Saturday, July 25, 2020

AMERICA TROOPS TO LEAVE GERMANY

From  The Economist - June 27 - 2020

The Economist I



Transatlantic security


Going home

KAISERSLAUTERN


Donald Trump's baffling proposal to withdraw troops from Germany



It’s like having a stroke, and then a seclond one in the ambulance," sighs Stefan Weiler, economic-development chief for Kaiserslautern, in south-west Germany. The city was already battling high debt and the effects of Covid-19. 

Then came Donald Trump's announcement that America would withdraw 9,500 of its 34,500 troops stationed in Germany. Some 50,000 American soldiers, civil staff and family members live in and around Kaiserslautern. The bases employ 2,700 locals and tens of thousands indirectly, from hotel-owners to parts suppliers. "They're our neighbours, they rent our houses, our kids play football together," says Ralf Hechner, mayor of nearby Ramstein-Miesenbach, which adjoins a vast American air base.

This local warmth found a national echo. Over decades dozens of American military bases—concentrated in Germany's south, the area of post-war American occupation — have cemented the bond between the nato allies. "I used to get a visit almost every year from the [premier] of Bavaria," says Jim Townsend, the Pentagon's former top official for Europe. "We were important to him, and he was important to us."

Mr Trump and surrogates like Richard Grenell, his boorish former ambassador in Berlin, have long threatened to prune America's military presence in Germany.

This time it looks credible. At a rally in Oklahoma on June 20th Mr Trump justified his proposal with a familiar charge-sheet: a "delinquent" Germany free-rides on American protection, spending nugatory sums on defence while backing a Russian gas pipeline. "On top of it they treat us very badly on trade," the president huffed. A day later Robert O'Brien, Mr Trump's national security adviser, attempted to retrofit a strategic rationale onto his boss's decision. The cold-war practice of massive army garrisons with families was "obsolete", he wrote in the Wall Street Journal, because "modern warfare is increasingly expeditionary". Troops were needed in Asia to counter China, he added.

This account "would not pass muster" at any military college, says Ben Hodges, who commanded American army forces in Europe until 2017. Although the reduction would represent just 15% of its troops in Europe, Germany is a crucial cog in America's global military machine. The Pentagon's European and African commands, which control every soldier, tank, war-plane and warship in their domains, are based in Stuttgart. The army's European headquarters are in Wiesbaden, and Germany hosts five of its seven European garrisons, including Grafenwohr, its largest base outside America. Ramstein is a hub for directing drone strikes in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen (to some German consternation). The Landstuhl military hospital has treated 95,000 American soldiers wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001. "The amount of time and lives that that has saved is just incredible," says Rachel Ellehuus, a former Pentagon official now at the5 a think-tank. A vast $990m replacement, nicknamed the "ufo" by locals, is being built nearby. At least 40% of American activity in Germany supports operations elsewhere, estimates Ms Ellehuus.

A drawdown would follow a decades-long thinning of America's presence. Over torn of its troops were cycled through Germany from 1950 to 2000, with 250,000 deployed for much of that time. That had dwindled to under 70,000 by the turn of the millennium, and fell by half again between 2006 and 2018. Between 2005 and 2020 America's overall footprint in Europe shrank by over a third. That leaves little fat to trim. American capabilities in Europe are spread so thinly across various functions that cutting any one of them by 30% would, in effect, eliminate it, warns General Hodges. American generals in Germany are said to be baffled by the proposal.

Yet among Germans the plan has elicited a broad shrug, at least in public. Watching a Pentagon apparently at odds with the White House, German officials know they can only hope to be bystanders. Barely half of German voters see American bases as important to national security. Although Germany is still far short of the nato defence-spending target of 2% of GDP, and plans to reach it only in 2031, recent increases mean that in absolute terms its military budget is now not much different from that of Britain or France. American accusations of free-riding therefore no longer carry quite the same sting.

Nerves are jumpier farther east. A drawdown from Germany could weaken nato's ability to send reinforcements to "tripwire" battle groups stationed in Poland and the Baltic states to deter Russia. Worse still, America seems to be playing allies off against one another, undermining nato cohesion. On June 24th Mr Trump, standing beside Andrzej Duda, Poland's president, at the White House, said some American troops would probably be moved from Germany to Poland. The meeting was a welcome boost for Mr Duda, who faces elections on June 28th and has long courted a greater American military presence. (In June last year Mr Trump agreed to send Poland 1,000 troops, on top of 4,500 already there.) But Mr Duda also felt compelled to say that he had asked Mr Trump not to withdraw any troops from Europe.

At home, Mr Trump's announcement has had the unusual effect of galvanizing bipartisan opposition. Twenty-two Republican members of Congress objected that cutting troops would encourage Russian aggression and undermine American military effectiveness. A Democratic bill seeks to deny funding for costs incurred by the withdrawal. With barely four months until an election that could see Mr Trump defeated by Joe Biden, who says he wants to repair America's alliances, delay to a withdrawal plan that already faces considerable logistical hurdles could be fatal.


Yet as Heiko Maas, Germany's foreign minister, has warned, the Atlantic is clearly widening. Tiffs over energy, trade, security and China are now threaded through the entire transatlantic relationship. Pro-American Germans say the sabre-rattling of Mr Trump and Mr Grenell makes it harder for them to make their case to a sceptical public. A recent Pew poll found that Germans now value their relations with China as strongly as those with the United States. Still, at least in Kaiserslautern, Americaphilia reigns supreme. "We don't want the troops to leave," says Mr Weiler. "It's an honour to have them here." ■

EVENTUALLY  MORE  AND  MORE  AMERICAN  TROOPS  WILL  LEAVE  GERMANY.

MANY  THING  HAVE  YET  TO  TAKE  PLACE  BEFORE  END  TIME  BIBLE  PROPHECY  COMES  INTO  BEING---- THE  LAST  42  MONTHS  OF  THIS  AGE.

SO  KEEP  YOUR  EYES  AND  EARS  ON  GERMANY  AND  EUROPE;  ALSO  ON  EGYPT  AND  SOME  ARAB  NATIONS FORMING  THE  "KING  OF  THE  SOUTH."

Keith Hunt

INTO DARKNESS---- STATE OF ISRAEL AND PALESTINIANS

From  The Economist - June 27 - 2020


Middle East and Africa


Israel and the Palestinians



Into darkness

BEIRUT AND JERUSALEM

Talk of annexation in Israel shows how badly the peace process has failed




Far from being a show of strength, it smacked of desperation. On June 22nd thousands of Palestinians held a protest in Jericho against a possible Israeli annexation of parts of the occupied West Bank. They were joined, unusually, by diplomats from across the globe: Britain and Russia, Jordan and Japan. The United Nations envoy, Nickolay Mladenov, made a speech. After months of public warnings and quiet pressure, the world's collective diplomatic clout perched on plastic chairs beneath the beating summer sun.

On July 1st Israel's cabinet can start to discuss annexation. The date is less a deadline than a starting-point laid down in the coalition agreement signed in April by Binyamin Netanyahu, the prime minister, and his governing partners. Israel could decide to annex a large swathe of territory or annex nothing at all, or—as seems likely—do something betwixt the two.

If it does anything, it will happen over widespread objections. Some of Mr Netanyahu's partners are hesitant. The public, although split on the wisdom of annexation, mostly thinks it a distraction from the Covid-19 pandemic and a likely recession. Democrats in America oppose the move. So do many European allies. Friendly Arab states warn that it would threaten ties with Israel. Even some Israeli settlers are opposed (albeit for different reasons). And then there are the Palestinians themselves, once again bystanders in their own drama.

It is quicker to list those in favour: some of Mr Netanyahu's right-wing allies, some Israeli hawks, a few members of Donald Trump's administration. Yet this narrow band of supporters have pushed annexation from the fringe of Israeli politics into the realm of possibility.

What Mr Netanyahu does matters less than the fact that he might do it. The Oslo Accords, signed in 1993, were to usher in a short transitional period on the way to a Palestinian state. Almost 30 years later the world is scrambling not to clinch a two-state solution but to preserve a status quo that should have ended in 1999—the terminus of a peace process that has become more about process than peace.

Israel has already annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, two other territories captured in 1967—but not the West Bank, home to 3m Palestinians who see it as the heart of their future state, and 430,000 Israeli settlers. (Another 230,000 settlers live in East Jerusalem.) The West Bank's status has long been regarded as a question for a final peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.

Like his predecessors, Mr Trump took a stab at drafting one. His "Peace to Prosperity" plan, released in January, envisions a Palestinian state—should the Palestinians meet a list of onerous conditions—in Gaza and on 70% of the West Bank. It allows Israel to annex the remaining 30%, which consists of settlements and the Jordan Valley.

The Palestinians rejected the plan. Mr Netanyahu endorsed it and immediately tried to annex the land earmarked for Israel. But the Americans asked him to wait, in part because Mr Netanyahu was at the time fighting for his political survival. Three elections in the span of a year had failed to produce a government until he made a deal with his exhausted rival, Benny Gantz.
As July 1st draws near, thourii, Mr Netanyahu's plans remain fuzzy. Israel could 


annex the full 30% or something smaller, perhaps one or two settlement blocs. Another option is to annex scattered settlements deep within the West Bank to establish "facts on the ground". Some in Israel's security establishment think Mr Netanyahu will do less still: play for time and form a committee to prepare for annexation. On June 3rd security officials held a war game to plan for possible violence on the Palestinian side. They were in the dark about their own government's intentions. "Annexation? What annexation?" asks an Israeli diplomat.

Like his nine predecessors since 1967, Mr Netanyahu has made no serious moves towards annexation beyond East Jerusalem. It became an issue only on the eve of the election in April last year, when he promised to annex settlements close to the pre-1967 border. Many saw this as a gimmick. Five months later, as another election loomed, he unveiled a proposal to annex the Jordan Valley. Then, five weeks before the last vote, came the Trump plan.

Some who have spoken with Mr Netanyahu believe he wants to be the leader who redrew Israel's borders. Others still think this a ploy to distract from his ongoing corruption trial and the pandemic. "He needs annexation as a diversion so Israelis won't speak about the economy," says Yair Lapid, the opposition leader. "Instead he's got everyone running around like headless chickens talking about annexation."

He has met surprisingly fierce opposition from some settlers, for whom any mention of a Palestinian state is anathema. Mr Netanyahu has told them not to fret: the Palestinians will never accept the Trump plan. They are not convinced. "There isn't a partner on the Palestinian side now," says Yigal Dilmoni, head of the Yesha Council, a settler lobby. "But who's to say in the future there won't be such leadership? They will be able to say that Israel already agreed to them having a state on 70% of the land."

Few have asked what the Palestinians prefer. "It's like they're inviting people to a wedding where the bride doesn't show up," says Zahi Khouri, a businessman in Ramallah. There is near-unanimous opposition to annexation, of course, but also a sense of resignation. Palestinians have watched Israeli settlements expand for decades. Hopes for a negotiated peace have faded; their leadership seems powerless to do anything. Over half of Palestinians in the West Bank say they would back a return to "armed struggle" if Israel annexes territory.

About two in five would like to dissolve the Palestinian Authority (pa), their limited self-government, and force Israel to take responsibility for the occupied territories. Unpopular to start with, the pa risks losing its raison d'etre: if Israel annexes a large chunk of territory, the pa can no longer claim to be the government of a state-in-waiting. But the pa's president, Mahmoud Abbas, and the old men around him are loth to take any drastic steps. Even their recent decision to suspend security co-ordination with Israel was largely for show. It has discreetly continued.

If the leadership is static, though, the public is not. A growing share of Palestinians have lost faith in the two-state solution. A poll from February put support at just 39%, the lowest level in a generation. Annexation won't help. Amos Gilad, a retired general who once led Israeli policy in the territories, says it would cause the Palestinians to "demand rights as citizens in Israel". Mr Netanyahu has heard similar warnings from his security chiefs. But he believes the Palestinians will capitulate and accept a series of isolated statelets.

That is what Mr Trump offered. But his administration is divided on whether to back unilateral annexation. His ambassador in Jerusalem, David Friedman, used to run a charity that raised millions of dollars for settlements. He wants Israel to move ahead now, in case his boss loses the election in November. Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law and the author of his plan, is less enthusiastic. He has no ideological objections but worries annexation will scupper his chance to play peacemaker. Mike Pompeo, the secretary of state, says it is up to Israel.

Outside the administration, annexation carries risks. Bipartisan support for Israel in America has been ebbing for years: Mr Netanyahu's testy relations with Barack Obama and embrace of Mr Trump hurt his standing with Democrats. Annexation would erode it further. Joe Biden, the Democratic presidential nominee, opposes the move. For now, though, the party has ruled out cutting America's $4bn in annual military aid to Israel. Warnings from European leaders are also probably just that. Still, none of this is good for Israel.

Egypt, one of two Arab states that has official relations with Israel, has been conspicuously silent. It is busy with other crises, from Covid-19 to the war in Libya. Jordan has been louder. King Abdullah worries annexation will trigger unrest among his large Palestinian population and revive talk of "the Jordan option", which imagines his country as the future Palestinian state. But he has little leverage over Israel; few expect he would go so far as to rip up their peace treaty.
Mr Netanyahu has made much of Israel's growing ties with Gulf states. None officially recognizes Israel. But their armies and spy services swap intelligence and there are discreet economic ties as well. On June 12th Yousef al-Otaiba, the ambassador of the United Arab Emirates (uae) in Washington, warned on the pages of an Israeli newspaper that annexation would put all this at risk. "We would like to believe Israel is an opportunity, not an enemy," he wrote. "Israel's decision on annexation will be an unmistakable signal of whether it sees things the same way."

Annexation may limit the Gulf states' friendship with Israel. But their common interests, namely their antipathy towards Iran and political Islam, will endure regardless. Anwar Gargash, the UAE’s minister of state for foreign affairs, has admitted as much. "Can I have a political disagreement with Israel but at the same time try and bridge other areas of the relationship? I think I can," he said on June 16th.

Perhaps the most telling bit of Mr Otaiba's opinion piece was not its text but its headline: "Annexation or Normalization". For decades Arab states said Israel would enjoy friendly relations only if it granted the Palestinians a state. The choice was occupation or normalization. But Mr Otaiba made almost no mention of Palestinian independence. In his framing, Israel must only preserve the status quo. Some on the Israeli right count that as a victory. "They used to criticize us over the status quo," says Gideon Sa'ar, a lawmaker from Mr Netanyahu's Likud party. "Now they are criticizing us for changing the status quo."

Still, there is little to celebrate. The prospects of renewed talks between Israel and the Palestinians are dim. Israel's leaders are too hawkish and nationalist, Palestine's too divided and illegitimate. Mr Trump's plan was dead on arrival. After three decades of failure, the bar is low indeed: the world wants only to sustain a situation it has long called unsustainable. ■



Friday, July 24, 2020

SOMETHING GOOD AND LOVELY FOR A CHANGE

From  The  Economist - June  27 - 2020



Obituary 

Vera Lynn


Queen in all but name
Dame Vera Lynn, singer and entertainer, died on June 18th, aged 103


As soon as her pay for singing with the Bert Ambrose band was doubled in 1938, Vera Lynn bought herself a fur coat. She also got a green Austin 10 with a soft canvas top, and a three-bed semi for herself and her parents in Barking. There she could soak in her very own big bath and go to the lavatory indoors. But the coat was the first thing she bought. It cost £75. Every young girl in the 1930s wanted that sort of coat, of course. And she also felt she needed it, even deserved it, for what she was doing. When it settled heavily on her shoulders, she felt like royalty.

She was always well aware of what she was worth. More than the 6/6d a week she got for sewing buttons in her first job; she left after a day. More than the £20 a week Ambrose paid her for being a "crooner", so she let him know she could get good work as a non-crooning soloist elsewhere. 

More than the dismissive look some people gave her because she was toothy and gawky and, when she opened her mouth, talked Cockney—or at least East Ham, which was not the East End, really Essex. And she was worth a lot more, when she started recording, than being just the "vocal refrain" on the B-side of a sixpenny Woolworth's record. Her ambitions were much bigger than that.

And why not? Her voice was clear and strong, a deep contralto, once songs were pitched low enough to suit it. Her enunciation was crisp and bright. And she had a real nose for a good song. When she went along to Denmark Street to browse through the publishers' sheet music, she could pick out a winner at once, by the words. She never could read music, but the tune was almost an afterthought. It was all about the feeling. If the lyrics had the right sentiment, were simple and from the heart, the song was right for her. She could believe in it then, and perform it with such complete sincerity that she moved her audience to tears.

So she proved during the second world war, when songs she'd found— "We'll Meet Again", "The White Cliffs of Dover", "There'll Always be an England"—had an extraordinary effect on Britain. Her voice, whether on scratchy 78s, crackling through a wireless or live in London halls with sirens wailing outside, became the bluebird of "White Cliffs" that flew hopefully above the horrors. On Sunday evenings listeners at home and abroad were glued to her "letter to the forces", "Sincerely Yours", as she played requests and relayed messages. She so raised the morale of both the home front and the boys abroad that she was sometimes jokingly credited with winning the war all by herself. And it secured her a status so lasting that 80 years later, in another crisis, Britain turned to her again, giving her a billing and an affection second only to the queen's.

Not all approved of her wartime popularity. She was at the lowly end of the social scale, the daughter of a plumber and a seamstress, and if she didn't care about that, others did. It made some people shudder (as it had made her teachers shudder) that she had forged her teenage singing career in those terrible places, working-men's clubs. High-ups at the BBC called her songs "slush", and some generals and MPs complained that they might make soldiers desert. Her quick retort was to point to her postbag: 1,000 letters a week from servicemen, who adored her because she was ordinary, friendly and sisterly, the sort of girl they had left behind. What was more, they especially liked the sentimental songs. She knew they would. They were corny but home-bred, like a conversation between two people who found it hard to express their feelings to each other, as many ordinary English people did. We'll meet again, don't know where, don't know when...

She wasn't glamorous like the Hollywood stars, Betty Grable for example, whom the fighting men all lusted after. Nothing sparkled on her; she wore utility suits and, often, uniform. She was not remote; she brought home closer to the boys and, at home, she was in the fight with everyone else. She sang in factories, on airfields, and in the Underground during the Blitz. After concerts in London she would drive home in her Austin 10, a tin hat beside her in case shrapnel came through the roof. She popped over with flowers to hospitals where soldiers' wives had just had babies, to announce the good news on her show. And in 1944 she went out to the Far East to sing to her farthest-flung listeners in person.

It was her special duty, she felt, to cheer up boys who were forgotten. In Burma, the toughest part of the trip, she was one girl among 6,000 men. She swapped her flowing chiffon frock for shapeless khakis that at least kept the mosquitoes out, and sang until her make-up ran in the humidity and her voice became a croak. In camp she lived as the boys did, in a grass hut, washing out of a bucket. She drank tea with them, and sat on their beds in field hospitals to chat, even though the stench of gangrene almost overwhelmed her. The battle of Kohima was raging not far off, and she was game to record her songs against the gunfire. That was forbidden but, in any case, she was already the sweet voice of the war.

She traded on that for the rest of her long life. Any brave things she had done were brushed off, as she kept her Burma souvenirs (the tiny secret diary, the fresh-tugged bullet she was given by a surgeon) in a plastic bag stowed in a drawer. After all, she had been one among so many. But she went on singing the songs and working for forces' charities, and thus stayed firmly fixed in public hearts. Producers of her many concerts and TV shows, from the 1950s to the 1980s, often tried to update her. They persuaded her to wear modern gowns and to sing Lennon-McCartney and country music, both of which she rather liked. But if they dared to suggest that "White Cliffs" or "I'll Be Seeing You" were outmoded, she was horrified and offended. The songs summed up Britain in its finest hour. She—after 1975, Dame Vera—had to keep that memory alive.

The public certainly understood. Her appearances, even with her voice long gone, drew crowds who cheered her as warmly as ever. In chillier weather the regal fur came out again, if only as a hat. She would smile back in constant delight, regularly waving, as if she had been born to it. Women would sometimes curtsy to her, feeling it was right somehow. For this was like a queen passing. ■

WHAT  A  GREAT  STORY  OF  A  GREAT  LADY—— A  TRUE  ROLE  MODEL  FOR  ALL  FEMALES  WHATEVER  ROLE  IN  LIFE  THEY  ARE  DOING—— MOTHERS,  TEACHERS,  OFFICE  WORKERS,  NURSES,  DOCTORS,  OR  ENTERTAINERS—— ETC.  AND  ETC.

A  TRUE  DOWN  TO  EARTH  LADY,  THAT  FAME  NEVER  CHANED  THE  WAY  TO  GIVE  AND  SERVE.

WOW….HOW  LOVELY  TO  READ  THIS—— THERE  STILL  ARE  WONDERFUL  PEOPLE  OUT  THERE,  AND  VERA  LYNN  WAS  ONE  OF  THEM.


Keith Hunt

THE HUMAN GENOME!

From The Economist - June 27 - 2020


Graphic detail Genomic 
Dawn of an era

The Human Genome Project has transformed biology and medicine


Twenty years ago, on June 26th 2000, those running the public Human Genome Project and its private-sector shadow, a firm called Celera Genomics, decided to declare victory. In a simultaneous breasting of the tape, each published a "working draft" of the genome. The broker, Bill Clinton, hosted the chief scientists at the White House. Hyperbolic comparisons were made to the Apollo project to land people on the Moon.

Unlike Apollo, though, this announcement marked a beginning rather than an end. Genomics is now so embedded in biology that it is hard to recall what things were like before it. Those first human sequences cost billions of dollars to obtain. Today, with the advent of new technologies, a full sequence costs about $200, and less detailed versions are cheaper still. It is as if, to use Apollo as the analogy, regular shuttles to the Moon had become available at prices an average family in the West could afford—and the more adventurous might now be considering a trip to Mars.

Researchers with a hypothesis to test can, for instance, turn to biobanks containing details of tens or hundreds of thousands of people—their medical records, education, employment and, crucially, data about their genomes. 

Private companies will also sequence genomes to varying standards, for a suitable price. It is probably the case, and if not, it soon will be, that more than 1m human genomes have been sequenced by one method or another.

Genomics also helps non-medical biology. Many non-human species, including crops and domestic animals, have had their genomes sequenced. Though tinkering directly with the genes of organisms that end up on people's plates still makes some a bit queasy, that is increasingly unnecessary. Genomic knowledge can now be used to speed up selective breeding, without the need for genetic engineering.

At the other end of the scientific spectrum, what can be done for Homo sapiens can be done, using dna from fossils, for other (now extinct) species of human being: the Neanderthals and Denisovans. There is a possible practical interest even here. Sequencing shows that these species once interbred with Homo sapiens. It also suggests that the traces of that interbreeding which remain may help the recipient to fight off infections, by combating viruses and boosting the immune system. ■

THE  TRUTH  IS  THE  SO-CALLED  DIVISION  OF  NEANDERTHALS,  DENISOVANS,  AND  HOMO  SAPIENS,  WERE  ALL  PART  OF  THE  HUMAN  RACE.

THE  STUDY  OF  GENETICS  [I  HAVE  24  HALF  HOUR  LECTURES  FROM  A  PhD  GUY]  SHOULD  BLOW  YOUR  MIND,  AND  TESTIFY  TO  YOU  WE  HUMANS  WERE  CREATED  BY  AN  ALL  POWERFUL  GOD;  THE  SAME  GOD  THAT  CREATED  THIS  EARTH  AND  ALL  THINGS  UPON  IT;  THE  SAME  GOD  WHO  CREATED  THE  UNIVERSE,  THAT  IS  ALSO  MIND-BLOWING [I  HAVE  MANY  DVDs  ON  THE  UNIVERSE].

IT  IS  MORE  THAN  INTERESTING  THAT  MOST  OF  SCIENTISTS  ADMIT  THAT  THERE  WAS  A  TIME  WHEN  THE  UNIVERSE  DID  NOT  EXIST.  THEY  SAY  IT  BEGAN  WITH  A  “BIG  BANG”—— IT  IS  MORE  THAN  INTERESTING  FOR  THE  HOLY  BIBLE  TEACHES  THE  UNIVERSE  CAME  INTO  BEING  OUT  OF  NOTHING.  MAYBE  NOT  WITH  A  BIG  BANG  PER SE  BUT  THE  PHYSICAL  UNIVERSE  DID  NOT  EXIST,  BUT  DID  COME  INTO  BEING  AT  SOME  POINT  IN  PAST  ETERNITY.


Keith Hunt

Sunday, July 19, 2020

AMERICA, WESTERN WORLD DESTRUCTION!!!

WHAT  IS  GOING  ON  RIGHT  NOW  AT  JUNE  20 - 2020  WITH  THE  VIRUS  OF  COVID-19, IN  AMERICA;  WITH  SOME  SILLY  PEOPLE  WHO  HAVE  NO  COMMON  SENSE [YA  COMMON  SENSE  AIN'T  COMMON  ANYMORE]---- THEY  ARE  SOME  LEADERS  AND  PRIVATE  EVERY  DAY,  TOM,  DICK,  AND  HARRY...YA  AND  SALLY  AND SUE;  JUST  IGNORING  SAFETY  PRECAUTIONS  AS  THEY  PLEASE  THEMSELVES  DOING  WHAT  THEY  WANT  TO  DO!

YES  WE  AIN'T  CHINA   WITH  HEAVY  HANDS  BACKED  BY  MILITARY  WEAPONS,  TO  LAY  DOWN  THE  LAW!

MOST  STATES  ARE  BEING  HIT   MIGHTY  HARD  AND  MORE  AGAIN---- AND  THERE  IS  NO  SIGHT  OF  TRUE  FREEDOM----THE  VIRUS  CAN  LIVE  THROUGH  COLD  AND  SEEMS  TO  LOVE  WARMTH.     

THE  VIRUS  IS  NOW  HITTING  ALL  AGES,  EVEN  INFANTS,  AND  MORE  AND  MORE  THE  YOUNGER  GROUP  WHO  THOUGHT  THEY  WERE  IMMUNE  TO  IT------

THEY  ARE  ALSO  CONTRACTING  IT  MORE  EACH  DAY!

WE  COULD  BE  MANY  MONTHS  BEFORE  AN  AFFECTIVE   VACCINE / MEDICINE  IS  INVENTED.

THERE  IS  THE  VERY  REAL  TREAT  THAT` IT  COULD  SPREAD,  AND  COUNTRIES  GOING  INTO   A  SECOND  COVID  ATTACK.

IT  WOULD  SEEM  THE  USA  IS  NOT  FAST IN  GETTING  THE  MASSAGE  OF  MASKS  AND  TOTAL  DISTANCING.

A  WHOLE  LOT  IS  YET  COMING -----

THAT WILL  LEAD  INTO  THINGS   THAT  WILL  BE  WAY  WAY  WORSE!!!

Keith Malcolm Hunt

Saturday, July 18, 2020

HORSEMEN APOCALYPSE!!!

From  The Economist - June 20 - 2020


Pandemics and war

Horsemen of the apocalypse     
BUNIA AND BOGOTA

Covid-19 raises the risks of violent conflict




Bunia, a dusty city of perhaps 650,000 in Ituri, a province of eastern Congo, has long known war. Since the start of this year, rebels have burned dozens of villages to the ground and hacked hundreds of people to death with machetes. A rebel group made up of assailants from the seed-sowing Lendu tribe has launched a series of attacks on the pastoralist Hema. The government hospital in the city is overrun with patients. "We have people wounded with machetes, with gunshots, women with amputated limbs, people with fractures," says John Katabuku, a doctor working there. "When the displaced arrive we look after them for free - they have lost everything. But it is difficult for the hospital. We really do not have the means."

With war comes disease

Ituri is still recovering from an outbreak of Ebola which started in 2018 and killed 2,262 people in the region before subsiding. Now it has Covid-19. Though there are just two recorded cases in the province, that is surely a woeful undercount. If the disease is spreading, it would not be easy to tell. Tests have to be sent 1,800km to the capital, Kinshasa. And few people can get tested. Some 22 clinics have been burned down. One man living in the nearby war-torn area of Djugu says that there is nowhere to go if you are sick—all the clinics are either ruined or occupied by rebels. The hospital in Bunia has no working ventilators and only enough space to isolate up to ten people, in the area that was previously being used for suspected Ebola patients. "We have to hospitalize two to three displaced children per bed, so you can see that we do not have infection prevention under control," says Dr Katabuku. 

Covid-19 has thus far taken its most serious toll on rich, peaceful countries. America, Britain, Italy, France and Spain, five of the six worst-affected, have collectively borne over half of recorded deaths from the virus worldwide. But the disease is now rippling through less stable places. What will happen as it does? There are reasons to fear not only that conflict will help the virus to spread, but also that its spread may worsen wars. The two could feed upon each other, creating a cycle of misery it is difficult to arrest.

At the outset of the Peloponnesian war with Sparta, which raged from 431BC to 404BC, Athens was ravaged by a plague that swept through the city for three years, killing thousands of soldiers and a third of its inhabitants. "Such was the nature of the calamity, and heavily did it weigh on the Athenians; death raging within the city and devastation without," recalled Thucydides, a Greek historian and general. The Spanish flu of 1918, another world-shaping pandemic, festered in the trenches and barracks of the first world war and killed more people than the conflict itself. Over 36,000 American soldiers died before ever reaching France, with 12,000 dying on troop transports. In total, more American soldiers, Sailors and Mariners died of flu and pneumonia than bullets and bombs.

Some still hope that confronted with an indiscriminate killer, human beings on all sides of a conflict would put down their guns—at least briefly—and confront the shared enemy. In March Antonio Guterres, secretary-general of the United Nations (un), began urging a global ceasefire. Encouragingly, fighters in more than a dozen countries seemed to heed his call. The National Liberation Army (eln) in Colombia, which has been trying to "liberate" the country for a half century, declared a ceasefire on March 30th. So did the New People's Army (npa) in the Philippines, a communist guerrilla group that has been in the field since 1969. Saudi Arabia has sought to draw down its forces in Yemen and declared a unilateral ceasefire. In Syria there were just 71 civilians killed in May, the lowest monthly toll since the start of the civil war, according to the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

But in many places the tranquility has proven short-lived. 

By the end of April, both the eln and the npa announced that they were not extending their ceasefires and would return to violence. The Philippine government argued that the npa had violated its ceasefire early on and that peace talks were pointless after the guerrillas killed two soldiers at the end of March. The Security Council, the UN’s cockpit of big powers, has been deadlocked by squabbling between America and China, including over weighty matters such as what to call the virus. Political violence has risen in 43 countries and remained steady in 45 since the start of the pandemic, according to data collected by the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (acled). Some of the largest increases were in Libya, Yemen and Mali, each enmeshed in civil wars with a web of international links.

Behold a pale horse

Battlegrounds are easy pickings for the virus. But they also help it spread. War displaces civilians, shifting disease from one place to another, while their immune systems are worn down by hunger, trauma and ill health. Trust in government tumbles, making it harder to enforce social distancing or deliver vaccinations. And those who normally provide succour are driven away, UN humanitarian agencies have already cut staff in places like Yemen and placed limits on where their staff can travel, notes Robert Malley, the president of the International Crisis Group, a research outfit.

In Congo, some 480,000 people have fled their homes since violence escalated in late March. This number accounts for 75% of the total number of people displaced worldwide during the pandemic. Near Bunia, over 27,000 displaced people live in rows of white tarpaulin tents in a camp. Twenty-nine-year-old Charlotte Tabu sleeps in a tent that she shares with nine others. She fled when rebels attacked her village. "The rebels burned my house while I was working in the fields," she says. "We are suffering here. It is not easy to find food in the camp. We need this war to end. I had seven children, two were burned inside my house."

Health workers worry about the spread of the virus through and among such wretched communities. In Cox's Bazar in Bangladesh, for instance, 900,000 Rohingya Muslims, driven out of Myanmar, live in packed camps. In a survey conducted from April 11-17th, researchers at Yale found that 25% of respondents in camps had experienced at least one common Covid-19 symptom. Most had attended a communal prayer in the previous week, a setting in which transmission is especially likely. Several refugees have already died.

Those with the guns—governments and rebel groups alike—are exploiting opportunities created by the virus and its shock to economic and social life. Since March Islamic State has switched its focus from intimidating civilians to attacking government and government-backed forces in Iraq and Syria. It killed more than 30 Syrians soldiers in two days of fighting in April and briefly seized a small town, Mubarak, in Diyala province north-east of Baghdad. In early May it launched its biggest attack in Iraq since the coalition declared its deficit in 2017, killing 10 fighters from Hashad al Shaabi, a mostly Shia militia.

In Colombia, the Simon Bolivar bridge on the border with Venezuela has closed. That means that many of the 35,000 Venezuelans who crossed on an average day are now being forced to use illegal crossing points controlled by armed groups. Authorities in Colombia fret that this flow of untested people might unleash a health disaster. It also gives rebels a fresh source of recruits among desperate Venezuelans.

That is one of many ways in which Colombia's armed groups have consolidated their position. Many have jumped at the opportunity to expand their control and build something resembling legitimacy by imposing cordons sanitaries and lock-down. In parts of Narino, in southwestern Colombia, the Oliver Sinisterra, a "dissident" group descended from farc, a guerrilla organization that is now a political party, threatened to "sanction"—in practice, attack—any shop found open or any pharmacy with too many customers inside. In Bolivar, in northern Colombia, the eln has said only bakeries, food stores and pharmacies may open. In Arauca, on Colombia's border with Venezuela, the eln has even offered to educate the children of farmers, while schools are closed. Such indoctrination could breed another generation of rebels.

The crisis has also made it easier for the government to target insurgent groups and their illegal coca crop. Because road traffic has plummeted and the army has been put in charge of supplying towns and cities with food, illicit vehicles heading to rebel hideouts stick out like lines of powder cocaine on a mirror. That has enabled the armed forces to mount a string of attacks in Cauca, on the Pacific coast. The government is also eradicating coca in areas which they previously avoided, because farmers, who would otherwise offer vigorous resistance, are safely locked down.

Armies and navies are also fertile ground for contagion. 

Troops are packed into barracks; sailors, into cramped ships. Men in uniform gather in large numbers for drills and exercises. They cross oceans and borders. Marauding land armies are rarer than they once were, but many war zones pull in spooks, soldiers and insurgents across borders. In Iran, one of the worst-hit countries in the Middle East with nearly 9,000 deaths, Mahan Air, an airline affiliated with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (ircg), continued to operate between China and Iran for weeks after other airlines had suspended flights. Several commanders contracted the virus. The movement of IRCG-financed Shia fighters between Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Pakistan and Afghanistan also spread the disease. Syria's first documented cases occurred in Saida Zeinab, a Shia shrine near Damascus under the control of irgc-backed armed groups.

Rich countries' armies are affected too—in ways that may have lasting consequences. In America over 8,000 military personnel have tested positive for Covid-19, with three deaths (the case fatality rate for those with military ties is 0.3%, considerably lower than the rate for the broader public, perhaps because soldiers tend to be young and fit). Foreign governments have sharply cut ground forces and military trainers, including most of Iraq's 29 coalition partners pursuing Islamic State (is). In March America withdrew from six bases in Iraq and NATO suspended its training programme. Defender-20, a military exercise slated to be the largest movement of American troops to Europe since the cold war, was halted, not long after a Polish general involved in its planning was taken ill. At the same time, America's armed forces, like many others, have been tied up on the home front, to support beleaguered civilian authorities with everything from logistics to testing.

The most dramatic impact, however, has been on navies, whose confined spaces are ripe for disease. "It is a Petri dish of virus," says one former commander of an American carrier strike group. "There is no social distancing of 5,000 people on a vehicle that's three football pitches long...and one football pitch wide." America's navy comprises a quarter of the country's military personnel but a third of all cases among them. The USS Theodore Roosevelt, one of America's largest carriers, was forced to halt operations in the Pacific and return to port in Guam in March after an outbreak of Covid-19 that eventually infected 1,000 of its crew, out of 5,000 or so in total, including its captain. It limped back to sea only at the end of May. France's sole aircraft-carrier, the more diminutive Charles de Gaulle, was also taken out by Covid-19, with two-thirds of its crew infected (though only half were symptomatic).

Many countries are anxious that such self-evident disruption to their armed forces reeks of vulnerability. On May 6th the UN’s Mr Guterres warned that some "may see opportunities because the attention of governments and the international community is absorbed by the health crisis". That is presumably why Thomas Modly, America's then navy secretary, rashly sacked the Roosevelt's captain, who had sounded the alarm about conditions on the ship. In a speech to the Roosevelt's ailing crew, Mr Modly told them to "stand strong as warriors, not weak like victims". The ship, he said, "has to demonstrate to the citizens back home that it has its act together, and that it is knocking down this virus, just as it would knock down the Chinese or the North Koreans or the Russians if any one of those nations were ever so stupid enough to mess with the Big Stick". (Mr Modly himself was later forced to resign for his poor judgment.)

Opening the seals

The urge to downplay weakness and project strength has resulted in a form of nervous muscle-flexing that Nick Childs of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a think-tank, calls "pandemic deterrence". 

In mid-April China steamed its own aircraft-carrier through the Miyako Strait between Taiwan and Japan, an "opportunistic" act "almost calculated to contrast with the plight" of the stricken Roosevelt, notes Mr Childs. On May 22nd America's navy pointedly noted that it had seven out of eleven carriers at sea, though it is implausible that all are fighting fit. In mid-June three were sent to the Pacific for the first time in three years. Covid-19 has not had the shattering effect on military power the Spanish Flu had a century ago. Modern health care is vastly better. Today's pandemic, unlike the earlier one, largely spares the young adults who fill the ranks of armed forces. But as governments have been preoccupied at home and distracted abroad, the virus has deepened geopolitical tensions—between America and China, above all—and worsened what was already a febrile international mood. "Some leaders may... see Covid-19 as cover to embark on destabilizing foreign adventures, whether to deflect domestic discontent or because they sense they will face little pushback amid the global health crisis," warns the icg.

The line between pandemic deterrence and adventurism can be hard to draw. But some of the geopolitical manoeuvring has already taken a more violent turn. 

In early March, Indian troops in Ladakh, a Himalayan region abutting China, delayed their annual summer exercise after soldiers were infected by Covid-19. China went ahead with its own matching drill. But the People's Liberation Army (pla) peeled away from exercises and dashed to several disputed areas on the mountainous border, where it dug in to strategic territory. India's army stumbled upon them at the end of April, prompting it to rush forces to the disputed area.

The entanglement of virus and war was encapsulated in a series of videos and photographs showing pla troops in the aftermath of a brawl in May, wearing masks as they leant over trussed and bloodied Indian captives, mindful of good respiratory hygiene even during a skirmish between nuclear-armed rivals. Another fight erupted on June 15, resulting in serious casualties on both sides. "A section of the Chinese leadership believes that the ...pandemic is a window of opportunity for China to expand its regional and global influence," reflected Shyam Saran, India's former top diplomat, in May. "China stabbed us in the back," complained an Indian officer to News18, a television channel. "In the middle of a pandemic, this was not expected". ■

CERTAINLY  WARS  DO  NOT  HELP  FIGHT  A  HUGE  PANDEMIC  LIKE  COVID-19;  BUT  ONLY  MAKE  IT  THAT  MUCH  WORSE  AND  BOOSTS  ITS  ABILITY  TO  KEEP  MOVING.

THIS  IS  NOT  ANYWHERE  NEAR  THE  APOCALYPSE  OF  MUCH  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  REVELATION  IN  THE  CHRISTIAN  BIBLE.

AS  I’VE  SAID  BEFORE,  WE  JUST  AIN’T  EXPERIENCING  WHAT  IS  FORETOLD  YET  TO  COME  ON  THIS  EARTH.

WHAT  IS  FORETOLD  BY  CHRIST  JESUS  IN  MATTHEW  24  AND  THE  BOOK  OF  REVELATION,  WILL  MAKE  THIS  COVID-19  LOOK  LIKE  A  SUNNY  PICNIC  DAY.


MUCH  OF  BIBLE  PROPHECY  I  HAVE  EXPOUNDED  FOR  YOU  ON  MY  YOUTUBE  CHANNEL——  KEITH  MALCOLM  HUNT

GERMANY TO LEAD EUROPE!!!

From The Economist - June 27 - 2020



Europe


Charlemagne | Doomed to lead
Germans are in charge of Europe, whether they like it or not


Walk into any meeting in Brussels and, most likely, a German will be leading it. In the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, the former German defence minister, is in charge. For the next six months, German ministers will be cajoling their peers into signing off legislation as the country takes over the EU’s rotating presidency. In the European Council, where the bloc's leaders butt heads, it might technically be Charles Michel, the former prime minister of Belgium, heading it. But it is Angela Merkel— longer in post than the leaders of France, Spain, Italy and Poland combined—who is the undisputed top dog. The EU’s main response to the Covid-19 crisis—a flagship €750bn recovery fund paid for with debt issued collectively by the EU—is based on a plan cooked up in Berlin and Paris. The Germans are running the show.

Usually, German power in Brussels is the political equivalent of dark matter: invisible, difficult to measure and yet everywhere. Now the Germans are stars, shining so bright as to be impossible to ignore. 

There was no devious Teutonic plot to grab power. Mrs von der Leyen owes her position to Emmanuel Macron, the French president, rather than patronage from Berlin. (Mr Macron pushed Mrs von der Leyen because he could not bear the thought of Manfred Weber, also a German, getting the job.) It is not Mrs Merkel's fault that no French president has won a second term since she came to power, or that most Italian prime ministers fail to complete their first. A quirk of the calendar left Germany holding the rotating presidency. Whether they want it or not, German hands now grip the EU’s levers of power, just as the bloc overhauls itself to cope with the Covid-19 crisis.

Being coy on the European stage used to work well for Germany. For obvious historical reasons, Germans do not like being seen to throw their weight around. 

And the EU’s status quo suited them. A single market let German supply chains whirr effectively and goods flow seamlessly. The Euro allowed German exports to soar without the bother of an appreciating currency. Any downsides were exported to southern Europe. 

Unemployment in Germany stands at only 3.5%, less than half that of the Euro zone as a whole and a quarter of the Spanish figure. From a German perspective, the EU was not broken and did not require fixing.

This happy status quo is now under threat, often from Germany's own actions. When the EU’s economy lurched to a halt, the European Commission loosened its strict rules on government funding for stricken businesses. But officials did not expect Germany to pledge €1trn for such support—nearly half of the EU’s combined total. As a result, well-run Spanish firms are likely to go under due to lack of state support, while stodgy German competitors are kept alive by German taxpayers, undermining the "fair fight" logic of the single market. At the same time, Germany's constitutional court recently aimed a blow at the European Central Bank's efforts to inject more liquidity into the Euro-zone economy, when German judges challenged the bank's asset-buying programmes. In this sense, German support for mutualized debt might be seen as a polite apology for causing offence.

Saying no to common debt had been a red line for the German establishment. Now, however, a recognition that Germany needs Europe—not just vice versa—dominates thinking in domestic politics. Arguments for the recovery fund, which will see huge increases in German spending on the Eu's budget, are couched in terms of self-interest. This marks a shift in world-view towards that of Alexander Hamilton, the father of debt metallization in the early American republic. During the Euro-zone crisis, the debate over bail-outs was steeped in the idea that diligent Germans were bailing out feckless Greeks (rather than the feckless German and French banks who lent them the money in the first place). In a pandemic-induced crisis, there is less blame to go round.

Instead, there is recognition that without some form of transfer between Germany and her struggling neighbours in southern Europe, political misery beckons. The EU is supposed to be a convergence machine, spreading prosperity rather than embedding differences between rich and poor countries. It has not worked that way. When the Euro was introduced at the start of the millennium, Italian GDP per capita was 20% below Germany's. Now the gap is nearly 40%—a figure that will only widen during the crisis. Italians may question the rationale of membership if their incomes continue to stagnate. It is for this reason that Mrs Merkel frames the recovery fund as a "political instrument against populists".

Keeping the EU on the road takes on an existential importance now that America, the bedrock of German prosperity in the postwar era, has become an erratic ally. 

Strengthening the EU’s internal structures, by filling the gaps in its pockmarked constitution, is seen as the best way of protecting it from external threats. Ideas that were once off-limits, such as the long-winded, politically difficult task of changing the EU’s treaties, are now openly floated by Mrs Merkel. It is, at heart, a conservative radicalism. Things are allowed to change, but only so that things stay the same—specifically the rich, peaceful lives of German voters.

A still-reluctant hegemon

German leadership in Europe makes people uneasy, particularly Germans in private, Mrs Merkel used to point out that Germany was unsuited for such a role since the country was itself a mini-EU, its complicated federalism built on delicate compromise. 

Nimble decisions were impossible in such circumstances. Anyone relying on Germany to take bold steps would be disappointed, as many were. If this record is to change, now is the time. 

An institutional conjunction has left Germans calling the shots in Brussels. 

Rather than a lame chancellor limping to the end of her 15-year career, Mrs Merkel sits on a pile of political capital, gained from competent handling of the pandemic. Germany has the means to change Europe—if it Chooses. ■

I  HAVE  SAID,  FOR  40  YEARS  THAT  GERMANY  DOES  NOT  THINK  OR  WANT  TO  BE  THE  SPEAR-HEAD  OF  A  COMING  MIGHTY  POWER  OF  A  7TH  AND  LAST  RESURRECTION  OF  A  ROMAN/BABYLON  UNITED  EUROPE.  BUT  BIBLE  PROPHECY  SAYS  SHE  MOST  ASSUREDLY  WILL  BE. 

GERMANY  AND  EUROPE,  RIDDEN  BY  A  WOMAN  CHURCH [IN  BIBLE  PROPHECY  A  WOMAN  IS  EITHER  THE  TRUE  CHURCH  OF  GOD,  OR  THE  FALSE  CHURCH]  WILL  ARISE  IN  THE  NEXT  DECADE  OR  TWO [ALL  THE  TIME  FRAME  IS  IN  THE  HANDS  OF  THE  ETERNAL  GOD],  AND  WILL  BRING  THE  NATIONS  OF  EARTH  TO  THE  BRINK  OF  THE  GREATEST  TRIBULATION  MANKIND  HAS  EVER  WITNESSED.

WITH  ALL  THE  WARS  GOING  ON,  WITH  ALL  THE  FAMINE,  AND  WITH  ALL  THE  PESTILENCE [THIS  COVID-19  BEING  THE  GREATEST  IN  THE  LAST  100  YEARS],  WITH  ALL  THE  MANY  DISEASES,  WHAT  IS  TO  COME  ON  THIS  EARTH  AT  THE  LAST  END  OF  THIS  AGE [THE LAST 42 MONTHS]  WILL  MAKE  ALL  OUR  TROUBLES  TODAY  SEEM  LIKE  A  SUNDAY  AFTERNOON  PICNIC  IN  THE  PARK  ON  A  SUNNY  DAY.

GERMANY  AND  EUROPE  WILL  PLAY  A  MAJOR  PART  IN  THAT  END  TIME  42  MONTHS.

ALL  END  TIME  BIBLE  PROPHECY  I  HAVE  EXPOUNDED  ON  MY  WEBSITE——  www.keithhunt.com    UNDER  “END  TIME  PROPHECY”

MY  WEBSITE  SERVER  IS  PRESENTLY  DOWN  FOR  WHATEVER  REASONS,  BUT  I’M  SURE  THEY  WILL  BE  BACK  UP  AGAIN  SOME  TIME.


Keith Hunt