Iraq: How We Were Lied Into War

Who was behind the war? A combination of big oil, which wanted Iraq’s vast reserves, and the Israel lobby which wanted to see Iraq destroyed by US power.

 

by Eric S. Margolis-24 Mar 2019

 

Sixteen years ago, the US and Britain committed a crime of historic proportion, the invasion and destruction of Iraq. It was as egregious an aggression as Nazi Germany’s 1939 invasion of Poland.

 

 

Large numbers of Iraqi civilians died from 2003-2007. Iraq’s water and sewage systems were bombed, causing widespread cholera. The UN estimated 500,000 Iraqi children alone died as a result. Madeleine Albright, US Secretary of State, said it was ‘a price worth paying.’

 

But not so much for the 4,424 US soldiers killed in Iraq, or the 31,952 wounded, many with devastating brain and neurological injuries. Nor for US taxpayers who forked out over $1 trillion for this botched war and are still paying the bill – which was hidden in the national debt.

 

In 2003, Iraq was the most advanced Arab nation in social welfare health, education, military power, and industrial development. But it was run by a megalomaniac, Saddam Hussein, who had been helped into power and sustained in his long war against Iran, by the United States, Britain and their Arab satraps.

 

When Saddam grew too big for his britches, Washington lured him into invading Kuwait, another American-British oil satrapy. A hue and cry went out from Washington and London that Iraq had secret nuclear weapons that threatened the entire globe. War, thundered US-British propaganda, was urgent and necessary.

 

As I knew from covering Iraq for many years, it had no nuclear weapons and no medium or long-ranged delivery systems. What it did have was a chemical/biological laboratory at Salman Pak that was staffed with British technicians producing lethal toxins for use against Iran. I discovered this secret operation and reported it. Meanwhile, the dim-witted Iraqis were threatening to hang me as an Israeli spy.

 

I watched with disgust and dismay as the US and Britain launched massive broadsides of lies against Iraq and those few, like myself, who insisted Baghdad had no nuclear weapons.

 

Almost the entire US and British media were compelled to act as mouthpieces for the George Bush/Tony Blair war against Iraq, trumpeting egregious lies designed to whip up war fever. Our media, supposedly the tribune of democracy, became lie factories, putting even the old Soviet media to shame.

 

The New York Times led the charge, along with the three main TV networks. I was in Iraq with its star correspondent, Judith Miller, who became a key agent of the pro-war campaign. So too the Murdoch press in Britain and Fox News. When the BBC tried to question the torrent of lies about Iraq, it was crushed by Tony Blair. A leading British nuclear expert who questioned the nuclear lies was murdered. Iraq was polluted by US depleted uranium shells.

 

Journalists like me were intimidated or marginalized. I was dropped by a leading US newspaper, a major Canadian TV chain, and by CNN for whom I had been a regular commentator. I was told the Bush White House had given orders, ‘get rid of Margolis.’ My sin: insisting Iraq had no nuclear weapons and was not threatening the US. Things became so absurd that the story went out that Saddam had ‘drones of death’ that were poised to attack America.

 

Of the US media, only the McClatchy chain and Christian Science Monitor reported the war honestly. Nearly all the rest of America’s TV talking heads brayed for war. Most are still there today, demanding war against Iran.

 

Who was behind the war? A combination of big oil, which wanted Iraq’s vast reserves, and the Israel lobby which wanted to see Iraq destroyed by US power. The Pentagon was taken over by pro-war neoconservatives: Wolfowitz, Feith, Rumsfeld. George Bush, an ignorant fool, was putty in the hands of VP Dick Cheney, a pro-war megalomaniac. The CIA played along. Even the respected former general, Colin Powell, made a fool of himself before the UN and the world by claiming Iraq had hidden weapons. It had chemical weapons, all right, but we had the receipts to show they came from the US and Britain.

 

No one in the US or Britain ever faced trial for war-mongering and killing vast numbers of people. The lying media escaped well-deserved censure. As for the lying politicians who brought on this disaster, they blamed poor intelligence and bad luck. Those few who opposed the war of aggression remain sidelined or silenced.

 

Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2019

More Fire Crews Join Fight Against 189-Acre Santiam Park Fire

Much of the fire is in a high public use area

Mar-21-2019 

(LYONS, Ore.) - The Santiam Park Fire was reported Tuesday afternoon near the North Santiam State Recreational Area off Highway 22, growing to 60 acres in the first day causing evacuation orders for nearby homes. At this time, the fire is reported to be 100 percent lined and covering 189 acres.

The cause of the fire remains under investigation. No structures have been lost and no injuries reported.

Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) Command transitioned Incident Commanders today, with Allison Blair stepping in for Blake Ellis.

“Taking over the fire as Incident Commander at this stage is very humbling,” Blair said, “seeing the dedication of our firefighters and staff reminds us why we’re here; to ensure we leave the land in the best, safest condition for the landowners.

"This isn’t the glamorous part of the job, but it is vital to the community we serve.”

Favorable weather conditions are aiding over 100 personnel in fire suppression efforts. Today, crews from Coffee Creek Female Correctional Facility and the Willamette National Forest joined ODF and private contract crews on the fire line.

Focused on finding and extinguishing hot spots and strengthening containment lines, crews are steadily progressing toward the interior of the fire.

Given much of the fire is in a high public use area, rehabilitating the land for future public use is a priority and a practice in good stewardship.

Resources engaged on the fire include 4 engines, 2 tenders, a dozer and multiple hand crews. The Type 2 helicopter used during initial and extended attack was released late Wednesday afternoon to Washington Department of Natural Resources.

This fire that was sparked on Tuesday is a reminder of threats posed by wildfires to homes and property.

The Oregon Department of Forestry reports that 42 homes and 30 outbuildings initially were threatened by the fire. The fire impacted 189 acres of brush and timber. As of 5 p.m. Wednesday, evacuation levels in Linn and Marion counties were lifted.

The Office of State Fire Marshal wants to remind residents to make sure their homes are protected from wildfire. The start of spring is a good time to take these steps:

• Keep roofs, gutters, and eaves clear of all leaves, pine needles, and other flammable debris.
• Remove dead vegetation a minimum of 30 feet around your house.
• Prune trees and have grass kept short and green to keep fire on the ground and more manageable by firecrews.
• Remember, call before you burn yard debris. Residents should check with their local fire agency or air protection authority to learn if there are any burning restrictions and if a permit is required.

Homeowners have a responsibility to protect their homes by building defensible space. For more information, visit the websites for the Office of State Fire Marshal, Keep Oregon Green, and the Oregon Department of Forestry, or call your nearest ODF or forest protective association office.

Source: News Release from Oregon Dept. of Forestry

________________

China Is Spying On Israel to Steal U.S. Secrets

Benjamin Netanyahu ignored the intelligence operations of Beijing and Moscow for too long. Now, the Israeli government is finally paying attention, but it could be too late.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu talks with soldiers as he stands near a naval Iron Dome defense systeminstalled on a Sa'ar 5 Lahav Class corvette of the Israeli Navy fleet, in the northern port of Haifa on Feb. 12. (JACK GUEZ/AFP/GETTY IMAGES)

BY YOSSI MELMAN

 | MARCH 24, 2019, 6:49 AM

This month, Israel’s National Security Council (NSC) will present the cabinet with its recommendations on foreign investments in Israel. Because of the sensitivity of the issue, no one in the cabinet is prepared to talk about the elephant in the room. Nevertheless, it is clear that the policy review and the report are primarily focused on China.

In the past decade, Beijing has increased its economic and military investments and interests in the Middle East, including Israel. The Israeli government ignored China’s behavior for too long, but lately it has begun to pay attention. The National Security Council has to reconcile two contradictory policies, both of which are important to the Israeli economy and its national-security interests.

The first is a policy embraced by all government across the political spectrum for decades:
encouraging foreign investment, privatization of national assets and utilities, and the expansion of international markets for Israeli goods. In recent years, like many other exporters, Israeli firms have looked eastward to the growing and developing economies of Asia—and China’s in particular.
A recent survey by the Israeli intelligence community that is not in the public domain shows that Chinese investment in the Middle East rose by 1,700 percent between 2012 and 2017. Altogether, the Chinese have invested $700 billion in the region. Nearly half of it is in the energy sector, $150 billion in research and development, $113 billion in industry, $103 billion in transportation, $68 billion in the military field, $4 billion in financial loans, and only $155 million in humanitarian aid.

From 1992 to 2017, China’s bilateral trade with Israel has grown from $50 million to $13.1 billion, making it Israel’s largest trading partner in Asia and its third-largest trading partner in the world after the European Union and the United States. In the first half of 2018, China’s imports from Israel reached $2.77 billion, an increase of 47 percent compared with the same period in 2017.

The second policy is to defend national and strategic assets and infrastructure from being controlled and taken over by foreign governments and corporations, even if they are not hostile to Israel. Because of its high-tech economy, Israel also faces the delicate problem of foreign spying and theft of its advanced technologies and know-how. Russia and China have in recent years enhanced their espionage efforts in Israel, particularly to obtain access to both state-owned and private-sector Israeli tech companies, and through them to the United States, a close ally of Israel.

China has targeted Israel’s two largest arms exporters, Israel Aerospace Industries and the arms manufacturer Rafael, along with the company Elbit Systems. The first two are state-owned corporations, and all three have subsidiaries in the United States that help manufacture Israel’s most advanced weapons, including missiles and avionics. These designs and trade secrets are coveted by intelligence agencies and governments throughout the world.

Investigations by Israeli counterintelligence agencies discovered that Chinese hackers were particularly interested in the Israeli companies’ ties with U.S. defense contractors. The Israeli firms are collaborating with their U.S. counterparts such as Raytheon, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin in the joint projects, which include F-16 and F-35 warplanes and the Arrow anti-ballistic missile defense systems. Clearly, China perceives Israel as a back door through which it can access and penetrate secret U.S. programs.

Israel is an international powerhouse when it comes to cyberwarfare, which is of the utmost importance to Moscow and Beijing. If they can steal state-of-the art technologies, it could create havoc in the United States and other Western democracies.

It’s no wonder that both countries have large embassies in Tel Aviv, which serve as hubs to advance their interests. Until recently, China was interested in purchasing a chunk of land in the posh neighborhood of Herzliya Pituach for its new embassy. It is located very close to Mossad headquarters and those of the military intelligence agency Unit 8200 at the Glilot Junction, north of Tel Aviv.

In their attempts to penetrate defense installations and steal security-related technologies, Russia and China have faced a fierce, determined, and skillful rival—the Shin Bet, Israel’s domestic security service, which specializes in counterintelligence and information protection.

But the civilian sector, especially firms producing technologies that can be used for both peaceful and military purposes, is less protected. For many years, consecutive Israeli governments neglected and ignored the security risks posed by China. On the contrary, they encouraged Chinese businessmen to invest in Israel and purchase Israeli assets. But when it comes to China, the so-called private sector is a fiction. The government controls the economy. Whoever deviates from party guidelines is severely punished.

And so over the last 15 years, Chinese companies have invaded Israel. They purchased Tnuva, a household name and the country’s largest producer of dairy products. They won tenders to build roads, light rail lines in Tel Aviv, and the Carmel Tunnels in Haifa. China has also expressed intentions to buy Israeli insurance companies and banks, to lease huge tracts of land in the Negev Desert to grow avocados and wheat, and to build a railroad from Tel Aviv to Eilat.

Chinese construction companies are now enlarging Israel’s two major ports in Haifa and Ashdod, which handle most of Israel’s trade. Even more worrisome is the fact that Chinese companies have gained the concessions to operate and run the new harbors for 25 years. Both ports are also the bases for the Israeli navy, including heavily fortified marine infrastructure which houses the Israeli submarine fleet. The decision to build the Haifa marina was a result of the 2006 war in Lebanon. During the war, Hezbollah rockets hit Haifa aiming at the port and navy vessels.

The five-strong submarine fleet (the sixth submarine is due to arrive next year from Germany, where all of them were constructed) reportedly carries nuclear-tipped missiles, thus providing Israel with a second-strike nuclear capability, if and when Iran obtains its own nuclear bombs.

For years, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his deputy, Transportation and Intelligence Minister Yisrael Katz—who is now also acting foreign minister—encouraged the Chinese to gain access to the Israeli market and boasted about their achievements.

Only a few officials tried to warn Netanyahu and the cabinet, including the Shin Bet’s leaders and Efraim Halevy, the former head of Mossad. But their warnings were not taken seriously. Even Shaul Chorev, a former rear admiral and commander of the submarine fleet from 1980-1985, who was also a defense ministry official and the director general of the Israel Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC), seemed not to be bothered and kept silent.

Now as the head of the Haifa Research Center for Maritime Policy and Strategy at the University of Haifa, Chorev has expresses some concerns about the new Chinese neighbors of the submarine fleet.

“I admit that I was insufficiently interested in the topic because as the director of the IAEC I was too busy with other important issues,” he told Foreign Policy. “But now I and the center are actively raising awareness of the problem.”

Israel’s bureaucratic negligence was reversed only because of external pressure.

 The U.S. administration perceives China as its main rival and has turned its attention from the Middle East to Asia, the Pacific, and the Korean Peninsula.

U.S. President Donald Trump has declared a trade war on China and is trying to limit its economic and military expansion. One of the United States’ major concerns was Chinese involvement in the Haifa port, which is a host to frequent visits by the ships of the U.S. Sixth Fleet, including aircraft carriers.

That’s why Chinese involvement in Israel got Washington’s attention. The Trump administration asked Israel to reduce its ties with China, and U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton directly requested it. Israel doesn’t want to insult or humiliate China, which is sensitive in terms of its pride and would undoubtedly retaliate. But Israel can’t ignore a request, which is really a demand, from its most important strategic ally.

In the past, when it came to relations involving the three nations, Israel has bowed to U.S. pressure because it had to comply. It is almost certain that past failures and negligence, especially in the harbors, can’t be fixed. The contracts given to Chinese firms cannot be canceled. In case of war, the submarines will go to sea, but they and the U.S. fleet could still be vulnerable to a surprise attack.
The forthcoming Israeli National Security Council report is therefore likely to focus on the future and seek a solution that satisfies Washington without offending Beijing

—offering a set of recommendations to the cabinet that addresses economic needs while defending essential strategic installations and interests in the fields of water, land, energy, food, telecommunications, and finance.

One thing is clear: If the report leads to new laws or regulations, they will employ generic language that will avoid singling out any specific country. They will refer to all foreign governments and corporations— although everyone now knows that the main targets will be Russia and China.

Yossi Melman is an Israeli journalist who specializes in security and intelligence matters and the co-author of Spies Against Armageddon: Inside Israel’s Secret Wars.

AI and big data’s roles in powering future smart cities

By Tech Wire Asia | 22 March, 2019

TOMORROW’S smart cities will be seamless. Instant information about health services, transit options, safety alerts, and community news will be at our fingertips.

Smart city spaces are only smart because of how artificial intelligence (AI) and big data technology are used purposefully.

As the world moves into more intelligent spaces, we will need deeper integration between technology and the real economy.

Yesterday, JD.com announced its new big data-powered service that gives social credit scores to individuals, businesses, and potential investors.

The e-commerce company’s new service enables Chinese local governments to incorporate greater use of technology into its operations.

There are infinite possibilities for how AI and big data can be used in smart city spaces. Though, here are three that local governments should have on their digital transformation agenda.

#1 | To build social credit databases

Through gathering, sorting, and analyzing the data of individuals and businesses, AI technology can evaluate an entity’s credibility.

This will help the society promote integrity and trustworthiness at large, so that individuals, businesses, and investors all feel safe.

For example, banks can assess loan applications more efficiently and more accurately based on a data-driven smart system. This will help business operations run more seamlessly.

#2 | To power the traffic infrastructure

An AI and a big data-powered system can also capture data on personal behavior and lifestyle choices.

Adding in the mix of the Internet of Things (IoT) technology, solutions like smart traffic infrastructure will be made possible.

In this case, big data can intelligently inform commuters the most efficient route to take as well as parking availability. For business users, productivity hours can then be repurposed.

#3 | To provide smart transportation services

One of the biggest transportation disruptions is ride-hailing mobile apps. The apps connect drivers and users in a marketplace that is right at their fingertips, making mobility seamless.

Though, surge pricing is a nightmare. Surge pricing occurs when the equilibrium price is shifted due to a sudden increase in demand. Though, AI and big data can resolve this.

With data analytics, the app companies can tell which time windows are the most congested. The insight will warrant an increase in the supply of drivers so that mobility remains positive.

AI and big data are not mere behind-the-scenes tools.

Tomorrow’s smart cities will be powered by technology to deliver to us intelligent social credit systems and smart city solutions.

With a strong foundation of digital integration, individuals and businesses will be able to make better decisions. In short, we will have a better quality of life in tomorrow’s smart city spaces.

Cyclone Idai death toll passes 750 with more than 110,000 now in camps

Scale of devastation across Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Malawi ‘extraordinary’
Joaquin Joao Chidja, 16, dries his family photos on the roof of a commercial building in Buzi, Mozambique, where the death toll from the cyclone has now reached 446. Photograph: Yasuyoshi Chiba/AFP/Getty Images

Agencies in Beira-Sun 24 Mar 2019

Cyclone Idai’s death toll has risen above 750 in the three southern African countries hit 10 days ago by the storm, as workers try to restore electricity and water and prevent an outbreak of cholera.
In Mozambique the number of dead has risen to 446, with 259 dead in Zimbabwe and at least 56 dead in Malawi.

All numbers for deaths are still preliminary, said Mozambique’s environment minister, Celso Correia. As flood waters recede and more bodies are discovered, the final death toll in Mozambique alone could be above the early estimate of 1,000 made by the country’s president a few days after the cyclone hit, said aid workers.

Nearly 110,000 people are now in camps more than a week after Cyclone Idai hit, said Correia, the Mozambican government’s emergency coordinator. As efforts to rescue people trapped by the floods wind down, aid workers across the region are bracing for the spread of disease, including cholera and malaria.

Governments and aid agencies are warning that outbreaks of waterborne diseases such as cholera and malaria are now ‘unavoidable’.
Photograph: Wikus de Wet/AFP/Getty Images

Helicopters and boats have been used to rescue some people stranded for days on rooftops and in trees. Some survivors have been digging through rubble with their hands to search for loved ones, while government and aid agencies have been flying in help.

“We will have cholera, we will have malaria. It’s unavoidable in this situation, so the government is opening a cholera treatment centre already,” Correia told reporters.

Sebastian Rhodes Stampa, of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), said the humanitarian situation was gradually improving. “Every day the water recedes we reach more people. Every day the roads open we have better access and we can deliver at more volume and that is the important thing here.”

He said two large field hospitals and water purification systems were on their way, joining a wide-ranging effort that includes drones to scout out areas in need across the landscape of central Mozambique.

The scale of the devastation was “extraordinary”, he said, not only because of the cyclone and flooding but because the land had already had been saturated by earlier rains.

Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report

Ethiopian Airlines questions Boeing's 'aggressive' software

Workers service an Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 737-800 plane at the Bole International Airport in Ethiopia's capital Addis Ababa, January 26, 2017. REUTERS/Amr Abdallah Dalsh/File Photo

Jason Neely-MARCH 24, 2019 

ADDIS ABABA (Reuters) - An Ethiopian Airlines executive questioned whether Boeing had told pilots enough about “aggressive” software that pushes a plane’s nose down, a focus of investigation into a deadly crash in Ethiopia this month.

Comments by the CEO and vice president of the airline this weekend will fuel a debate over the safety of Boeing’s 737 MAX aircraft, two of which have crashed in similar circumstances in the last five months.

Ethiopian Airlines, Africa’s most profitable airline, has robustly defended its own safety record, training and procedures after the crash on March 10 that killed 157 people.

Attention has focused on software called Maneuver Characteristics Augmentation System, or MCAS, and the sensors that activate it. MCAS pushes the plane’s nose down if it believes it is ascending at too steep an angle.

“After the crash it came to our attention that the system is aggressive,” Yohannes Hailemariam, vice president for flight operations at Ethiopian, told local reporters speaking in the Amharic language.

“It gives a message of stalling and it takes immediate action which is faster than the action which pilots were briefed to take by Boeing,” said Yohannes, himself a pilot with over 30 years of experience, including flying Boeing’s 777 and 787.

Boeing has repeatedly refused to comment on the crash citing rules set out by the Montreal-based International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) which limit what those involved, other than the airline, say during a crash investigation.

LOW ALTITUDE

The Ethiopian Airlines crash and an October crash by Indonesia’s Lion Air killed 346 people in total and sparked the biggest crisis in decades for Boeing.

The company has lost about $28 billion from its market share and the MAX — its best selling plane ever — is now grounded with questions over orders worth more than $500 billion.

If MCAS activates at low altitude, it gives pilots little time to react, Yohannes said. Both crashes involving the 737 MAX 8 happened minutes after take-off.

Yohannes noted that the manufacturer had issued a bulletin to the industry after the Lion Air crash.
“All pilots and operators knew about MCAS after Boeing disclosed that,” he said.

“The bulletin shows procedures for how to stop it when this happens, but it doesn’t have training.”
The airline followed up with computer-based training which took cockpit crew one to two hours, Yohannes said.

FILE PHOTO: Ethiopian Federal policemen stand at the scene of the Ethiopian Airlines Flight ET 302 plane crash, near the town of Bishoftu, southeast of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia March 11, 2019. REUTERS/Tiksa Negeri/File Photo

ORDERS IN DOUBT

Teams from the three U.S. airlines that own 737 MAX jets were also heading to Boeing’s factory in Renton, Washington over the weekend to review a software upgrade.

In a sign of the effect on Boeing’s business, Indonesia’s Garuda wants to dump a $6 billion order for 49 of the grounded planes.

Garuda rival Lion Air is also weighing what to do its order - 190 Boeing jets worth $22 billion at list prices.

At the same news conference, Ethiopia Airline’s chief executive rejected media reports that optional equipment for Boeing 737 MAX planes could have prevented this month’s crash.

Boeing offered airlines an optional indicator to show if two sensors showing the steepness of the ascent - the so-called “angle of attack” sensors - disagreed with each other, which would indicate a faulty sensor.

Some media reports have questioned whether having this installed may have helped the Ethiopian Airlines cockpit crew regain control of flight ET 302.

 

CEO Tewolde Gebremariam said it was important not to confuse safety-critical equipment with optional items.

“When Boeing supplies aircraft there are items which are mandatory for safety and then there are optional items,” he said. “The angle of attack indicator was on the optional list along with the inflight entertainment system.”

He echoed the words of Norwegian Air which said it had not selected the cockpit light warning of discrepancies between angle of attack sensors for its fleet of 18 MAX 8 aircraft.

additional reporting by Jamie Freed in Singapore, Cindy Silviana and Bernadette Christina Munthe in Jakarta, David Shepardson in Washington and Eric M. Johnson in Seattle; editing by Katharine Houreld and Keith Weir

Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

The Wandering Earth: why you need to see China’s latest sci-fi blockbuster

March 19, 2019 8.33am EDT

As China demonstrated its space credentials by landing a lunar probe on the far side of the moon in January 2019, a science fiction movie was hitting mainland cinemas that could also redefine China’s credentials as a maker of global cinema.

The Wandering Earth, directed by Frant Gwo is the world’s highest-grossing film so far in 2019 with box office takings of almost US$700m at last count – mainly from China itself. The film is based on the novela of the same title, written in 2000 by Chinese science-fiction author Liu Cixin, about Earth’s migration to a new solar system to escape annihilation.

Liu Cixin (left) and Frant Gwo at a promotional function for The Wandering Earth. Netflix

Liu was at the forefront of Chinese science fiction in the 1980s, an era where China reconnected with the world after its long internal political struggles of the Cultural Revolution in the 1960s and the 1970s. Liu’s first full-length novel China2185, written in 1989, combines a utopian futuristic vision with critical commentary on the social and political issues facing China. China2185 was never officially published but it was distributed free via multiple online reading platforms and is considered by critics as the foundation novel for Chinese science fiction.

Liu has continued to write and publish stories which share similar ideas, a vision for a better world through scientific fantasy. These novels include The Devil’s Bricks (2002), The Era of Supernova (2003), Ball Lightning (2004) and The Three-Body Problem trilogy. The latter trilogy, which was given rave reviews by both Barack Obama and Mark Zuckerberg, was adapted as a screenplay for a film under the same title, but has yet to see the light of day. Amazon also reportedly has plans for a three-part, US$1 billion TV series.

Liu won a fistful of awards including the 2015 Hugo Award for best novel for the English translation of The Three-Body Problem trilogy and the 2018 Arthur C. Clarke Award for Imagination in Service to Society as well as various nominations.

Love letter

Clarke is one of Liu’s idols, as well as George Orwell – who, he said: “showed me that science fiction can reflect and critique reality from an angle that does not exist in mainstream literature”. His great filmic influences include Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), James Cameron’s Terminator 2 (1991), and Christopher Nolan’s Interstellar (2014).

Liu’s Wandering Earth is meant as a love letter – not only to his literary and cinematic idols but also his ideal of humanity. But the film is also a demonstration to a global audience what the modern Chinese film industry can achieve. It is an epic on the scale that can comfortably compete with Hollywood blockbusters, the first real break-out success for China’s sci-fi industry after several failures, including Future X-Cops (2010) or Bleeding Steel (2017) neither of which made a mark internationally.

The film was released on February 5, 2019 – the New Year holiday in China – and was marketed as emblematic of national pride. Catching up with Hollywood has long been a state-driven ambition for the Chinese film industry – which has been given the hopeful tag of “Huallywood”. It’s a massive production – a total budget of $50m involving more than 7,000 cast and crew. Special effects and post-production featured international companies such as Base FX, Bottleship VFX, Dexter Studios, Macrograph, More VFX, Pixomondo and Black Nomad and the end product has a similar look to films such as Gravity (2013) or The Martian (2015). It’s a story of growing confidence and sophistication among Chinese filmmakers.

Manifesto for a new China

It’s also a story which reflects China’s growing geopolitical importance. Earth faces annihilation at the hands of an ageing and rapidly expanding sun. A United Earth Government takes the decision to propel the planet to another system by using enormous thrusters running on fusion power built across the planet but coordinated by China – now the dominant global power. China’s leadership qualities are encapsulated in a sequence where a speech delivered by a Chinese schoolgirl turns global despondency about the dangers of the mission into hope for the future.

Jin Mai Jaho as Han Duoduo. Netflix

Like so many Hollywood sci-fi movies in the past have promoted American values, the film delivers a manifesto of Chinese exceptionalism. Only China has engineers capable in solving this complex problem. Only China has the will and the leadership to see the world through a crisis so huge that even the artificial intelligence that has been harnessed to help has told the rest of the world to just give up. I will leave it to you to draw your own conclusions about the message this aims to deliver about global crises faced by our own world today.

As well as China itself, the film has been released in the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand where it is doing brisk box office. A UK theatrical release date has yet to be announced, but Netflix has acquired the film’s global digital rights (apart from China). It will be a chance for non-Chinese audiences to get a feel for the sort of themes that mainstream film audiences are used to now in China, themes that reflect a new world order that is developing at an ever-more rapid pace.

A case against a moratorium on germline gene editing

Gene editing technology is revolutionising biology – and now twin human baby girls may be a living part of this story. Source: 895Studio/Shutterstock

March 21 at 9:33 PM · 

SHOULD researchers put the brakes on genetically engineering babies?

Leading scientists and ethicists recently called for a moratorium on clinical applications of germline gene editing: inheritable alterations to the DNA of embryos to improve kids’ health or other features – or just “gene editing,” for short.

This declaration was prompted in part by the birth last year of the first gene-edited babies in China. The birth was roundly condemned by experts and may result in charges against He Jiankui, the lead scientist involved.

The call for a moratorium is grounded in two main concerns. Its supporters assert, first, that the risks of gene editing are simply too uncertain and potentially large to proceed. Secondly, the deeply controversial nature and potential social impact of altering human DNA means researchers need “broad societal consensus” before proceeding.

SEE ALSO: What we risk as humans if we allow gene-edited babies

The authors suggest a five-year pause to wait for more scientific progress and public dialogue. At that point, the authors propose, societies may choose to begin a path forward for gene editing, if risks are deemed acceptable and the process is fully transparent.

However, several scientists have pushed back against the call for a moratorium, including gene-editing pioneer Jennifer Doudna and geneticist George Church. As a biomedical ethicist, I believe the objectors raise valid concerns about the relevance and usefulness of a moratorium that are worth reflecting upon.

Plenty everyone agrees on

To be sure, those for and against a moratorium actually agree on some key points.

Almost no one thinks the world is ready for clinical trials today, as more basic science is needed to minimize risks likeediting the wrong bits of DNA, or “mosaicism,” where some but not all DNA in an embryo is altered. He Jiankui’s rogue science was clearly unethical for this and other reasons, including a lack of transparency and flaws in informed consent.

There is also no pushback against the idea that the world needs to have a public conversation about gene editing. Do you want to live in a society where embryos’ DNA is edited in order to improve the lives of the next generation? Are the risks of gene editing worth the benefits? Can and should we draw a bright line between editing for disease prevention and editing for enhancement? These questions cannot be answered only by experts, and require substantial public engagement.

Nevertheless, a divide over other issues remains.

Moratorium redundant where laws already exist

Already, over 30 countries prohibit this sort of gene editing, either by law, regulation or enforceable guidelines. For this reason, it was quite easy for the director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health to endorse the proposed moratorium – the NIH, the largest public funder of biomedical research in the world, is already prohibited by law from funding clinical applications of gene editing. So a moratorium is at best redundant in those nations, perpetuating the status quo.

It is also liable to cause confusion. If a country or scientific body announces a moratorium as recommended, this could misleadingly imply that germline editing was previously permitted and unregulated. It could also suggest that some countries’ bans will expire in five years, when currently none has a time-limited prohibition.

Arbitrariness of a blunt instrument

At the same time, I believe a moratorium could work in countries that currently lack prohibitions on gene editing. It could help prevent rogue scientists from seeking environments that are relatively unregulated to pursue dubious experiments. This is what happened with the first births using mitochondrial replacement (so-called “3-parent IVF”): An American fertility doctor carried out part of the procedure in Mexico because he perceived the rules as laxer there.

Additionally, the call can be heard as an argument for reform of current laws and regulations: Society should revisit prohibitions and – depending on the evidence and popular opinion – consider rescinding them in five years’ time.

SEE ALSO: What do China’s gene-edited twins mean for the future of science?

But some researchers remain concerned that a moratorium is an overly crude and arbitrary means of regulating a controversial new technology. While the technology is currently not fit for clinical use, are scientists so certain that it still won’t be within five years’ time? More flexible regulatory frameworks that do not include arbitrary timelines could better adapt to rapid scientific developments and shifts in public perceptions.

A call for public input – without public input

Finally, it’s unclear whether a moratorium is consistent with the democratic norms that the proponents of a moratorium espouse. In particular, they reiterate the idea that researchers should only proceed with germline gene editing if there is broad societal consensus on how to proceed.

But shouldn’t a moratorium itself be subject to the requirement of broad societal consensus? Blanket prohibitions will have a substantial impact not just on the scientific community but on access for the rest of society to the potential fruits of research – a potential infringement of the human right to benefit from science. Whether that infringement is justified is an important question that cannot be answered by experts alone.

Chinese scientist He Jiankui speaks at the Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing in Hong Kong on November 28, 2018. Source: Anthony Wallace/AFP

To some extent, democratic countries that ban gene editing will have already undergone typical (if flawed) democratic processes to come to that decision. But in places that the moratorium is not redundant, it is reasonable to demand broad societal consensus before proceeding with a moratorium that even leading scientists don’t all agree on.

The cautious may argue that a presumption against gene editing is warranted before consensus can be established, because of the substantial individual risks and societal impact of proceeding to alter the human genome for future generations. However, those societal risks are very substantial only if gene editing quickly becomes widespread. That is something careful regulation rather than a blanket prohibition might be well-suited to address.

In addition, I see it as somewhat problematic for experts to impose their own personal assessment of whether the risks outweigh the benefits of gene editing on the rest of society. Weighing risks and benefits is a fundamentally ethical issue, not one where scientific expertise can resolve the matter.

In the end, though, there seems to be broad agreement on the need for greater public deliberation over the questions related to germline gene editing: on whether gene editing is permissible, on whether a moratorium is appropriate – and more fundamentally, on what sort of a society we all want to live in.

G. Owen Schaefer, Research Assistant Professor in Biomedical Ethics, National University of Singapore

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.