Spies, Paranoia, Revolution, and the Rise of American Empire
Spies, Paranoia, Revolution, and the Rise of American Empire

Before he was a journalist and a novelist, before he was a globe-trotting war correspondent and a historian with an eye for ordinary people that led extraordinary lives, Scott Anderson was a child of the Cold War. His father worked for the State Department, which took the Anderson family to South Korea, Taiwan, and Indonesia. All three countries were located on the new fault lines of the geopolitical struggle between the United States and the Soviet Union, anti-communism and communism, the “Yanks” and the “Reds.”

[Find the Book]

More from Rolling Stone

As a kid, Anderson watched his father grow disillusioned with his country’s crusade against communism and the folly of the Vietnam War. But Anderson himself didn’t fully grasp the contradictions, hubris, and stupidity of the American empire’s obsession with anti-communism until the spring of 1984, when he watched a young woman’s body dumped and retrieved with grim efficiency by a group of soldiers on a side street in San Salvador, the capital of El Salvador. At the time, the Reagan administration was backing the right-wing Salvadoran government in its war against leftist rebels, yet another front in the anti-communism campaign. The incident planted a simple question in Anderson’s mind: How had it come to this?

In his absorbing new book The Quiet Americans: Four CIA Spies at the Dawn of the Cold War — A Tragedy in Three Acts, Anderson answers that question by zeroing in on a critical juncture in time, the dawn of the Cold War from 1944 to 1956, and on four spooks who not just witnessed but shaped history during that period of time. It would be too on the nose to say Anderson’s book reads like Graham Greene’s classic The Quiet American, but Anderson masterfully weaves together the lives of Frank Wisner, a genteel Southerner who climbs the ranks of the CIA only to fall into despair and take his own life after the U.S.’s betrayal of revolutionaries in eastern Europe; Ed Lansdale, a CIA legend who has been called “the American James Bond” and the “T.E. Lawrence of Asia”; Peter Sichel, a German Jewish refugee who traded currency on the black market to fund covert U.S. operations across Europe; and Michael Burke, a black-ops specialist who directed commando operations behind the Iron Curtain. Each man would meet a different fate, but taken together they capture in vivid detail the early days of the CIA and the origins of the Cold War.

The Quiet Americans

But The Quiet Americans book is more than a real-life le Carré tale. By focusing on the post-World War II period and the critical early days of the Cold War, Anderson’s story raises questions about the rise of American empire and how the trajectory of the 20th and 21st century could have looked so much differently. “If FDR had lived even another year, probably what happened in Eastern Europe would have looked quite a bit different,” Anderson tells Rolling Stone, referring to the upheaval on the European continent after World War II. “I think that Stalin would have responded to FDR. Again, this is a great what if?”

This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.

Rolling Stone: I’ve read so many end-of-the-Cold-War stories and end-of-World-War-Two stories. But with this time period from 1944 to 1956, I found myself absorbing the history as much as the characters and their stories. How did you come to zero in on this period in not just American history but world history?
Scott Anderson: As I say at the beginning of the book, I’m very much a product of the Cold War. It was something I spent a lot of time thinking about growing up. And then seeing the residue of it in war reporting in the ’80s and ’90s. When did it all start to go south? When did all this get locked into place where there was this stalemate that went on forever and that I think is currently damaging to an American standing around the world?

I was reading some books about FDR while World War II was going and this idea that this was going to be the end of the age of empires, the dismantling of the British and the French empires, and that America was going to be this this kind of beacon of freedom and the spreader of democracy around the world. And then by the early ’50s, with the CIA knocking over the regimes in Guatemala and in Iran, there was an incredible turnaround in this 12-year period.

Did you have any of these globe-trotting larger than life characters in mind when you picked this time period?
I always want to write history that focuses on people who are at the front lines or the players in the field rather than the generals or diplomats. When you’re talking about the Cold War, the people on the front lines were spies, which kind of works out. I’d rather write about spies than accountants. I’d heard of Wisner and I’d heard of Ed Lansdale. If you read much at all about Vietnam stuff, Lansdale is pretty prominent. But the other two [Sichel and Burke] I’d never heard of. I looked at, I don’t know, 20, 25 different CIA agents through this period. And invariably there were a lot of guys who did cool stuff for a while, but then went to the State Department or were sitting in the embassy somewhere. Or I couldn’t find any paper trail for them. And I really needed that.

And so out of all these people I looked at, I ended up with exactly these four. With Peter Sichel, he’s kind of like finding the proverbial chest of letters in the attic sort of thing. He’s still alive, still incredibly sharp, the last surviving member of this generation of the early CIA guys. And had been very prominent. In fact, I probably did eight or nine interviews with him. So he was a real find. It was kind of a treasure hunt.

What I found so fascinating about Frank Wisner is his evolution over the course of the book, from a true believer and early CIA booster to, in the case of Eisenhower and the “new look” policy, a cautionary voice or a skeptic. The guy asked, “Is this right policy? What are we getting ourselves into?”
I don’t think you could put Wisner in a novel. He starts out as this gung ho guy, the Mighty Wurlitzer he creates, and he just wants to start fires everywhere. He’s this deeply emotional guy and he really takes this stuff personally. And I think he just sees coming over his desk the endless list of disasters and agents disappearing and being executed, he really did change.

The incredible irony with the Hungarian Revolution is here, finally, is the thing that he’s been fighting for the last 10 years. And just the irony that he’s in Europe when it happens, he goes down to the border. He sees all the refugees pouring across the border. And has a complete emotional collapse that he never really recovers from.

Along with Lansdale, he is probably the best known because he was so prominent in the early CIA. And most people think of him as just like I said earlier, this is rabid right wing anti-communist, but the Eisenhower people scared him. And by then he had seen all these operations just fail. And I think he started thinking we have to approach this in a different way. And, of course, he wasn’t listened to.

You bring an interesting background and experience to in this case a work of history, being a journalist, foreign correspondent, war correspondent who has written extensively from the places that you also write about decades, generations earlier in this book and obviously in your book Lawrence in Arabia. How do those things interplay?
I suspect that even more than the war reporting the fact I grew up overseas and I didn’t spend any time in the States until I was a teenager, in a funny way, gave me not an outsider’s perspective but a semi-outsider’s perspective on this country.

In thinking of war, I can think back to the very first war I went to, which was in 1983 in Beirut, and it was just before the Marine barracks there got blown up. I was there about a month before that. The American troops on the ground were getting shot at already. A few had been killed. And I remember standing out in front of the American embassy in Beirut that had been destroyed a few months earlier with a massive truck bomb. There was a 19 year old soldier — about my age — sitting on top of a tank in front of the American embassy. We just got talking and he said, “Can I ask you a question? Why are we here?”

He had no clue why they were there or what in fact their mission was. Not to take anything away from him but I doubt he could have found Beirut on a map. He was just some kid out of Kansas or something. And I’ve seen that again and again with American troops around the world that they really don’t understand why they’re where they are or what they’re supposed to be doing. Again, it goes back to this notion that we’re coming in to liberate people. And I think these poor bastards in the field are constantly surprised why the locals are putting IEDs on them or shooting at them. That’s not true with the British and the French and former imperialists. They seem to have a much better sense of well, we’re here, if the French go in to Indonesia to knock some heads because of an insurgency or a guerrilla war going on, they kind of know they’re doing it for their own self-interest or their country’s self-interest and they have this kind of imperial mandate to do it. And I think British likewise. But Americans, they just don’t think that way. The rest of the world thinks of them that way. But they don’t.

You write about the Red Scare and the very profound effect it had on U.S. foreign policy and on the institutions and people in The Quiet Americans. We all know who Roy Cohn is, Joe McCarthy, the black lists in Hollywood. But how did the Red Scare seep into America’s actions abroad?
Out of the four people I write about, two of them were direct victims of the Red Scare. Frank Wisner and Peter Sichel were both at different times investigated for their possible leftist connections. And in Frank Wisner’s case, because of a relationship he’d had with this Romanian woman during the war and who then maybe had gone on to pass information to the Soviets afterwards. J. Edgar Hoover hated Frank Wisner. At one point, right when Eisenhower was coming to the presidency, it looked like Wisner was probably going to be chosen to be the next CIA director like clockwork right after the election, Hoover reopened investigation into Wisner, something that had been going on now for seven years. Until Wisner died in ’65, it was always hanging over his head. McCarthy gets all the credit because they named the era after him, but he was by and large J. Edgar Hoover’s front man.

So what you saw was the Red Scare play out on an international level or the level of foreign policy in two really significant ways. One was obvious: When you are in the height of the Red Scare, there’s no downside to if you in the CIA to launch an operation that was going to fail or that or that would overthrow a democratic regime. You can only run into trouble if it looks like you’re obstructing the American advance against the communists.

The great irony of the CIA’s covert operations around the world in the ’40s and ’50s was that the most successful aspects of it were the soft power ones — Radio Free Europe, Voice of America. This kind of battle for hearts and minds started in Europe as this kind of intellectual counter movement against the communists overseas. There was a program where we’d sent hundreds of thousands of books overseas and had these open libraries. They were sponsoring Langston Hughes and putting on Porgy and Bess in Berlin. It actually had a huge cultural effect. And all that disappeared during the Red Scare.

When I finished the book, I feel like there are many ways to describe it, but on one sort of more abstract level, I almost came away feeling like it was sort of counterintuitive in the history of American empire or at least a sort of American interventionism and meddling overseas. And that there was a moment, a sort of a crossroads, where the U.S. didn’t go down this path that it did. Did you set out to do that?
I felt it kind of came about pretty organically. To my mind, there are two great turning points or potential turning points that where things could have gone the other way. One being FDR dying like three weeks before the end of the war. I do think that if FDR had lived even another year, probably what happened in Eastern Europe would have looked quite a bit different. I think that Stalin would have responded to FDR. Again, this is a great what if? I think he would have been more equipped to deal with what was happening in Eastern Europe. Where I think Truman was just like a deer in headlights. So for about two years, he still seemed to labor under this idea that Oh, maybe we can deal with the Soviets. Maybe our wartime alliance can still be repaired until finally in 1947, he comes out with the Truman Doctrine, he starts the CIA, but at that point it’s too late. All of Eastern Europe is essentially sewn up at that point.

I think the other great turning point is around the time of Stalin’s death and the Hungarian Revolution. There are probably three or four times, culminating in the Hungarian Revolution, when the Kremlin was sending out peace feelers to the West. They were the ones who started talking about peaceful coexistence. And every time, the Eisenhower administration, led by John Foster Dulles, spurned them. And so I think that’s the second great turning point to me, and you really see it in the Hungarian Revolution where, on one day, Khrushchev decides, We have to let Hungary go. We can’t fight back. We’re going to liberalize all of Eastern Europe. Basically, he was talking about what Gorbachev did 33 years later. And then in one day, he flips around and thinks to himself, “Well, if the Americans were going to do anything about Hungary, they would have done it by now.” Then from that time, you see Khrushchev changing and he becomes more and more hard line. And so the Cold War goes on for another 33 years.

Another key turning point in the future course of Middle Eastern history is the overthrow of Mosadegh in Iran, which you write about. I always come back to the what if with Iran. If we had not done that, what would Iran look like today?
The astonishing thing to me is I’ve spent a lot of time in the Middle East is, you know, you look at old pictures of Iran or Egypt or, you know, anywhere in the Middle East, Iraq from the 1950s and they’re very westernized. America had huge influence in the 1950s in that region, as it did in a lot of other regions around the world.

All of that was squandered by the overthrow of Mosadegh, and the fact that for a number of years after the coup there the CIA bragged about their role. You know, this is a great triumph. And it was really probably not until like the mid-’70s when they said Oh, you know what? Maybe we shouldn’t be bragging about this so much. And then, of course, the shah is overthrown, you have a Islamic fundamentalist regime come in, and now, throughout that part of the world, though this is complicated by Israel, of course, you’ve seen this incredible swing back to this Islamic fundamentalism everywhere. Even in American satellites like Egypt, you would never have seen a woman in a burqa in Cairo 15, 20 years ago. You see it all the time now.

These things tend to have a second life and it’s a bad life from the standpoint of American power and prestige. History is weird, how a certain event comes along and how, only in hindsight, you can see what a crucial turning point it probably was.

Be courageous in diplomacy, EU chief says, proposing new sanctions
Be courageous in diplomacy, EU chief says, proposing new sanctions

BRUSSELS (Reuters) – The EU’s chief executive chided European Union governments on Wednesday for an ineffective foreign policy and proposed U.S.-style sanctions on human rights abusers around the world.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen gives her first State of the Union speech at a plenary session of European Parliament in Brussels, Belgium September 16, 2020. Olivier Hoslet/Pool via REUTERS

Once able to boast of a soft power that helped transform communist neighbours into market economies, the EU increasingly finds itself unable to agree common positions to influence international diplomacy on issues ranging from Venezuela to Mali.

“Why are even simple statements on EU values delayed, watered down or held hostage for other motives?” European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen said in her ‘State of the Union’ speech.

“When member states say Europe is too slow, I say to them ‘be courageous and finally move to qualified majority voting’,” she said. More qualified majority voting would allow the EU to act on more issues without the increasingly onerous process of securing unanimity among the EU’s 27 states.

Von der Leyen said her EU executive would come forward with a proposal to freeze assets of those deemed responsible for human rights abuses, similar to the Magnitsky Act of 2012 in the United States.

Sergei Magnitsky was a Russian lawyer arrested in 2008 after alleging that Russian officials were involved in large-scale tax fraud. Magnitsky died in a Moscow prison in 2009 after complaining of mistreatment.

A new sanctions regime would allow the EU to impose sanctions more quickly on specific individuals anywhere in the world, freezing their assets in the bloc and banning them from entry.

Von der Leyen accused Russia of systematically seeking to eliminate pro-democracy opponents at home and around the region. She said it was wrong to think that the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline between German and Russia would help to improve tense EU-Russia ties.

She also said nothing could justify Turkey’s intimidation of Greece and Cyprus in the Eastern Mediterranean in a dispute over energy resources.

“Turkey is and will always be an important neighbour. But while we are close together on the map, the distance between us appears to be growing,” Von der Leyen told the European Parliament.

Reporting by Robin Emmott; additional reporting by Marine Strauss, editing by Philip Blenkinsop, William Maclean

Mayflower400: why the Puritans had to leave England
Mayflower400: why the Puritans had to leave England



the mayflower
(Photo: BBC)

On 16 September 1620, 102 passengers and 30 crew set sail on the Mayflower from Plymouth, England, heading for the New World.  Making the hazardous journey were the Pilgrim Fathers, a group of separatists who were dreaming of a new life, one in which they could live according to their religious beliefs without interference. 

But for historian Stephen Tomkins, the most interesting journey isn’t the 66 days they spent onboard the Mayflower crossing the Atlantic; it’s what came before that – hence the name of his new book on the subject, The Journey to the Mayflower.

He speaks to Christian Today about the struggle of the separatists and what drove them to risk life and limb by leaving not only the Church of England, but England itself, and heading out to the New World. 

CT: Looking back to the time of the Protestant Reformation, Elizabeth I is not often thought of as one of the ‘bad guys’ – that title often goes to Bloody Mary! But is it more nuanced than that, because under Elizabeth, the Puritans were persecuted.

Stephen: Queen Elizabeth does emerge as one of the ‘bad guys’ in my book because she persecuted this movement, but to be fair to her, she was a world away from Bloody Mary in that she had absolutely no interest in persecuting people just because of what they believed.

Mary rounded up Protestants and had them killed just because they wouldn’t give up their Protestant faith. There’s no way Elizabeth was going to do that to Catholics, and she wasn’t even interested in what the radical Puritans believed. She wasn’t going to try to change their minds, and she certainly wasn’t going to kill them just for their beliefs.

Her problem was that the Church of England was a state Church, and England was a church state. The idea that almost all Protestants in England at this time had was that the Church was a whole Christian nation. That, I think, is key to understanding Elizabeth’s attitude towards the Puritans, and it is where the separatists differed: they believed that the Church was a voluntary community.

Elizabeth, like everybody else, thought that the Church should include the entire nation, every person in England, so that when the separatists left the Church of England and started their own churches, Elizabeth – like many others – would have seen this as almost the end of the world!

The separatists were feared much like Islamist fundamentalists or communists in later times, because by leaving the state Church, the separatists were tugging at a lose thread on the fabric of England and it looked like they were threatening to pull the whole thing apart.

CT: Did the Queen feel threatened by the separatists or was it about control?

Stephen: It was absolutely a question of power. In a sense, Elizabeth had two arms of government. There was the political system and there was the Church, and so through a hierarchy of bishops and the English parish system, she had some measure of control over what happened in every single village in England. In many ways, this network of local churches and bishops spread out across the country was essential to government.

When the separatists said ‘we’re not going to be part of your church’, that’s not simply about freedom of belief; it’s putting yourself outside the system. In a way, it was like saying: ‘we’re not going to be part of your government; you’re not going to govern us anymore.’ Almost as if they were setting up their own little country.

CT: This period in our history doesn’t cast the Church of England in a very positive light!

Stephen: Yes, it was the Church of England that these people were escaping from! Four hundred years ago, the Church of England was a bit of a monster in many ways – in this story at least. But to be fair, it is a completely different entity now. It doesn’t behave in the same way, it doesn’t think in the same way – certainly not about people that are outside of its fold. We’ve all had to get our heads around the fact that we have to agree to disagree on a lot of things!

CT: What was the attitude of Church leaders at the time towards the separatists? Were Church of England clergy preaching against them in the pulpit?

Stephen: Yes, they were preaching against them and at this time, bishops employed constables – a kind of police force of their own – that they would send out to arrest the separatists, raid their meetings and even their houses, and take them to prison.

The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London personally tried the separatists but they didn’t have the power to execute them. They could keep them in prison as long as they wanted to and they did this, causing many separatists to die in prison. Eventually the Archbishop of Canterbury persuaded the government to pass a law making separatism a felony and that was how he got the three leaders of the movement executed in 1593. That was very much the work of the Archbishop of Canterbury, so he is another ‘villain’ of my book!

CT: What was it about the Church of England that the separatists just couldn’t accept?

Stephen: The original reason they left was because of the great complaint that Puritans had in general with the Church of England – that it wasn’t reformed enough. The focal point for that was the fact that the ministers were still supposed to wear the priestly robes of Catholic tradition and they thought that the Reformation got rid of all that. They viewed it like going back to the old ways.

Their thinking was: there are no priestly robes in the Bible, our Church should be more biblical than that. The separatists were the ones among the Puritans who felt so strongly about this that they left the Church of England and set up their own churches. They were prepared to go through all that just because of the clothes the ministers were wearing.

mayflower
The newly renovated Mayflower II, a replica of the original ship that sailed from England in 1620, sails back to its berth in Plymouth, Massachusetts, August 2020.(Photo: Reuters/Brian Snyder)

There were other complaints of course, like kneeling, the sign of the cross, and stained glass – basically anything that wasn’t mentioned in the Bible. I imagine a lot of Christians today not having a lot of sympathy for these attitudes, but on the other hand, once they had left the Church of England over the matter of the priestly robes, that then become much less of a focus for them.

What they started to realise was that the true difference between them and the Church of England was that for them the Church was a voluntary community, a people of God. It was for Christians, true believers, people who lived out their faith, and the Church had no business forcing people to join who didn’t want to, and no business punishing people who didn’t go to church.

They also thought the Church should be democratic; not ruled by a monarch who could determine what happened in every church in the country. They believed the Church was the people of God and they should listen to God for themselves, and decide among themselves how God was calling them to be.

To my mind, at least, although they did not start out for the best of reasons, who they ended up being, what they ended up advocating for and why they couldn’t go back to the Church of England are, I think, something quite prophetic.

CT: If we were to put ourselves back into the shoes of a separitist in England at that time, what would it have been like?

Stephen: The separatists were an underground movement so they would meet in their houses, caves, woods, fields, ships, pubs, and they worshipped in prison as well. They had an underground printing concern and wrote books in prison. They weren’t supposed to have pen or paper in prison but they still managed to write maybe a few in a year.

One of their books has survived actually written in the margins of someone else’s book. These manuscripts were smuggled out of prison and then taken to the Netherlands where they could be printed and then smuggled back into England again. Maybe 3,000 books a year were being smuggled by the separatists into England at this time.

So it was a serious resistance movement and underground operation. It reminds me of (Open Doors founder) Brother Andrew, ‘God’s smuggler’ smuggling Bibles into Eastern Europe in his VW Beetle.

For the separatists too, it was a very dangerous underground operation, except that it wasn’t the Bible they were smuggling but their own theological works.

And you have to remember that Elizabethan prisons were outlandishly unhealthy places. A lot of the separatists suffered and got ill in prison, and sadly died there.

CT: So it wasn’t an easy choice to become a separatist?

Stephen: No, and that’s why a lot of them ended up leaving the country and going to the Netherlands, where they enjoyed religious freedom. They weren’t persecuted there and so it was an improvement in many ways, but obviously they were migrants in another country with all the problems that entailed. They lived in poverty and had to learn new ways of making a living. It was a serious decision and not everyone managed to pursue it to the end. Some saw it through to the end and died for their faith; others did give up and go home.

mayflower
Pilgrims John Carver, William Bradford and Miles Standish at prayer during their voyage to North America in the 1844 painting by Robert Walter Weir, Embarcation of the Pilgrims.(Photo: Architect of the Capitol)

CT: Was there a single event that prompted the Puritans to decide that they just couldn’t stay in England any more?

Stephen: People went at different times and for different reasons, but in terms of a single event, when separatism became a felony and the three separatist leaders were executed, it brought being an outlaw – which is what the separatists were – to a whole new level.

That was the point, really, when en masse a lot of them left the country. Their first attempt at settling North America was Newfoundland in Canada, but it didn’t work out and so they settled in the Netherlands instead. The Mayflower was actually their fourth attempt to colonise North America.

CT: By the time of the Mayflower, James I is on the throne. Had there been no improvement since the days of Elizabeth I?

Stephen: Sadly, there was no improvement. They had hoped for that when James I came to the throne but almost as soon as he became king, the Archbishop of Canterbury died and he replaced him with Richard Bancroft. This new Archbishop led the campaign not so much against the separatists but against Puritans remaining in the Church of England and drove them out. That led to a whole new wave of the separatist movement because they were literally driven out of the Church. Many of them went over to the Netherlands and then eventually to New England.

CT: We often focus on the journey of the Mayflower, but your book is called the Journey to the Mayflower. Why is that?

Stephen: For me, the real story is this underground movement in England that was driven eventually to the Mayflower, the ship that sailed to New England. But it was an awful lot of work just to get to that point and, as I said earlier, the Mayflower was actually their fourth attempt at settling in North America.

You have to remember that they were based in the Netherlands and so they had to send people to England to try and sort all these things out, like getting permission, getting land etc. There was all the paperwork to sort out and of course they had to be very subtle about it; they wanted to be honest in their witness but at the same time not let on how radical they were, because they wanted the government’s support in joining the settlement in Virginia. This settlement was already established; if they had landed there as originally intended, they would have been joining an officially recognised colonial enterprise.

It was by accident and bad weather that they ended up in New England, where there was no English settlement at all and they just had to work it out for themselves. That’s why they were so independent and have gone down in American history, because it wasn’t an English government enterprise; it was the real Puritan spirit. They were out there on their own.

CT: In order to sail to the New World, they needed the help of investors. Why was that?

Stephen: These were not people who could afford to buy their own ship. It was just too expensive. Of course, to settle in North America, you’ve got to take a lot of stuff with you that you’re not going to find waiting for you on your arrival, like tools and weapons. That all costs money, so they needed the investment bankers of their day to put money into the enterprise.

That meant in theory being tied to these investors and working for them for however many years so that they would see a return on their investment, so sending back things like furs, skins, wood and any crops they could grow. That was supposed to be how it worked but, as I said, they ended up in New England sort of doing their own thing and having to start everything from scratch.

CT: Every step of the way, being a Puritan seems to have come at enormous personal cost. They seem to have been an incredibly determined group of people.

Stephen: Yes, and I think it’s really important to understand something that’s often missed out in this story: absolutely central to understanding what they did is that they believed they were called by God and were being led to the promised land.

They believed they, as the people of God, were the new children of Israel. They looked to the Bible to see the patterns in how God dealt with Israel in order to understand their own lives, and that was why they left England for the Netherlands. They did that in the belief that God was calling them out of Egypt – out of England, this land of cruelty and slavery – across the sea to a new life.

In the end, the Netherlands didn’t turn out to be much of a promised land for them; life was really hard there. That’s when they thought about the Exodus story a bit more and how after Israel came out of Egypt, they had the 40 years in the wilderness. They decided that was where they were now in their own lives. They had left England – Egypt – and were in the wilderness, and that meant God still had another journey in store for them. So they crossed the Atlantic in the conviction that God was leading them on.

It’s hard to overstate just how crushing it would have been for them to go back to England because in the Exodus story the people who want to go back to Egypt were the ones who were turning their backs on God and his deliverance. They would have viewed returning to England like turning their back on their faith. They knew they had not reached the place God had in store for them; they couldn’t go back and yet they couldn’t stay where they were. 

So everything about their faith told them that God was leading them on, forwards, and even though it was a terrifying, dangerous, daunting journey to cross the Atlantic, they were convinced that it was God who was calling them to do it, to reach the promised land that God had in store for them.

                <div class="shareline">
<span class="btn-fblike"><iframe class="iframe-fblike" src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FChristianTodayInternational&amp;width=62&amp;layout=button&amp;action=like&amp;size=large&amp;show_faces=false&amp;share=false&amp;height=65&amp;appId=805996846250933" width="62" height="28" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allow="encrypted-media">[embedded content]</iframe></span>
<a class="icon facebook" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https://www.christiantoday.com/article/400-years-after-the-sailing-of-the-mayflower/135547.htm" aria-label="Share on Facebook" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><span class="i-wp"><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="24" height="24" viewbox="0 0 800 800"><path fill="currentColor" d="M445 643h-90V419h-75v-87h75v-64q0-55 32-86 30-29 80-29 28 0 67 3v78h-47q-42 0-42 38v60h86l-11 87h-75v224z"/></svg></span></a>
<a class="icon twitter" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https://www.christiantoday.com/article/400-years-after-the-sailing-of-the-mayflower/135547.htm&amp;text=Mayflower400: why the Puritans had to leave England" aria-label="Share on Twitter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><span class="i-wp"><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="24" height="24" viewbox="0 0 800 800"><path fill="currentColor" d="M679 239s-21 34-55 57c7 156-107 329-314 329-103 0-169-50-169-50s81 17 163-45c-83-5-103-77-103-77s23 6 50-2c-93-23-89-110-89-110s23 14 50 14c-84-65-34-148-34-148s76 107 228 116c-22-121 117-177 188-101 37-6 71-27 71-27s-12 41-49 61c30-2 63-17 63-17z"/></svg></span></a>
<a class="icon pinterest" href="https://www.pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=https://www.christiantoday.com/article/400-years-after-the-sailing-of-the-mayflower/135547.htm" aria-label="Share on Pinterest" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><span class="i-wp"><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="24" height="24" viewbox="0 0 800 800"><path fill="currentColor" d="M287 681c-9-3-15-77-6-115l38-163s-9-20-9-49c0-46 26-80 59-80 28 0 42 21 42 46 0 28-19 71-28 110-8 33 17 59 49 59 58 0 104-61 104-150 0-79-57-134-138-134-94 0-148 69-148 142 0 28 9.7 57.4 23 74 4 5 5 6 2 17l-8 31s-2 9.5-14 3c-41-22.3-63-78-63-126 0-104 75-199 217-199 114 0 203 81 203 190 0 113-72 205-171 205-55 0-75-38-75-38l-21 78c-11 41-47 102-56 99z"/></svg></span></a>
EU chief says U.K. cannot change EU-U.K. withdrawal agreement
EU chief says U.K. cannot change EU-U.K. withdrawal agreement

BRUSSELS —
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said Wednesday that the United Kingdom cannot unilaterally change the EU-U.K. bilateral withdrawal agreement without destroying global trust in the country.

Insisting that chances for a future trade deal are slipping away by the day, von der Leyen told the European Union's legislature that plans by British Prime Minister Boris Johnson to renege on parts of the withdrawal agreement signed by both of them dimmed those hopes even further.


What's more, she insisted that Britain is throwing its good name to the wind by not respecting a deal it signed and approved last December.


"It cannot be unilaterally changed, disregarded or disciplined. This is a matter of law and trust and good faith," she said in her State of the Union address.


She rubbed it in by quoting from a 1975 speech by British conservative icon Margaret Thatcher.


"Britain does not break treaties. It would be bad for Britain, bad for our relations with the rest of the world and bad for any future treaty on trade," von der Leyen quoted from Thatcher.


Johnson has called his plan to unilaterally rewrite Britain's divorce deal with the EU an insurance policy against the bloc's unreasonable behaviour.


Johnson said a planned law designed to override portions of the Brexit withdrawal agreement he agreed to was needed because the EU might "go to extreme and unreasonable lengths" in its treatment of former member Britain.


Von der Leyen said, however, that the EU will always respect its signature -- "We will never backtrack on that."
'This is the moment for the EU to lead the way,' says EU chief Ursula von der Leyen
‘This is the moment for the EU to lead the way,’ says EU chief Ursula von der Leyen

The EU’s most powerful senior official unveiled plans to reboot the bloc’s battered economy with what is being dubbed a “green new deal.”

Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commissionsaid the EU should significantly toughen its emissions-cutting target to at least 55by 2030. 

“I recognize that this increase from 40 to 55 is too much for some, and not enough for others,” she said in a speech to EU lawmakers in Brussels. “But our impact assessment clearly shows that our economy and industry can manage this.”

She suggested that 30% of the bloc’s €750 billion coronavirus recovery package should be raised through green bonds, which are financial instruments aimed at supporting climate-friendly projects.

The EU agreed the stimulus plan in July that will allow the European Commission to raise billions of euros on the global financial markets.

MEPs and EU governments would still need to agree to the plan. 

Some countries argue such green targets are harder to meet because they rely on high-polluting energy sources such as coal. 

Campaigners say 55is not enough to hit the EU’s longer-term goal of climate neutrality by 2050. 

German politicians weigh in

“The Commission has very good arguments for a new goal of at least 55%,” German Environment Minister Svenja Schulze said in response to von der Leyen’s speech.

Schulze said her EU counterparts would discuss adopting the measure at the end of September: “I hope we at these talks will come closer to an agreement.”

Bavarian lawmaker Georg Nusslein from the Christian Social Union, a sister party of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats, said the new climate strategy comes with “high risks” for German industry.

The EU’s climate goals should be met through “fair burden-sharing,” Nusslein was quoted by the DPA news agency as saying.

Germany is already “walking the fine line economically and socially responsible,” he added.

Coronavirus a chance for ‘EU to lead the way’

Speaking at the European Parliament in Brussels, the former German defense minister said that the coronavirus crisis presented the bloc with “a moment for the EU to lead the way.”

She urged EU governments to work on common health care policies, promising a biomedical research agency and a global summit.

Von der Leyen said the coronavirus pandemic had underlined the need for closer cooperation.The people of Europe are still suffering,” she said.

The speech was set to be held at the body’s Strasbourg seat of the European Parliament but was moved to the Belgian capital after the French government designated the eastern city as a coronavirus “red zone.”

Von der Leyen warns UK

Von der Leyen made only a passing reference to Brexit because talks are being led by the EU’s chief negotiator Michel Barnier. 

She warned Downing Street that it would fail to seal a trade deal with the EU if it tried to rewrite last year’s withdrawal agreement. 

“With every day that passes, the chances of a timely agreement do start to fade,” von der Leyen said. 

She stressed that the Brexit divorce treaty, agreed and ratified by both the UK and EU, “cannot be unilaterally changed, disregarded or disapplied.” 

“This is a matter of law and trust and good faith,,” the EU chief said, recalling that British former-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said breaking treaties was “bad for Britain, bad for relations with the rest of the world and bad for any future treaty on trade. The comments drew an enthusiastic response from the Republic of Ireland’s Foreign and Defense Minister Simon Coveney.

EU chief urges bloc to do more on human rights

The Commission president attacked Poland’s government overs its “LGBT-free zones,” which she branded as “humanity free zones.”

“Breaches of the rule of law cannot be tolerated,” von der Leyen said.

On Monday, MEPs called for Poland’s conservative government to lose EU funding over its attack on LGBT+ people and rule of law record.

Von der Leyen told EU governments to work together on tackling the migration crisis, after a fire at a refugee camp in Greece left several people homeless.

“I expect all member states to step up, too,” she told the European Parliament. “Migration is a European challenge and all of Europe must do its part.”

Read more: Lesbos and refugees: Europe descends into self-made chaos

Von der Leyen, 61, is a trained medical doctor and comes from German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union. 

She took up her role as the head of the European Commission, the EU’s executive branch, last year. 

jf/sms (AFP, Reuters) 

Statement by Dr Hans Henri P. Kluge, WHO Regional Director for Europe, 70th session of the WHO Regional Committee for Europe
Statement by Dr Hans Henri P. Kluge, WHO Regional Director for Europe, 70th session of the WHO Regional Committee for Europe

14 September 2020

Your Royal Highness Crown Princess Mary of Denmark, Patron of our Office, thank you so much for being with us here.

Minister of Health Dr Alexey Tsoy, President of the 70th session of the Regional Committee for Europe,

Minister of Health and Senior Citizens of Denmark Mr Magnus Heunicke, outgoing President of the 69th session of the Regional Committee,

Dr Søren Brostrøm, Executive President of the Regional Committee,

My big brother, Dr Tedros,

Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,

Today is 1 year to the day that you placed your trust in me as the new Reginal Director. I committed to honour your political vote by quickly implementing my campaign commitments through reorganizing the WHO Regional Office for Europe to better respond to the needs of each of the 53 Member States in the European Region.

Upon the confirmation of the Executive Board, I was ready to implement my plans with almost military precision. But then something huge happened – the outbreak of COVID-19. Europe was at the epicentre of a pandemic with planetary repercussions.

I immediately decided to take personal leadership of the WHO European response to COVID-19, but at the same time I could not allow myself to postpone my commitments to you. And the only way I could pull this off was thanks to the unwavering commitment of all my staff, especially the heads of country offices and their fantastic teams, and through a transparent, fast-track recruitment of a completely new executive team. And I am so proud of them.

In this context, my opening speech will have 2 parts. The first part is about laying the foundations for the future beyond COVID-19, and the second part is the COVID-19 response by the Regional Office.

I will not give you a long list of challenges that we are facing in health and well-being in the Region. There is a great publication on the core health indicators which shows the state of health as of today. I ask for your kind understanding that this year is a kind of transition year, and I promise that next year we will have a dashboard in line with the monitoring and evaluation framework of the triple-billion goals of the WHO General Programme of Work (GPW) and adapted to the European Programme of Work (EPW), once it is approved.

So how did we lay the foundations for the future beyond COVID-19? Through 3 main axes:

  • keep direct contact with every single country for a more targeted response
  • strengthen partnerships with other organizations working in the Region
  • restructure the Regional Office to be fit for purpose.

On the first axis, I maintained the direct contact with each country that I established during my campaign marathon, thanks to the generous support of the Belgian Government. Through country field missions and digital technology, we strengthened our relations with ministries of health, ministries of foreign affairs, health leaders and health professionals at all levels. Beyond statistics and quantitative data, this direct contact gave us a very good understanding of the social, economic, cultural and political characteristics which are so important for health policy.

Straight upon confirmation of my appointment in Geneva in February, before coming back to the Regional Office, I went on my first country missions. I would like to thank Dr Alisher Shadmanov, Minister of Health of Uzbekistan, and Dr Eljan Birtanov, former Minister of Health of Kazakhstan, for receiving me so warmly.

After that, I immediately continued to the western Balkans, another very important subregion, and thank you so much to Dr Zlatibor Lončar from Serbia and Dr Venko Filipce from North Macedonia for receiving me at a presidential level. With your support, we immediately discussed with heads of State in a free, frank and friendly way the most important issues, such as tobacco control and environmental pollution.

More and more, we worked on a subregional approach to maximize country impact, for example, with our 2 weekly video conferences with the Baltic states. Thank you so much to the ministers of health for always being there for our very fruitful video conferences, which you asked me to continue. The same goes for the Balkan and the Visegrad countries, the central Asian republics and the Russian Federation, and, of course, the small countries – the small countries which are very close to my heart. At the same time, the full pan-European dimension remains critical for our Region, because its diversity is an asset for building solidarity and for knowledge exchange.

On the second axis of laying the foundations for the future beyond COVID-19 – strengthening partnerships with other organizations working in the Region – it is crucial to fight all of the other ongoing epidemics: of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis and HIV, and of environmental pollution and climate change, where the work of the WHO European Centre for Environment and Health is so important. For the big epidemic of out-of-pocket payments, the work of the WHO Barcelona Office for Health Systems Strengthening is so crucial. Always, we see through the lens of inequalities and gender, where, in particular, the WHO European Office for Investment for Health and Development has a very important role.

I would like to thank colleagues from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance, for increasing our collaboration. This collaboration has also transpired more and more through subregional partnerships.

And I would like to thank Dr Ogtay Shiraliyev, Minister of Health of Azerbaijan, my good friend, the longest serving health minister in the Region, for having invited me to the meetings of the health leadership of the Turkic Council, with whom we signed a memorandum of understanding last week, and also the meetings of the Non-Aligned Movement.

Thank you so much to Dr Shadmanov, again, for inviting me to the meetings of the Council for Health Cooperation of the Commonwealth of Independent States.

Thank you to the Prime Minister of Montenegro, who on my request immediately convened a meeting of the heads of governments of the Central European Initiative – 18 European Union (EU) and non-EU countries – on the COVID-19 response.

Last week, we decided with Dr Mira Dasic to strengthen our collaboration with the South-eastern Europe Health Network. And spasibo bolshoe to Dr Mikhail Murashko, Minister of Health of the Russian Federation, for giving me the keynote at a very impressive meeting of the health leaders of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Partnerships in the east are very important.

I am humbled that we are entering a completely new phase of cooperation with the European Union and the European Commission. Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, this process of rapprochement between the Regional Office and the European Commission was ongoing in the field of health, but also in the fields of digital technology and neighbourhood and developmental cooperation.

My warm thanks go to European Union Commissioner for Health and Food Safety Dr Stella Kyriakides. From the first day we met in your office, we decided to go for a very pragmatic, actionable collaboration beyond the traditional signing of theoretical papers. And thank you to your team for being ready today with a joint statement and always discussing issues from a pan-European perspective, including access to a COVID-19 vaccine in non-EU countries.

With Dr Andrea Ammon, Director of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, we are working on an innovative agreement, with the ultimate goal of pan-European health security for the benefit of the Member States that both of our organizations serve. Ultimately, this will strengthen both of our organizations as well.

Recently, I had the opportunity to express my determination to undertake an historical collaboration with the European Union and the European Commission at the European Union informal health ministerial meeting, chaired by German Minister of Health Dr Jens Spahn. And dankeschön, Dr Spahn, for your leadership, together with French Minister of Health Dr Olivier Véran, to strengthen the role of Europe in global health and WHO global governance.

First axis: keeping direct contact with each of the 53 Member States to tailor our response. Second axis: strengthening partnerships with other organizations. Third axis: restructuring the Regional Office.

The single most frequent piece of advice I got from colleagues at WHO headquarters was: if you start a transformation, you have to finish the transformation in a limited time in order to safeguard productivity and decrease anxiety and disruption. The 2 criteria guiding the restructuring were transparency and consultation.

We had 3 objectives: to restructure the Regional Office’s work towards alignment with the GPW and the draft EPW, to have country impact and to have fiscal balance. This was a strong commitment to tackle head-on the chronic deficit as I came into the Office. Obviously, it’s a huge challenge, also with COVID-19. But I have a very good guideline, almost a cookbook on how to do it, and it is the report of February’s meeting of the Programme Budget and Administration Committee of the Executive Board, which was guided by Chairman Mr Björn Kümmel.

I immediately cut the number of technical divisions from 5 to 3 to decrease working in silos. The number of technical directors I cut from 9 to 6, the number of deputy regional directors I cut from 1 to 0. In fact, this was the advice of a good friend and secretary general in one of the Scandinavian countries, who told me, “Hans, no need to work with a deputy in the first years.” I asked him why. “Two reasons,” he said. “First: you will know the nitty-gritty of the Organization yourself: nobody will be able to fool you. And second: if you have a deputy, after 6 months this person is going to ask why he or she isn’t sitting in the post of Regional Director.”

So, I took the advice. And I asked him, “How do you pull it off?” He said, “It’s very simple: during the first 2 years, the only thing you have to do is work a little harder.” And thanks to my fantastic family, I decided for the first years to work a little harder.

To fulfil my commitment to the staff, we finished the recruitment of a 100% ombudsperson. Unique.

The 3 technical divisions are the Division of Country Health Policies and Systems with Director Natasha Azzopardi-Muscat; the Division of Country Support, Emergency Preparedness and Responses, at the core of the GPW and draft EPW, with Director Dr Gundo Weiler; and the Division of Country Health Programmes with Director Dr Nino Berdzuli.

With Dr Mike Ryan, we decided to push back COVID-19 by appointing Dr Dorit Nitzan as Regional Emergency Director with all her experience. There is the enabling Division of Business Operations, which is called BOS – but I always say “boss” with 1, not 2, S’s, as its Director is Mr David Allen. There is the Executive Director of the Regional Director’s Office Mr Robb Butler. We have Ms Oxana Domenti now heading the very important WHO office in Brussels towards the European Union, which is blossoming. My commitment to the staff was to appoint a Special Adviser on Transformation and Organizational Development to eradicate all forms of harassment; I kept my word, and this is Ms Gabrielle Jacob.

And maybe the most important decision was to have a WHO Representative on the Executive Council. By having a WHO Representative on the Executive Council, the failure rate of implementing policies from this Office decreased drastically. And it’s the WHO Representative of the biggest country in the Region – the Russian Federation – Dr Melita Vujnovic.

Every 2 weeks, I have a video conference with the 31 heads of the country offices to keep a finger on the pulse. We have an email inbox called “Ask Hans” where people can anonymously, safely send in their grievances but also innovations. Remember, innovations come from the bottom and that’s why I am advocating for a flat organigram.

None of this could I have pulled off, nor could I have come so far, without the great relationship I have with the European Staff Association. I want to pay tribute to President Shahin Huseynov and Deputy President Kitty Rasmussen for being the interface between the management and the staff in times I acknowledge are uncertain.

So this is the first part of the speech: laying the foundations for the future, keeping direct contact with countries, strengthening partnerships with organizations, reorganizing the Regional Office.

The second part of the speech: the COVID-19 response.

As in every catastrophe, we have victims and we have heroes. I would like to pay my condolences to the victims, their families and their communities who have been hit hard – too hard – by COVID-19. As of yesterday, we have had 225 665 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 deaths, and 4 816 000 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases.

This is 25% of the global burden of mortality and 17% of the global burden of morbidity, but many more people who survived have had to learn to live with what we call “long COVID”. For months, you can be thrown out of physical balance. People who never had anxiety or depression before have it now. We are now studying this phenomenon in order to serve you, the Member States, better. Thank you, Professor Martin McKee from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine for supporting us in this work.

The heroes, no doubt, are the health and social workers who sacrificed their own lives to protect society, but also all other frontline workers, such as the teachers, who have my great respect and have kept society running. The whole world has recognized their merit and bravery.

Here in the COVID-19 response, 3 main axes guided our work:

  • providing each country with the specific support they requested from the Regional Office
  • bringing together the energies
  • learning the lessons – not for the future but for the present.

First axis: providing each of the 53 Member States with the targeted support they requested. Our assistance consisted of disseminating in real time knowledge of every single aspect of the pandemic. With the support of the European Commission and the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, with its Director Dr Josep Figueras, we quickly established the online Health System Response Monitor, which documents the measures implemented by all countries with an analytical component.

Whenever there was a gap in normative guidance, we stepped forward and we filled it – for example, the policy options we provided to you, the Member States, on how a country gradually and safely transitions from a lockdown, or the conference we had on 31 August with my good friend Minister of Health of Italy Dr Roberto Speranza on safe schools in COVID-19 times, the framework of which we published today. This week, we have the draft policy options for when COVID-19 meets influenza, and thank you to Dr Clemens Auer, Special Envoy for Health from Austria, for having initiated this together with us.

These are the normative supports, but the core of what we are doing has always been and will always be country support. Despite tremendous challenges in transport and customs and lockdowns, we pulled off 120 country missions to assist countries doing risk assessments and adapting policies to the local context.

I myself went to Turkey. I went to Gaziantep when we sent in the medical convoys to refugees in northwest Syria to leave no one behind. I went to primary health-care clinics where I was astonished. I spoke with nurses, doctors, social workers, refugees from Syria who were trained, certified and salaried by the Turkish Government to provide people-centred services – gender sensitive, linguistically sensitive services – like I have never seen in my life before.

The Eastern Partnership project, generously funded by the European Commission, allowed this Office to procure, for 13 million euros, personal protective equipment (PPE) in 5 months, which we have never done before. The project is now expanding to the western Balkans and to the central Asian countries, with a health system and essential public health functions component. I would like to thank all of the EU ambassadors in those countries for a fantastic collaboration.

As you can see from my social media posts, I make it a point of honour every single day to talk to ministers of health, ministers of foreign affairs, ambassadors, health professionals, patients. Together with my brother Dr Tedros we also spoke to the President of Belarus and the President of Turkmenistan to exchange international evidence.

Every 2 weeks we have press briefings, and for the first time in history we have had press briefings completely in the Russian language. As many of you know, neither my staff nor myself ever refuse when you ask us to support your health leadership by participating in national media or television interviews.

Here it is appropriate for me to salute the Standing Committee of the Regional Committee (SCRC), its Chair Dr Søren Brostrøm and its Vice-Chair Dr Iva Pejnovic Franelic. You were always there for me and our Office. Remember my commitment 1 year ago, that I would do the work with transparency and accountability.

This has been the largest reprofiling of the Regional Office in its history, and your guidance and reassurance that we are going in the right direction was most critical for me. We convened with the Chair and Vice-Chair 2 ad hoc meetings of the SCRC.

The first axis of the COVID-19 response: providing each country with the specific support you requested of us.

The second axis is based on my experience as a marathon runner. This is not a sprint, it’s a marathon: we have to gather energies. And we know that in times of crisis, when united action for better health is needed so much, a natural reflex is to look only inside. That’s why we strengthened our relations within the Organization, with headquarters and the 5 regional offices. And I thank so much the other regional directors – we have a great group of continuous exchange. And thank you for your support to me as incoming Regional Director.

And, of course, thank you to Dr Tedros for always – especially on the Sundays – being there for me. And also for appreciating that from time to time I have my own opinion, because my interest is to advocate for the 53 European Member States, of course, in the spirit of global solidarity.

Thank you to the Secretary General of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the President of the World Bank and Regional Director of the World Bank, who immediately responded very positively to the draft EPW and our collaboration.

Every 2 weeks we have a meeting with the 24 United Nations agencies, the regional directors active in the Region, particularly eastern Europe and central Asia, which is so important for implementing health in all policies. Thank you to all of them. Straight in the beginning we developed a joint letter with the Regional Director for Europe and Central Asia of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) Ms Afshan Khan. Thank you so much for the very good collaboration looking at comparative advantage – WHO with its normative work, and UNICEF with its procurement experience.

We established very close collaboration with the 17 United Nations resident coordinators at the country level who are helping to position health very high in the United Nations sustainable development common framework within the context of the global plan to ensure healthy lives and well-being for everyone through the Issue-based Coalition on Health.

And finally, we strengthened relations with patients and patient organizations, including for rare diseases, with civil society and public health associations, with the World Organization of Family Doctors, and with doctors, nurses and midwives, who are very close to my heart. Without you, without civil society, it is not possible to leave no one behind.

The first axis of the COVID-19 response: direct, tailored support to countries. The second axis: gather the energies. And the third: learn the lessons.

This pandemic has brought to light the strengths and weaknesses of European society. It has revealed the reality of our European health systems. We cannot wait for an after-action review. We have the flu coming up, we have the reopening of the schools and the academic year. We have excess mortality among senior citizens in the winter. We need to learn the lessons for the present, and that’s why as an Office we conducted an intra-action review with 3 main lessons that are documented in the Regional Director’s report.

The first main lesson: strong national health systems mean strong national health security. The pandemic painfully reminded us of the urgency to implement the Astana Declaration on Primary Health Care. No pandemic has been won in the hospitals alone, and we need to urgently take pressure away from our treasured doctors and nurses in our hospitals to protect them from burnout ahead of the winter.

People-centred primary health care with essential public health functions across the continuum of care is the best approach to protect us from emergencies, decrease inequalities, and protect the poor and vulnerable. Here, I would like to salute Kazakhstan and Dr Alexey Tsoy for already having brainstormed with us on how we could kickstart a 5-year process to plan the new way forward on primary health care for and with our Member States through the geographically dispersed office (GDO) for primary health care in Almaty.

There is no health without the health workforce. Their merits have been recognized globally, and this should lead to a new moral and material future for them in line with their responsibilities. And I salute here the nurses and the midwives. It is your year. But you have been so busy that in the WHO European Region I decided to extend the year into 2021. We will push back COVID-19 and I promise: we will celebrate you.

We have seen the almost infinite potential of digital innovations both in health care and public health. But we have also seen their challenges, including in health data governance and digital poverty. WHO will always stand strong for human rights, gender equality and fairness by leaving no one at the side.

Ladies and gentlemen, the unexpected delay in care for patients with chronic diseases is the black chapter in the intra-action review.

Sixty-eight percent of you, Member States, reported disruptions in services for NCDs, including monitoring of hypertension and diabetes and cancer screening. Some countries are projecting an increase of 10% in breast cancer mortality, which could have been avoided, or of 15% in colon cancer mortality, which could have been avoided.

But here we also gave great news. I would like to thank Dr Mikhail Murashko, Minister of Health of the Russian Federation, for inviting me on my first official visit to Moscow next week, straight after the Regional Committee, to sit together and further strengthen the activities and profile of the very important GDO on NCDs in Moscow – to launch 5 years of fresh thinking on how we can catch up with the NCD-related targets in line with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

For immunization, it is the same. Six countries in the Region, accounting for 22% of the total infant population, reported a disruption in routine immunizations.

As for tuberculosis, in May 2020, 28 countries reported a 50% decrease in case notification. It means the dual-track health system response is so important.

And again, we have good news. Four days ago, I signed and opened the new GDO on preparedness for humanitarian and health emergencies in Istanbul, virtually, from 4 locations, with Dr Fahrettin Koca, Minister of Health of Turkey. And I know, Dr Koca, you are watching. To you and your wonderful team: teşekkür ederim!

The first axis of the COVID-19 response: country support. The second axis: gathering the energies. The third axis: learning the lessons.

The first lesson: stronger health systems, stronger health security. The second lesson: solidarity is key to success. No one is safe until everyone is safe. I always say: if solidarity doesn’t come from the heart, at least let it come from the brain. The strongest examples of solidarity I have seen have been in the local communities – neighbours reaching out to elderly neighbours and to people with mental challenges.

I am so grateful to Her Majesty Queen Mathilde of the Belgians, who will address you, the Regional Committee, as an SDG Advocate, and who will champion the flagship Mental Health Coalition.

In the beginning of the pandemic, we remember the huge issues in access to PPE, which taught us the need for structures of international cooperation to be in place in peacetime so they can be automatically triggered in wartime. And it also taught us the essence of a pandemic stock reserve, not least for the small countries.

The International Health Regulations (2005) allowed WHO to act fast globally. There is no doubt about it. But they remain subject to national core competencies for implementing its obligations. And this instrument deserves a critical review. As I explain almost every day to my 2 teenage daughters, WHO is only as strong as the teeth it is given by its Member States. And rest assured, ladies and gentlemen, excellencies, of the full support of this Office to contribute in the most positive way to the WHO Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response. I already had a great talk with Dr Anders Nordström, Chair of the Secretariat.

The third lesson, and maybe the biggest one, is the general awareness of the reciprocal relationship between health and the economy, which is essential if we want to move to an economy of well-being. This is no surprise for you and for me, but I saw it was a big surprise for many non-health policy and decision-makers. And that’s why, after informing the SCRC, I established the Pan-European Commission on Health and Sustainable Development to rethink policy priorities in light of pandemics.

I am humbled that Professor Mario Monti, President of Bocconi University in Milan, former Prime Minister of Italy, former European Union Commissioner, agreed to chair this very high-level commission. And thank you, Professor Monti, for addressing the Regional Committee later today, and special appreciation also to Professor Elias Mossialos, Special Envoy of the Greek Prime Minister on COVID-19 from the London School of Economics and Political Science, for being the scientific coordinator, linking the scientific advisory committee which supports the Commission.

Dear colleagues, rest assured that all of those lessons are incorporated in the draft EPW.

Let me conclude, please, on a slightly personal note. This pandemic has made me aware of the fundamental importance of confidence in managing a crisis. The crisis gave me the opportunity to deepen my relationship with so many people in your countries, within WHO, within other organizations – to get to know each other better but especially to work more effectively for better country impact.

WHO as an organization is going through tough times, and I appeal to you for this mutual trust to overcome and help us overcome these difficult times. I sincerely hope that the evaluation of WHO and its activities will be conducted in the sprit of mutual understanding of each other’s mandates so that you, Member States, feel safe with us, and in return, we at WHO feel your support to implement our noble mission of improving health and well-being for all at all ages and leave no one behind.

The WHO European Region, at critical times in its history, has undergone large-scale transformations of society to build back better as an example for the rest of the world. And those successful transformations were based on 4 ingredients. Two we have already: necessity and innovation. What we need together now is courage and collaboration. Thank you.

Sustainability in livestock farming is a matter of balance
Sustainability in livestock farming is a matter of balance

Sustainability is a balancing act. This goes for every sector, but none more so than the livestock sector, one of Europe’s key focus areas in the EU Green Deal.

Roxane Feller is the Secretary-General of AnimalhealthEurope.

Repeating comments by Germany’s Agriculture Minister for Food and Agriculture Julia Klöckner during a July meeting of the European Parliament’s ENVI Committee meeting – “Organic farming isn’t the holy grail and conventional farming isn’t the devil. Organic farming must become more efficient and conventional farmers must become more sustainable. It’s an opportunity for us all to work together.” [taken from the English translation] – I can say that when it comes that desired balance for true sustainability, I couldn’t agree more.

When you take animal health as the pivotal point for livestock farming, the balancing act becomes a much easier task. Any well-established and practised animal health management plan will deliver on the three main pillars of sustainability.

Taking the social aspect first, any sustainable business should have the support of its employees and the community it operates in, as well as the support of the consumers it serves.

Social acceptance is growing in influence and due care must be taken to not let emotion and opinion outweigh what matters: securing a sustainable food supply at affordable prices that is respectful of both the environment and animal welfare.

Animal health is a prerequisite for good animal welfare. Veterinary vaccines and medicines help to prevent and treat animal diseases, as well as reduce pain and discomfort. And in terms of our shared health, healthy animals are the cornerstone of Europe’s high levels of food safety.

Careful animal health management focused on prevention also reduces the occurrence of bacterial infections, and therefore the need to use antibiotics.

Healthy animals also deliver on the environmental pillar. Efficiencies that are beneficial for our environment are most often created when herds or flocks benefit from good health. Innovative tools can be implemented by farmers which help with monitoring factors such as feed intake, weight, temperature, etc. assisting with more targeted management of animals both individually and as a group.

Healthy animals require fewer natural resource inputs like feed and water as they move through the production system, so excess need for such inputs can be avoided. Livestock can also consume crop residues and other by-products that could otherwise become an environmental burden as 86% of livestock feed is not suitable for human consumption.

Well-managed animals can also lead to a 30% decrease in greenhouse gas emissions according to the Food and Agriculture Organisation. And in terms of biodiversity, grazing animals help to maintain grasslands that act as important carbon traps and cannot be used to grow other foods.

And finally on the economic pillar, ensuring the viability of livestock farming is also linked to the creation of efficiencies. This means using the necessary animal health tools and services to reduce animal mortality and avoid any food or other product losses directly at farm level.

Taking parasite infections in sheep for example – which can also apply to other grazing animals – such infections can lead to losses in milk yield, along with slower growth, and even reduced wool production. So by ensuring accurate attention to the animals in their care, farmers can run their farms efficiently and sustainably.

There is not one sole example of a farming system that will deliver optimally on all three pillars of sustainability.

The animal health industry believes that sustainable livestock production systems are those where there are regular veterinary visits, good animal health management plans, use of preventive vaccines where possible, good biosecurity measures and housing, appropriate nutrition and careful attention to animal well-being, on both a group and individual basis.

In short, Animal Health Matters in all different farming systems, no matter the size, no matter the degree of inputs used. All means that support sustainable practices should be both included and incentivised via the EU Farm to Fork Strategy and its subsequent measures if we are to achieve the balance needed for a fair transition.

Progress made so far in Europe deserves recognition. This will go a long way in maintaining not only balance but the continuity of our food supply. Europe’s farmers are in a great majority heading towards senior years.

Eurostat figures state that only 11% of farm managers in the EU were under the age of 40 years in 2018.

So ensuring that all progress is recognised and that farmers can access all the tools they need to perform their job in a sustainable and rewarding manner is an important step in attracting new young farmers to agriculture and ensuring the vitality of Europe’s rural areas.

European Council’s Michel in Cyprus for talks to diffuse East Med region’s tension
European Council’s Michel in Cyprus for talks to diffuse East Med region’s tension

President of the European Council Charles Michel on Wednesday began talks in Nicosia with President Nicos Anastasiades as Turkey escalates tension in the Eastern Mediterranean region. And diplomatic activity to defuse the crisis is high.

Statements to the press will be made as soon as talks were over, an official announcement said.

The talks come days only before a crucial Special European Council, on September 24, which is to focus on developments in the Eastern Mediterranean and EU-Turkey relations with proposed sanctions against Ankara high on the agenda.

Deputy government spokesman Panayiotis Sentonas has already said that Michel’s visit comes on top of several important meetings of government officials, including the US Secretary of State and the Foreign Minister of Russia.

EU leaders discussed during a video conference on August 19, 2020, the situation in the Eastern Mediterranean and relations with Turkey, with Michel stating that the bloc is increasingly concerned about growing tensions and stresses the urgent need to de-escalate.

EU leaders also expressed full solidarity with Greece and Cyprus and reaffirmed their previous conclusions on the illegal drilling activities of Turkey.

Michel who was in Athens on Tuesday met with Greek Prime Minister Kyriacos Mitsotakis and other officials.

Brown Danube: How Belgrade's sewers taint Europe's famous river
Brown Danube: How Belgrade’s sewers taint Europe’s famous river

Just down the road from Belgrade’s historic city centre, gates open for trucks to pass to the banks of the Danube, where they dump raw sewage into Europe’s venerated river.

It’s not a secret operation, but rather a business nobody likes to mention in the Serbian capital — the only one in Europe to spew all of its unfiltered wastewater into the continent’s second-longest river.

A heavy odour rises as the brown stream of faeces flows into the waterway, a far cry from the colours that inspired Johann Strauss to write his famous waltz “On the Beautiful Blue Danube”.

For fishermen who live off the fruits of the Danube and the Sava rivers that join in a beautiful, broad confluence around Belgrade’s old fortress, this daily practice is “disastrous”.

“I want to cry, and nobody cares,” Dragoljub Ristic, a 59-year-old fisherman told AFP.

Around a third of Belgrade, a city of 1.6 million, has no connection to drainage systems and instead relies on the septic tanks that the trucks empty straight into the rivers.

The rest shunt their unprocessed waste into the river through around 100 sewage drains.

Roughly 190 million cubic meters of wastewater — or 60,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools — are poured into the rivers annually, according to estimates made by infrastructure minister Zorana Mihajlovic.

“No big city in Europe commits such a crime towards its rivers,” claims Belgrade Deputy Mayor Goran Vesic, who has called for a proper wastewater treatment system.

The Danube begins in Germany and snakes through nine other countries over 2,850 kilometres (1770 miles) before draining into the Black Sea.

A group of Austrian scientists in 2019 noted a “critical” presence of E. coli bacteria in Serbia’s strip of the river, which local experts say is a sign of the high levels of organic pollution.

If consumed, the bacteria can cause infections, said Igor Jezdimirovic, from the local NGO Environment Engineering.

  • Riverbed build-up –

Thanks to its sheer size and power, the Danube mostly manages to “cleanse itself”, said Bozo Dalmacija, a chemistry professor leading a water quality research team in Serbia.

'We have killed all our rivers  we will kill this one too ' lamented Mladen Jovic  a 59-ye...

‘We have killed all our rivers, we will kill this one too,’ lamented Mladen Jovic, a 59-year-old fisherman

OLIVER BUNIC, AFP

For most of the year bacterial particles stay below 500 micrograms per millilitre, the level at which they pose a health hazard, he told AFP.

Those who spend their lives on the river say they have already seen it change, with a build up of waste shallowing out the riverbed.

While scientific studies are hard to come by, fishermen say the sewage has altered the variety of fish that end up in their nets.

Whitefish are harder to find whereas bottom feeders like catfish, which eat the waste, are more abundant.

“We have killed all our rivers, we will kill this one too,” lamented Mladen Jovic, a 59-year-old fisherman.

“The Danube is a very strong and powerful river that manages (the pollution), but it can’t do it forever,” he added.

  • Promises to purify –

Serbia is an EU candidate country which hopes to join the bloc by 2025.

Its environmental record is a major obstacle, with the country needing a five billion euro investment to build the necessary eco-friendly infrastructure.

Belgrade's deputy mayor pledged five years ago that a sewage system for the capital would be fi...

Belgrade’s deputy mayor pledged five years ago that a sewage system for the capital would be finished by 2020

OLIVER BUNIC, AFP

The country has already stated it will not be able to meet the demands, proposing an 11-year transition period after it joins the bloc.

“It can’t be done in five years. We are already late,” Dalmacija told AFP.

In late July, President Aleksandar Vucic announced that 70 municipalities around the country will get “water purifying plants and sewage systems”.

But there has been no news since, with the Ministry of Environmental Protection refusing to comment on the matter or clarify who would finance such a project.

“We can’t do that with our current budget,” said Dalmacija. “Maybe he (Vucic) has other information.”

It wasn’t the first such announcement. Belgrade’s deputy mayor pledged five years ago that a sewage system for the capital would be finished by 2020 — a deadline that has since been extended twice, to 2025 and recently to 2029.

In January, Belgrade authorities signed an agreement with the China Machinery Engineering Corporation (CMEC)to start work on a wastewater treatment plant for the city, but construction hasn’t started as Serbia is yet to allocate money in the budget.

Jezdimirovic, from the environmental NGO, is waiting to see real results.

“As the old Latins used to say — deeds, not words.”

U.S. teens and parents share much in common religiously research show
U.S. teens and parents share much in common religiously research show
(Photo: Pew Research Center)Family praying at home.

American teenagers and their parents tend to have a lot in common – though not quite as much as the parents may think as they share a religious identity, a new analysis of a Pew Research Center survey data shows.

It shows that most U.S. teens share the religious affiliation of their parents or legal guardians.

Protestant parents are likely to have teens who identify as Protestants, while Catholic parents mostly have teens who consider themselves Catholics, while the vast majority of religiously unaffiliated parents have teens who describe themselves as atheists, agnostics or “nothing in particular.”

Yet withing the broad Protestant category there are stark differences.

EVANGELICAL PROTESTANTS

Eight-in-ten parents who affiliate with an evangelical Protestant denomination have a teen who also identifies as an evangelical Protestant.

But among parents who belong to mainstream Protestant denominations such as the United Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), 55percent have a teen who identifies in the same way – and 24percent have an unaffiliated teen.

Among adults, women tend to be more religious than men, but this gap isn’t nearly as pronounced among teens. In the United States, for example, women are more likely than men to say religion is “very important” in their lives (60 percent against 47 percent), according to a 2014 Pew Research Center survey.

Adolescent boys and girls are equally likely to be religiously affiliated, say religion is very important in their lives, pray daily and say they regularly attend religious services. Furthermore, roughly six-in-ten teenage boys (58 percent) and girls (61 percent) say they have ever been in a religious education program.

Girls do stand out, however, on religious youth group participation: 57 percent say they have participated in a religious youth group, compared with 44 percen of boys who say the same.

Generally, U.S. teens attend religious services about as often as their parents.

The survey shows that 44 percent of U.S. teens say they go to religious services at least once a month, almost exactly the same as the share of their parents who say they attend monthly (43 percent).

Parents are more likely than teens to say religion is extremely very important in their lives.

When there are religious differences between adults and their 13- to 17-year-old children, however, it’s usually the teens who are less religious than the parents.

For instance, far fewer teens (24 percent) than parents (43 percent) say that religion is extremely important in their lives.

The survey also asked parents and teens about how important they think religion is in the other person’s life.

It found that, overall, most follow the same pattern.

For example, 73 percent of teens give the same answer as their parent about how important religion is to the parent, and 68 percent of parents give the same answer about how important religion is to their teen.

But among those who do not agree, parents are far more likely to overestimate the importance of religion to their teen than to underestimate it.

MORE IMPORTANCE FOR PARENTS

For example, among all parents who give a different answer than their teen does regarding the importance of religion to the teen, 69 percent think religion is more important in the life of their teen than their teen does.

And 29 percent believe it is less important to their teen than their teens says. Meanwhile, among all teens who give a different answer than their parent on the importance of religion in their parents’ lives, 43 percent overestimate how important religion is to their parent, while 55 percent underestimate it.

Half of teens say they hold all the same religious beliefs as their parent …And of approximately 1,800 teenagers who were surveyed alongside one of their parents, about half the teens (48 percent) say they have “all the same” religious beliefs as their parent.

But among the other half of all teens – those who say they share “some of the same” beliefs or hold “quite different” beliefs from their parent – about one-third (34 percent) say their parent doesn’t know that they differ religiously. And one-in-six (17 percent) say this difference causes at least some conflict in their household.

When asked how many of their religious beliefs they hold in common, most teens and parents give the same answer.

That includes 40 percent of teen-parent pairs who say they hold “all the same” beliefs and 30 percent who agree that they hold “some of the same” beliefs.

But in roughly a quarter of cases (27 percent), their responses do not align – and most of those are situations in which the parent assumes a higher level of agreement.

For example, 12 percent of the pairs consist of a parent who says they share all the same religious beliefs as their teen, but a teen who disagrees. And another 4 percent consist of a parent who says they share some beliefs with their teen, while the teen says their beliefs are quite different.

Four-in-ten teens say they share all the same religious beliefs as their parent – and their parent agrees

Less-religious parents are highly likely to have teens who also are less religious.

Naturally, differences can occur in both directions:

There are nonreligious parents who have highly religious teens, as well as the other way around.

But the survey data suggests that, by some traditional measures of religious observance – religious importance and prayer – highly religious parents are less likely to have teenagers who share their beliefs than nonreligious parents are to have teenagers without strong religious beliefs.

In brief: the 70th session of the WHO Regional Committee for Europe (RC70)
In brief: the 70th session of the WHO Regional Committee for Europe (RC70)

For the first time, the WHO Regional Committee for Europe took place virtually due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Among the highlights of this year’s session was the endorsement by Member States of the European Programme of Work (EPW). The EPW sets down a 5-year vision of how WHO/Europe and Member States will work together to meet citizens’ expectations for health.

Opening of the session

At the opening of the virtual session, outgoing President of RC69 Mr Magnus Heunicke, Minister of Health and Senior Citizens of Denmark, handed the position over to Dr Alexey Tsoy, Minister of Health of Kazakhstan, the elected President of RC70.

Other officers elected were:

  • Dr Søren Brostrøm of Denmark as Executive President
  • Dr Iva Pejnović Franelić of Croatia as Deputy Executive President
  • Ms Nora Kronig Romero of Switzerland as Rapporteur.

Address by Her Royal Highness Crown Princess Mary of Denmark

Crown Princess Mary of Denmark, Patron of WHO/Europe, addressed delegates, describing the pandemic as a “tough teacher” and underlining that there can be no health care without the health workforce. “To all the nurses, midwives, health and care workers across the European Region, you have my deepest respect and admiration, and I thank you,” she said.

Re-emphasizing her commitment to advocating for maternal and child health, immunization, and addressing antibiotic resistance, Her Royal Highness concluded, “Working together to make the world a safer and healthier place for everyone is the most fitting of legacies to honour those we have lost as a result of this virus, and an invaluable gift to the children of the future.”

Address by Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General

Speaking remotely to RC70, Dr Tedros expressed his support for the EPW on this year’s agenda, and its close alignment with WHO’s 13th General Programme of Work (GPW 13). “Health and well-being, universal health coverage and health security are the legs of a 3-legged stool that provide social, economic and political stability,” he said.

Considering lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr Tedros warned that WHO and Member States must follow through on these reviews and recommendations. “Working together in humility and solidarity, we can ensure that a pandemic of this magnitude and severity never happens again,” he concluded.

Address by Dr Hans Henri P. Kluge, WHO Regional Director for Europe

The address by Dr Kluge – his first as WHO Regional Director for Europe – had 2 parts: the first focused on laying the foundations for the future beyond COVID-19, and the second on the COVID-19 response. On the first point, Dr Kluge explained that the work is based on 3 axes:

  • maintaining direct contact with each country for a more targeted response
  • strengthening partnerships with other organizations working in the WHO European Region
  • restructuring WHO/Europe to be fit for purpose.

Speaking of the COVID-19 response, Dr Kluge sent his condolences to the victims, families and communities that have been hit hard by the pandemic. He paid tribute to the health and social workers and other front-line workers, such as teachers, who have kept society running.

“The whole world has recognized their merit and bravery,” he said. Dr Kluge also announced that he will extend the Year of the Nurse and the Midwife through 2021.

In addition to his emphasis on providing specific support to Member States and working across WHO and with the international community and civil society to tackle the virus, the Regional Director outlined some key lessons learned from COVID-19 that must be applied now.

He underlined that there is no health without the health workforce. He drew attention to the need to maintain immunization services and health services for people with chronic conditions, including cancer. Further, he called on countries to continue to cooperate in the spirit of solidarity and to review the International Health Regulations (2005) in the light of this pandemic.

Regarding lessons learned from the pandemic, Dr Kluge emphasized the reciprocal relationship between health and the economy, the recognition of which is essential to moving towards an economy of well-being. The recently formed Pan-European Commission on Health and Sustainable Development will rethink policy priorities in this context.

In his final comments, the Regional Director spoke of historical precedents for transforming European society in the face of challenges and building back better as examples to the world. “Those successful transformations were based on 4 ingredients. Two we have already: necessity and innovation. What we need to gather now is courage and collaboration.”

Statement by Professor Mario Monti, Chair of the Pan-European Commission on Health and Sustainable Development

Professor Monti, President of Bocconi University in Milan, Italy, former Prime Minister of Italy and former European Commissioner, spoke to delegates in his capacity as Chair of the recently formed Pan-European Commission on Health and Sustainable Development.

Referring to the Commission’s mandate to make forward-looking recommendations on health and social policy, Professor Monti made an appeal to Member States. “The Commission will seek to establish partnerships with countries, and I trust I can count on your valuable engagement and expertise as we are about to sail these uncharted waters.”

Reflections by Member States

Many representatives of Member States and international partners took the floor, offering insights and experiences of the COVID-19 response. Common themes emerged, with many recognizing the value of WHO and its crucial role in global health. Countries thanked Dr Kluge for his transparency in leading WHO/Europe’s response and the constant communication he has maintained.

Many also acknowledged the essential role of health workers, the need to strengthen health systems, the importance of solidarity in vaccine and treatment development, and that health and the economy go hand in hand.

Introduction to the EPW

The Regional Director explained that the proposed EPW for 2020–2025 was developed from the starting point of what people across the Region hold their health authorities accountable for. Under the EPW, European Member States will implement 3 core priorities:

  • guaranteeing the right to universal access to quality care without fear of financial hardship;
  • protecting against health emergencies; and
  • building healthy communities, where public health actions and appropriate public policies secure a better life in an economy of well-being.

The EPW was informed by an extensive consultative process with Member States, non-State actors and other international partners.

Video statement by Her Majesty Queen Mathilde of the Belgians

Her Majesty Queen Mathilde of the Belgians addressed delegates on the subject of mental health, a topic that is the focus of her work as an advocate for the Sustainable Development Goals.

“Good mental health helps us all to achieve our full potential. It boosts our resilience and ability to manage change and uncertainty. Investing in mental health is essential for societies to prosper,” she said. She described the inclusion of mental health in the EPW as “encouraging”.

Video statement by European Commissioner for Health and Food Safety Dr Stella Kyriakides

Dr Kyriakides spoke of the renewed collaboration between WHO/Europe and the European Union, particularly in the context of the pandemic. She expressed her support for the EPW, commenting that it provides an excellent framework for improving health in the Region and offers opportunities for synergies in common priority areas, such as immunization.

WHO/Europe and the European Commission released a joint statement outlining closer partnership in 5 areas of shared interest.

Interventions by Member States on the EPW

Countries expressed their support for the EPW, and commended WHO/Europe for the accelerated and inclusive process to develop it. Common themes in interventions included appreciation for integrating COVID-19 and emergency preparedness and response, as well as access to affordable medicines; the importance of emphasizing primary health care; the need to address the epidemic of noncommunicable diseases in the Region; and the need to prioritize health systems strengthening.

Many speakers underlined their support for the 4 flagship initiatives covering mental health, immunization, behavioural and cultural insights, and digital health. Overall, they expressed that the EPW will make WHO/Europe more proactive and that it fully aligns with the GPW 13.

On 14 September 2020, Member States adopted the EPW 2020–2025, “United Action for Better Health in Europe”, by consensus.

Election to the Standing Committee of the Regional Committee (SCRC)

In a private session, Czechia, Kazakhstan, Norway and the United Kingdom were elected as new members of the SCRC for a 3-year term until 2023.

Transformation in the WHO European Region

Dr Kluge explained that for WHO/Europe, the WHO transformation is about enhancing country impact in all 53 Member States while building a safe, respectful and optimal working environment grounded in WHO values.

He explained that the restructuring of WHO/Europe will largely be complete by the end of October 2020. One specific initiative to be piloted by 5 countries is the Pan-European Transformational Leadership Academy, which will offer public health experts opportunities to gain experience at WHO/Europe and exchange knowledge.

Proposed high-level programme budget for 2022–2023

Mr Imre Hollo, Director of Planning, Resource Coordination and Performance Monitoring, explained that the process for developing WHO’s global programme budget for 2022–2023 will be presented for consideration to the Executive Board in January 2021 and for approval at the World Health Assembly in May 2021.

The financial estimates for the GPW 13 anticipated a base budget of US$ 4.254 billion, a 7.8% increase compared to 2020–2021. This increase will need to be reviewed in the light of COVID-19 response activities, WHO transformation initiatives and country-level poliomyelitis-related activities. Mr Hollo therefore asked the Regional Committee to expect that a revised budget will be submitted to the World Health Assembly in May 2022. There will be a proposal to extend the GPW 13 to 2025 in recognition of the impact of COVID-19 on the achievement of the triple-billion targets.

Accreditation of non-State actors

EUROCAM, the European Hospital and Healthcare Federation, the European Stroke Organisation and the Finnish Association for Substance Abuse Prevention were accredited by the Regional Committee.

Future Regional Committee sessions

  • The 71st session will take place on 13–15 September 2021 in Copenhagen, Denmark.
  • The 72nd session will take place on 12–14 September 2022 in Tel Aviv, Israel.
  • The 73rd session will take place on 11–13 September 2023.

In the future, Regional Committee sessions will be held over 3 days rather than 4.

Closure of the session

In his closing remarks, Dr Kluge thanked all participants for the “free, frank and friendly debates” that prevailed at this virtual Regional Committee session.

“Your adoption by consensus of the EPW is a strong act, and promising for the future. I consider this a contract of trust between you and us – a sign of the solidarity we so frequently refer to these days. Your feedback over these 2 days has provided powerful insight into the future implementation of our vision,” he said.

EU sends tough message to Xi
EU sends tough message to Xi

European Union leaders told Chinese President Xi Jinping on Monday to open up markets, respect minorities and step back from a crackdown in Hong Kong, also asserting that Europe would no longer be taken advantage of in trade. 

Anxious to show that the EU will not take sides in a global standoff between China and the United States, German Chancellor Angela Merkel joined the bloc’s chief executive and chairman to deliver a tough-talking message to Beijing.

“Europe is a player, not a playing field,” European Council President Charles Michel, who chaired the video summit, told reporters in reference to a growing sense in Europe that China has not met its promises to engage in fair and free trade.

With more than a billion euros a day in bilateral trade, the EU is China’s top trading partner, while China is second only to the United States as a market for EU goods and services.

China’s Xi was not part of the post-summit news conference and there was no joint statement, but the state-owned Xinhua News Agency reported that Xi rejected any interference in Chinese affairs, particularly on human rights.

“Chinese people will not accept ‘an instructor’ on human rights and oppose ‘double standards’, Xinhua reported Xi as saying during the video summit. “China is willing to strengthen exchanges with the European side based on the principle of mutual respect so that the two sides can both make progress.”

The European Union accuses China of breaking a host of global trade rules, from overproduction of steel to stealing Western intellectual property, which Beijing denies.

European attitudes have also hardened towards Beijing because of the novel coronavirus, which many scientists believe originated in China, and because of a new security law on Hong Kong that the West says curtails basic rights.

“Overall, cooperation with China must be based on certain principles – reciprocity, fair competition. We are different social systems, but while we are committed to multilateralism, it must be rules-based,” Merkel said.

The EU also wants stronger commitments on climate change from China, world’s top polluter.

China yesterday invited EU observers to visit Xinjiang to “truly understand” the situation. Rights groups say over a million Uighurs languish in political reeducation camps, while a campaign of forced assimilation has targeted academics, religious leaders and activists from mostly Muslim minority groups. Beijing describes its Xinjiang camps as vocational training centres where education is given to lift the population out of poverty and to chisel away at Islamic radicalism.

On Monday US customs said it would bar a raft of Chinese products including cotton, garments and hair products, from Xinjiang over fears they were made using forced labour.

Climate change: Record northern heat, fuels concerns over US wildfire destruction
Climate change: Record northern heat, fuels concerns over US wildfire destruction

“The northern hemisphere just had its hottest summer on record”, said Clare Nullis, WMO spokesperson.

“It also had its hottest August on record; this is according to figures released last night by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).”

Data indicates that from June to August, temperatures were 2.11 degrees Fahrenheit (1.17 degrees Celsius) above average.

Five warmest summers since 2015

This surpasses previous warmest periods in 2016 and 2019, Ms. Nullis said, adding that the five warmest summers for the northern hemisphere have occurred since 2015.

At a global level, August was the second warmest on record, the WMO spokesperson added, citing NOAA data, at 1.69F (0.94C) above the 20th-century average of 60.1F (15.6C).

The past month was the 44th consecutive August and the 428th consecutive month, with temperatures above the 20th century average. “The 10 warmest Augusts on record have all occurred since 1998”, she said.

The 2020 fire season on the west coast of the US has also been record-breaking in its scale, with some 16,0000 firefighters involved in the effort to protect people and towns in California alone.

16,000 firefighters battling blazes

“The heat has contributed to a very, very destructive fire season”, Ms. Nullis said. “As we know, the states of California, Oregon and Washington have been worst-hit, entire neighbourhoods razed to the ground, forcing the evacuation of hundreds and thousands of people and tragically causing casualties.”

In addition to fatalities and destruction, the fires have impacted air quality for millions of people and turned skies orange, the UN agency warned. Satellite images show clouds of smoke billowing over the western Pacific and likely travelling more than 1,300 miles (2,092 kilometres).

The smoke led to a hazy morning on the opposition coast, as the sun battled to shine through an unusual layer of smog in New York City.

Citing “red flag” conditions in northeastern California for much of this week, Ms. Nullis explained that this was the most dangerous threat level and that it is characterised by a combination of strong winds and tinder-dry conditions.

Of 41,599 fires recorded in the US so far this year, 36,383 were caused by human activity, the WMO spokesperson continued, with more than 2.5 million acres scorched across the United States.

California saw most individual blazes, with 7,072 human-caused fires reported, according to the US National Interagency Fire Center.

Tropical cyclone threat

Ms. Nullis also warned that the US National Hurricane Center issued advisories for “no less than five” tropical cyclones over the Atlantic basin – tying with the record for the highest number of tropical cyclones there at one time.

The 2020 Atlantic hurricane season is so active that it is expected to exhaust the regular list of storm names, the WMO spokesperson said. “If this happens, the Greek alphabet will be used for only the second time on record,” she added.

Annatto Market Worth USD 281.97 Million at 5.0% CAGR by 2027; Owing to Increasing Consumption of Natural Food Products Globally, Says Fortune Business Insights™
Annatto Market Worth USD 281.97 Million at 5.0% CAGR by 2027; Owing to Increasing Consumption of Natural Food Products Globally, Says Fortune Business Insights™

Annatto Market Worth USD 281.97 Million at 5.0% CAGR by 2027; Owing to Increasing Consumption of Natural Food Products Globally, Says Fortune Business Insights™ – Organic Food News Today – EIN News

  <div class="eh-ribbon">

      Trusted News Since 1995

    <span class="prof not-if-mobile-w820">A service for food industry professionals</span>
    <span class="not-if-mobile-w820">·</span>
    <span class="date">Wednesday, September 16, 2020</span>
    <span class="not-if-mobile-w430">
      ·
      <a class="article_live_counter" href="/live_feed">526,365,307</a>
      Articles
    </span>
    <span class="not-if-mobile-w550">
      ·
      3+ Million Readers
    </span>
  </div>
</header>
<footer><div class="sitemap">
    <h2 class="subheading-osc g_roboto">News Monitoring and Press Release Distribution Tools</h2>
    <div class="row-fluid">
      <div class="span3">
        <section><h3>News Topics</h3>
          </section><section><h3>Newsletters</h3>
          </section></div>
      <div class="span3">
        <section><h3>Press Releases</h3>
          </section><section><h3>Events &amp; Conferences</h3>
          </section></div>
      <div class="span3">
        <section><h3>RSS Feeds</h3>
          </section><section><h3>Other Services</h3>
          </section></div>
      <div class="span3">
        <section><h3>Questions?</h3>
          </section><br/><section/></div>
    </div>
  </div>
</footer>



<!--[if lt IE 9]>
<script src="/js/excanvas.min.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<![endif]--><!-- Start Alexa Certify Javascript --><noscript/>
<!-- End Alexa Certify Javascript -->
<!--[if IE 7]>
<script type="text/javascript" src="/js/json2.js"></script>
<![endif]-->

UN report highlights links between ‘unprecedented biodiversity loss’ and spread of disease
UN report highlights links between ‘unprecedented biodiversity loss’ and spread of disease

The fifth edition of the UN’s Global Biodiversity Outlook report, published by the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD), provides an authoritative overview of the state of nature worldwide. 

The report notes the importance of biodiversity in addressing climate change, and long-term food security, and concludes that action to protect biodiversity is essential to prevent future pandemics. 

Wake-up call

The study acts as a wake-up call, and an encouragement to consider the dangers involved in mankind’s current relationship with nature: continued biodiversity loss, and the ongoing degradation of ecosystems, are having profound consequences of human wellbeing and survival.

“As nature degrades,” said Elizabeth Mrema, Executive Director of the Convention on Biological Diversity, “new opportunities emerge for the spread to humans and animals of devastating diseases like this year’s coronavirus. The window of time available is short, but the pandemic has also demonstrated that transformative changes are possible when they must be made.”

the Tikki Hywood Foundation

Some believe that pangolins were involved in COVID-19 transferring from animals to humans (file)

Ten-year targets missed

This year’s study is considered to be particularly significant, because it serves as a “final report card” for the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, a series of 20 objectives set out in 2010, at the beginning of the UN’s Decade on Biodiversity, most of which were supposed to be reached by the end of this year.

However, none of the targets – which concern the safeguarding of ecosystems, and the promotion of sustainability – have been fully met, and only six are deemed to have been “partially achieved”. 

“Earth’s living systems as a whole are being compromised”, said Ms. Mrema, “and the more humanity exploits nature in unsustainable ways and undermines its contributions to people, the more we undermine our own well-being, security and prosperity.”

Although the lack of success in meeting the targets is a cause for concern, the authors of the Outlook are at pains to stress that virtually all countries are now taking some steps to protect biodiversity, without which the state of the world’s biodiversity would be considerably worse. 

The bright spots include falling rates of deforestation, the eradication of invasive alien species from more islands, and raised awareness of biodiversity and its importance overall.

However, this encouraging progress can’t mask the fact that the natural world is suffering badly, and that the situation is getting worse. Financing is a case in point: funding for actions linked to biodiversity has been estimated at between $78 – $91 billion per year, way below the hundreds of billions needed. 

And this figure is dwarfed by the amount of money spent on activities that are harmful to biodiversity, including some $500 billion for fossil fuels, and other subsidies that cause environmental degradation.

UN Environment Programme

Coral Reefs restoration at the coast of Banaire in the Caribbean.

Transitions to a healthier planet

Contained within the report are several recommendations, or “transitions”, which map out a scenario for a world in which “business as usual” is halted, and environmental devastation is reversed.

Under the proposals, ecosystems would be restored and conserved; food systems would be redesigned to enhance productivity, whilst minimizing their negative effects; and the oceans would be managed sustainably.

The design of cities also comes under the spotlight, with calls for a reduced environmental footprint in urban areas, and “green infrastructure”, making space for nature within built landscapes.

The report amplifies the UN’s support for nature-based solutions, hailed as one of the most effective ways of combatting climate change. Alongside a rapid phase-out of fossil fuel use, they can provide positive benefits for biodiversity and other sustainability goals.

And, in relation to health concerns, and the spread of diseases from animals to humans, the report calls for a “One Health” transition, in which agriculture, the urban environment and wildlife are managed in a way that promotes healthy ecosystems and healthy people.

Reacting to the report, UN chief António Guterres said that the transitions represent an unprecedented opportunity to “build back better”, as the world emerges from the immediate impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic: 

“Part of this new agenda must be to tackle the twin global challenges of climate change and biodiversity loss in a more coordinated manner, understanding both that climate change threatens to undermine all other efforts to conserve biodiversity; and that nature itself offers some of the most effective solutions to avoid the worst impacts of a warming planet.”

Buddhist Times News – The Dalai Lama is Urging Action on Climate Change
Buddhist Times News – The Dalai Lama is Urging Action on Climate Change

 By  — Shyamal Sinha

If Buddha were to return to our world, he would certainly be connected to the campaign to protect the environment.

Speaking for myself, I have no hesitation in supporting initiatives that help protect the environment. This is a question of survival because this beautiful blue planet is our only home.

Over the past year, millions of young brothers and sisters have been protesting, calling on political leaders to take action to combat climate change. They are helping to educate the public even as we all witness the destruction of ecosystems and the dramatic decrease in biodiversity.

I really appreciate Greta Thunberg’s efforts to raise awareness of the need to take direct action. Her effort to elevate the issue of global warming among schoolchildren is a remarkable achievement. Despite being very young, her sense of universal responsibility is wonderful. I support her “Fridays for Future” movement.

I believe that every individual has a duty to help guide our global family in the right direction. Prayers and good wishes alone are not enough. We have to assume responsibility. Large human movements spring from individual human initiatives.

The youth of the 21st century have the ability and opportunity to bring change, to create a century of peace, dialogue and compassion. Even as global warming increases in intensity, many young people are working together to share and find solutions. They are our real hope.

Ideas may travel from the top down, but the movements that put them into effect have to work from the bottom up. Because their efforts are based on truth and reason, I believe young people will succeed in bringing about real change.

However, we cannot rest our hopes only on the younger generation. We have to choose political leaders who will act on this issue with urgency. Today, we are seeing a strong connection between environmental politics and elections.

Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama called on world leaders Saturday to join forces in fighting climate change.

“Now we should pay more attention about global warming,” the exiled leader said in a video message to a virtual meeting of Group of Seven parliamentary leaders.

The session was hosted by the speaker of the US House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, a longstanding advocate for the Himalayan region.

National leaders have been meeting less frequently with the Dalai Lama due to pressure from China.

In his video address, the Dalai Lama said people today have more of a sense of shared interest in saving the planet.

“If you look (at) past history, too much emphasis individual nation, individual religion, including color,” the 85-year-old Buddhist leader said, according to a statement from the International Campaign for Tibet.

“So it creates a lot of problem. Basically, you see, they are selfish, self-centered attitudes,” the 1989 Nobel peace laureate said.

Climate change is affecting some of the world’s least powerful people, the Dalai Lama added.

“Due to global warming, too much rain some area. Some area dry. So these people suffer,” the Dalai Lama said. “Particularly like in Africa and some area in India and China also.”

The impact along economic lines is also imbalanced, he added.

“The rich people, big hotel, not much serious sort of feeling,” the Dalai Lama said. “But poor people, they really face serious problem.”

Saturday’s meeting brought Pelosi together with counterparts from Britain, Canada, the European Union, France, Germany, Italy and Japan.

I often have the impression that politicians do not take climate and environmental protection seriously enough. Ignorance is the No. 1 enemy.

It is not sufficient to hold meetings and conferences. We must set a timetable for change. Only if political leaders start to act now will we have reason to hope. We must not sacrifice our civilization for the greed of the few.

Journalists have an equally important role. I tell them that in this modern time they have a special responsibility to bring awareness to the people — not just report on bad news, but they must also bring people hope.

Recent studies suggest that the world is getting close to exceeding its carbon budget. Therefore, this budget must become the most important currency of our time. Politicians are gradually running out of excuses, but we must use our time wisely.

The 7 billion human beings on Earth need a sense of universal responsibility as our central motivation to rebalance our relations with the environment. Appreciating the sense of oneness of humanity in the face of the challenge of global warming is the real key to our survival.

Since the future of all coming generations rests on our shoulders, we must be determined in taking action before it is too late.

I’m a monk so I have no children, but people who have children have to think about how life will be for them and their grandchildren. We’re at the start of the 21st century. Even now, we should be looking ahead to how things might be in the 22nd and the 23rd centuries.

Member States continue to drive financial support to WHO/Europe
Member States continue to drive financial support to WHO/Europe

A total of US$ 210 million (€177 million) in specified voluntary contributions was received by WHO/Europe for the first half of 2020, from 81 contributors. A large proportion of this amount (59%) was from Member States, followed by intergovernmental organizations – mainly the European Union (EU) (17%), United Nations organizations (6.5%), partnerships (6%), and non-state actors (including philanthropic foundations, private sector entities, academic institutions and nongovernmental organizations) (4%).

Over this period, the top 3 donors were Germany (US$ 37.2 million/€31.3 million), the EU (US$ 35.6 million/€30 million), and the United States of America (US$ 30.3 million/€25.5 million). As well as increasing the total value of their donations in recent years, these donors have been among the top 3 since 2016. European Member States’ contributions together with the EU’s represented 57% of total voluntary funding to WHO/Europe at the end of June 2020.

Of the specified voluntary funding received from Member States of the WHO European Region, and the EU, most of this funding (63%) is allocated directly to WHO/Europe’s work in countries. Of this amount, Turkey receives 28% and Ukraine 11%, a concentration of funds largely explained by emergency operations in these countries.

“I would like to thank all countries and organizations that generously contribute to WHO/Europe’s work, improving the health and well-being of the 900 million people living in the WHO European Region. These times call for global solidarity, and I am committed to pursuing new ways to ensure that WHO/Europe has the resources it needs to deliver the European Programme of Work, as well as provide proactive support to country health authorities to mobilize resources for their pandemic recovery,” said Dr Hans Henri P. Kluge, WHO Regional Director for Europe.

From January to the end June this year, just over half of WHO/Europe’s funding (51%) has been directed towards work for emergencies, including that linked to the COVID-19 outbreak. This contributes to the global strategic priority set down in WHO’s 13th General Programme of Work, to address health emergencies. A further 22% has been put towards the third global priority of promoting healthier populations, and 20% to the first priority, achieving universal health coverage.

Member States will be discussing a new vision for delivering health across the European Region – the European Programme of Work (EPW) – at the 70th session of the WHO Regional Committee for Europe, taking place virtually on 14–15 September 2020. To support the EPW, WHO/Europe is developing an engagement strategy for 2020–2025, to promote coherent resource mobilization and partnership efforts. This strategy will seek to align resource mobilization with the EPW priorities, and increase the level of flexibility, sustainability and predictability of contributions.

Member States from the European Region, together with the EU, have also assumed a leadership role as contributors to the global COVID-19 Strategic Preparedness and Response Plan with their combined voluntary contributions (close to US$ 750 million/€631.5 million) representing more than half of total funds pledged and received to date.

Further details of the Organization’s work, financing and progress on implementing its global General Programme of Work can be found in the Programme Budget Portal.