutical businesses to gauge their readiness and ability to fast expand medical countermeasure manufacturing.

The Gates Foundation and Wellcome helped organize the first truly multinational WHO meeting on the virus. The symposium brought together global health leaders, researchers, and scientists. By February's end, WHO authorities had agreed on a global response to Covid, and The Gates Foundation had donated $100 million. CEPI signed four vaccine development agreements with the WHO.

With government backing and funding, what did they do?

The four groups spent a lot of money lobbying Congress for money to help low-income countries. The Gates Foundation issued a paper outlining COVAX, which would subsequently become ACT-A’s vaccination pillar. Early on, the effort went slowly, and civil society groups worried about exclusion.

One EU official claimed the organizations' decision-making wasn't transparent and that they should have been more public. ACT-A disputed claims that the consortium's decision-making was opaque. The structure baffled U.S. and European officials.

The WHO consortium established ACT-A without a head, and agencies handled their own budgets, programming, and donor negotiations. Money didn't flow to ACT-A or program organizations fast enough to distribute life-saving Covid equipment.

CEPI and its allies faced questions regarding fair distribution of vaccinations among low-income countries, but defended initial agreements without full equitable access provisions by stating speed was necessary in an imminent global health emergency.

In September 2020, approximately 1 million individuals had perished from Covid and four pharmaceutical companies were in clinical studies. Officials were worried. WHO and Global Fund representatives believe ACT-A was never a recognized organization or legal body and lacked checks and balances.

The four organizations guaranteed everyone equal access to life-saving medications and injections, but Western countries devoted resources to national initiatives rather than the virus fight abroad.

By October 2020, the U.S. had committed few resources to the worldwide response to Covid, and the CDC was one of the few institutions helping low-income countries battle the virus.

The Covid virus spread to Europe before the U.S. election, filling ICU beds and increasing death rates. 

COVAX tried to buy vaccination doses on the open market, but manufacturing capacity hampered progress. Western countries had placed orders, delaying production, and African authorities began to doubt COVAX.

In January 2021, Covid dosages hit the U.S. and Europe. Eastern Europe hadn't received any dosages, causing a crisis in March. The vaccine was initially given in the U.S. and EU on January 1, 2021. First doses weren't enough for vulnerable populations in low-income countries.

African governments battled to contain Covid while the U.S. and Europe received shots. WTO representatives from around the world debated whether to waive Covid's intellectual property.

Pharmaceutical business and top worldwide health institutions opposed waiving intellectual property protections, stating it wouldn't expand manufacturing. Some health activists regarded sharing IP and technological know-how as a way to improve self-sufficiency in traditionally excluded countries.

The WHO launched C-TAP to share intellectual property and how to make Covid products. The Gates Foundation wanted C-TAP to omit vaccinations, a source said. Global health advocates blamed the failure of C-TAP on drug corporations' refusal to share intellectual property or grant more open licensing. Not only Bill Gates opposed an IP waiver, Pharmaceutical CEOs called C-TAP "nonsense" and "hazardous."

The U.S. had enough vaccine doses to start sharing with the globe by March 2021, but the Biden administration opposed.

The U.S. didn't commit substantial doses to COVAX in spring 2021, which disappointed COVAX employees who believed the consortium was the best way to provide the shots.

The Biden administration decided to share dosages with the globe after dozens of meetings and conversations, but only after acquiring enough to meet demand.

The next pandemic is already being discussed: 

Four global health groups convened in 2022 to discuss the next pandemic. They promised to construct virus-detection and vaccine-delivery technologies for the next pandemic.

Still spreading, the Covid pandemic was beginning to decline. Bill Gates stated the next epidemic should be fought using next-generation vaccines. Since 2022, CEPI has spent $230,000 pushing for more money for the COVID-19 pandemic and the following pandemic. 

In March, world leaders, CEOs, and global health employees met at CEPI's donor conference to discuss the next pandemic. CEPI asked for $3.5 billion to establish a vaccine library for future pandemics, but raised less than half during its most recent fundraiser. 

Health activists say the mission to prepare for the next pandemic is already repeating mistakes from the current crisis, such as failing to invest in public-health services to deliver doses.

Critics believe ACT-A leaders identified the problem late. ACT-A aimed to build health systems in low-income countries during the pandemic, but financing was late. The Gates Foundation has been accused of not improving traditional health systems. 

It’s worrying to me that governments were not ready for a global pandemic, and the private sector had to step in. The narrative is that it was philanthropy, but the end results are clear: vaccines were not given away for free and business was made with rich countries. 

2022 didn’t start out so great for the Latin American trees. From January 1st to January 21st, an area 

 was wiped out in the Amazon rainforest in Brazil. 

It’s the world’s largest river basin and rainforest, home to a multitude of plant and animal species. Currently, it is subject to the worst deforestation exercise in the world. This year, the deforestation levels reached an all time high from the last 

Deforestation exercises are intended to clear out forest ground in order to adapt the land for 

 such as cattle, soy, dams, minerals, and colonization projects. This practice has already destroyed more than 20% of the Amazon’s ecosystem. We are wiping out potential cures for sickness, scientific development, biodiversity, animal species and much much more. 

 has estimated that Amazon will have lost 27% of its trees by year 2030 if the present rate of deforestation is to continue. The Brazilian government is responsible for the maximum deforestation in Amazon, which means that those fighting deforestation are really fighting the government. 

It seems crucial to call for international intervention in the matter, and the organization 

Peru's crisis worsens: How far will it go? Will the government give in?

Venezuela's Disaster: It's Own Oil Money

The Growing Influence of the Military in Latin America

The Transgender Pornstar in the Mexican Government: Should she get fired for posting her sexual videos online?

Ethiopia Denies Crimes Against Humanity in Tigray Crisis

Famine: The world's biggest current crisis, 1 death every 4 seconds

The Germans seize Russian oil company “Rosneft”

Reviewing Covid: Governments weren't prepared, Bill Gates ran the show

The Amazon is being destroyed by Jair Bolsonaro

NFT’s, Metaverse and Crypto