China & India Ranked World’s Biggest Military Spenders Trailing US

Authentic news,No fake news.

By Thalif Deen

Credit: SIPRI

UNITED NATIONS, Apr 29 2020 (IPS) - China and India, which went to war back in 1962 largely over a disputed Himalayan border– and continue a longstanding battle for military supremacy in Asia– have set a new record in arms spending.

For the first time, the world’s two most populous nations, accounting for a total of over 2.7 billion people, are now among the top three military spenders, ranking behind the United States.

In its latest report on global military expenditures, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) says the five largest spenders in 2019, accounting for 62 per cent of expenditures, were the United States, China, India, Russia and Saudi Arabia, in descending order.

China’s military expenditure reached $261 billion in 2019, a 5.1 per cent increase compared with 2018, while India’s grew by 6.8 per cent to $71.1 billion.

Total global military expenditure rose to $1.9 trillion in 2019, representing an increase of 3.6 per cent from 2018 and the largest annual growth in spending since 2010.

“These numbers would be staggering in any context, but in the middle of a global pandemic we have even more reason to be alarmed,” said Tori Bateman, Policy Advocacy Coordinator for the American Friends Service Committee.

“Instead of spending trillions on preparing for destructive wars, the United States and other countries across the globe should be protecting and providing for their people by investing in public health,” he noted.

Dr. Natalie J. Goldring, a Senior Fellow and Adjunct Full Professor with the Security Studies Program in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, told IPS military spending by China and India likely reflects both their mutual rivalry within the region and their individual quests for power in the global context.

The two countries also faced a border standoff in 2017.

She pointed out that the SIPRI data indicate the extent to which many countries, especially the United States, have profoundly misplaced budget priorities.

Unfortunately, many national leaders seem to see military spending as an indicator of national prestige, said Dr Goldring, who is a Visiting Professor of the Practice in Duke University’s Washington DC program and also represents the Acronym Institute at the United Nations on conventional weapons and arms trade issues.

“From the perspective of those of us who support decreasing military spending, heads of state bragging about their countries’ military prowess often reflects toxic masculinity”.

President Trump is a prominent example of this phenomenon, she declared.

Credit: SIPRI

Asked about the record spending by the two Asian giants, Siemon Wezeman, Senior Researcher at SIPRI’s Arms and Military Expenditure Programme, told IPS: “The main reasons are: perception or even reality of threats.”

China, he pointed out, looks with suspicion and worry at its surroundings and its interests further away (including resources on which China is dependent from the Middle East and Africa; markets and protection of export transport lines on which it is also dependent).

This includes a worry about US power and intentions.

India, at war with Pakistan, has internal conflicts and fears a big and growing China hovering at the contested Chinese-Indian border, he noted.

China, being allied with Pakistan, friendly with Myanmar, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka, also sees India’s unhealthy interest in the Indian Ocean, said Wezeman.

“They both think of themselves as major powers, and China even as a superpower.

And both seem to believe that any major or superpower status is partly based on military might,” he noted.

So, both are building up significant military forces not only for home defence but also for potential operations away from the homeland, armed with high-tech weapons from an expanding local arms industry – all expensive, said Wezeman.

Certainly for China, he argued, the military and the People’s Armed Police, (which we count as enough military-trained and equipped to be included in our estimate of China’s military spending) are a cornerstone of government control over the population.

According to SIPRI, the United States once again dominates the rest of the world in its military spending, accounting for 38 percent of global military spending in 2019, more than the next nine countries combined.

Reacting to the latest SIPRI report, 39 U.S.-based think-tanks, non-profits, and faith-based organizations released a statement calling on the U.S. government to reduce military spending, according to the American Friends Service Committee.

Meanwhile, China accounted for 14 percent of the global total military expenditures in 2019. India (3.7 percent), Russia (3.4 percent), and Saudi Arabia (estimated at 3.2 percent) were closely bunched in third, fourth, and fifth places.

Global military expenditure was 7.2 per cent higher in 2019 than it was in 2010, showing a trend that military spending growth has accelerated in recent years,’ said Dr Nan Tian, SIPRI Researcher.

‘This is the highest level of spending since the 2008 global financial crisis and probably represents a peak in expenditure.’

Asked about the negative impact of the coronavirus crisis on future military spending, Dr Goldring told IPS no one knows what the full consequences of the coronavirus will be.

She said economists warn of the prospect of a global depression, while also arguing that many countries are already experiencing recession.

The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently warned that the coronavirus is likely to return in the fall, and that it may be even more difficult to manage than is currently the case.

“It’s time for countries to reevaluate their priorities. Otherwise, although military spending and arms transfers may decrease as a result of the economic effects of the coronavirus, these decreases are likely to only be temporary.”

“The coronavirus tests countries’ willingness to put their people’s needs first. Unfortunately, we’ll only be able to determine in retrospect whether that has happened, as we examine the extent to which countries reallocate funds from military spending to meet people’s critical needs, including their needs for food, water, shelter, health care, and physical safety.”

“This is no time for business as usual,” said Dr Goldring

Wezeman said: “We don’t like to predict the future. Everyone agrees now that the covid-19 crisis will result in a severe economic crisis already this year”.

He said the International Monetary Fund (IMF) expects gross domestic product (GDP) to go down in many states or at least grow much less than expected just a few months ago.

“This will impact on government income and on spending priorities – while health care, social spending, investments to get the economy going again are probably in many states going to be a higher priority than defence.”

That is what happened, he said, in recent economic crises such as in 2008-2009 and the late-1990. In some states, cuts have already been made (e.g. Thailand, Malaysia).

However, military spending does not only depend on the economy — other issues are part of the decision on how much to spend, especially threat perceptions, that may be found in some states are more important than other government spending posts, he noted.

While some funds in military spending are more flexible (mainly on acquisitions of equipment) that can be cut fast, mostly spending is quite fixed (salaries and pensions make up a very large part of military spending in most states) and thus the cuts or reduced growth in military spending can only be implemented over a few years, Wezeman declared.

*Thalif Deen is a former Director, Foreign Military Markets at Defense Marketing Services (DMS);
a Senior Defense Analyst at Forecast International; and military editor Middle East/Africa at Jane’s Information Group.

May 3rd marks World Press Freedom Day

Authentic news,No fake news.

By Josef Benedict

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Apr 29 2020 (IPS) - May 3rd marks World Press Freedom Day around the world. During this COVID-19 pandemic, a robust media environment is critical: access to life-saving information is key in the fight against the virus. As governments impose a range of restrictions in attempts to curb the pandemic, journalists help hold authorities to account by providing analysis, engaging in debate about government actions, and creating a space for dialogue about the future we all hope to see.

However, civic freedoms are under assault across the world. Data released by the CIVICUS Monitor in its People Power Under Attack report — which rates and tracks respect for fundamental freedoms in 196 countries — shows that compared to the previous year, twice as many people are living in countries where the freedoms of association, peaceful assembly, and expression are being violated.

In Asia, the percentage of people living in countries with closed, repressed or obstructed civic space is now at 95 percent. There has been growing intolerance for dissent in this region and states are increasingly using restrictive laws or intimidation tactics to muzzle activists and critics. In the past year, numerous Asian governments – from Pakistan to Hong Kong – used excessive force to disrupt protests, while civil society organisations critical of the authorities faced smear campaigns or were forced to shut down.

This has made the Asian region an extremely repressive and dangerous place for journalists and media outlets to operate. Many seeking to expose human rights violations and corruption by those in power, or who try to amplify voices critical of the state, often put themselves in harm’s way.

Journalists are also being criminalised in many countries in Asia for their reporting. In the Philippines, Maria Ressa, executive editor of news website Rappler, which has published extensively on abuses in President Duterte’s ‘war on drugs,’ has faced baseless cases of tax evasion and libel. In Myanmar, authorities have repeatedly targeted journalists, while in Cambodia, Prime Minister Hun Sen has attempted to silence the few remaining independent journalists and media outlets in the country. Cambodian Radio Free Asia journalists, Yeang Sothearin and Uon Chhin, continue to face fabricated espionage charges since 2017 for their reporting, despite the lack of any credible evidence against them.

Even in a country like India, where the press has played a crucial role in protecting the country’s democracy since its independence, journalists now feel under attack. Kishorechandra Wangkhem, a journalist from Manipur, spent a year in prison under the draconian National Security Act for posting a video on social media criticising the ruling party.

Governments are also increasing the use of censorship to block the flow of news in the Asian region.

The Chinese Communist Party is the main perpetrator as it continues to expand its censorship regime, blocking critical media outlets and social media sites. In Bangladesh, the authorities have blocked Al Jazeera and numerous other news portals and websites critical of the state. While in countries like Singapore, the authorities have targeted independent news websites such as The Online Citizen, to suppress its critical reporting. States also have used internet shutdowns to block reporting, for example, in places like Indian-administered Kashmir, in Chin and Rakhine states in Myanmar, and in West Papua in Indonesia.

Across Asia, journalists are also facing physical attacks, threats and intimidation from the authorities and other non-state actors. Afghanistan remains one of the most dangerous countries for journalists. Dozens of journalists have been attacked by security forces and members of armed groups. Ten journalists were shot dead in 2019 by unknown gunmen and some were abducted by armed groups.

In the Philippines there is a culture of impunity around attacks and killing of journalists, with perpetrators rarely held to account. In 2019, radio journalist Eduardo Dizon, who often reported on corruption, was shot dead while on his way home in Kidapawan City after hosting a daily news commentary show. He sustained five gunshot wounds when two gunmen on a motorcycle stopped beside his car at a corner and shot him.

Journalists are also going missing. Shafiqul Islam Kajol, a leading Bangladeshi photojournalist and newspaper editor, is believed to have been forcibly disappeared on 10 March, a day after defamation charges were filed against him by an influential ruling party lawmaker.

These threats to press freedom are being exacerbated as we combat the COVID-19 pandemic. As governments attempt to control the narrative, combat misinformation and silence criticism, journalists are in the firing line.

In February, Chinese freelance journalist Li Zehua went missing. He had traveled to Wuhan from Beijing to report on the COVID-19 outbreak and had posted a video saying that a local neighbourhood committee had not carried out the basic countermeasures promised by authorities and had also tried to cover up information about infected cases in the community.

In the Philippines, two journalists were charged in early April for spreading “false information” about the country’s COVID-19 crisis. While in Cambodia, police arrested a journalist, Sovann Rithy, for quoting the country’s prime minister who spoke about the economic consequences of COVID-19. The authorities also revoked the license for Rithy’s news site.

Most recently, in a blatant attempt to use the pandemic to intimidate a leading media outlet in India, Siddharth Varadarajan, founding editor of The Wire, was charged for reporting on a government minister violating the country’s coronavirus lockdown. These cases highlight a worrying trend that must be checked before it deteriorates further.

Therefore, it is crucial now more than ever for us to push back on these attacks and restrictions to press freedom. Individuals and their communities cannot protect themselves against disease when information is denied to them. The protection of the media is a protection of the public’s right to information. As we mark this important day for press freedom, we must ensure that journalism thrives and plays its essential role of informing the public and holding officials accountable.

• Josef Benedict is a Civic Space Researcher with CIVICUS, the global civil society alliance. He covers Asia-Pacific.

Religious freedom watchdog pitches adding India to blacklist

Authentic news,No fake news.

NEW YORK (AP) — The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom is urging that the State Department add India to its list of nations with uniquely poor records on protecting freedom to worship — while proposing to remove Sudan and Uzbekistan from that list.

(1 of 1) An Indian Muslim man prays in a Mosque during the nationwide lockdown to prevent the spread of new coronavirus in Gauhati, India, Monday, April 27, 2020. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom is urging that the State Department add India to its list of nations with uniquely poor records on protecting freedom to worship, while proposing to remove Sudan and Uzbekistan from that list.

April 29, 2020

The bipartisan commission, created in 1998 by Congress to make policy recommendations about global religious freedom, proposed designating India as a “country of particular concern” in the annual report it released Tuesday. That lower ranking for a long-running U.S. ally amounts to a stark show of disapproval of India's divisive new citizenship law, which has sparked broad worries about disenfranchisement of Muslims.

President Donald Trump declined to criticize the citizenship measure during his February visit to India, where his meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi was punctuated by skirmishes between Hindus and Muslims.

The commission, by contrast, is empowered as an independent arbiter to look only at nations' religious freedom records, apart from their relationship with the United States, vice chair Nadine Maenza said.

Beyond the citizenship law, Maenza said in an interview, India has a broader “move toward clamping down on religious minorities that’s really troublesome.” A spokesman for India's Ministry of External Affairs, Anurag Srivastava, responded to the report with a statement blasting the commission's “biased and tendentious comments against" that nation. Noting that some members dissented from the commission's decision to recommend India for the lowest ranking of religious freedom protections, Srivastava appeared to use the commission's internal terminology as a dig.

“We regard (the commission) as an organization of particular concern and will treat it accordingly,” he said. In the cases of Sudan and Uzbekistan, the Trump administration got out ahead of the commission in raising its ranking of religious freedom protections. The State Department decided in December to no longer rank Sudan as a nation “of particular concern" after having taken Uzbekistan off the list earlier.

Following last year's military ouster of authoritarian leader, Omar al-Bashir, new Sudanese Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok met with the commission and committed to improve religious freedom, Maenza said.

Among the other significant recommendations in Tuesday's report was a call for the U.S. government to “exert significant pressure on Turkey to provide a timeline for its withdrawal from Syria.” Turkey's incursion into northern Syria last fall sparked broad concern about resulting threats to religious minorities in the region.

The commission proposed four other nations join India in the ranks of most egregious religious freedom offenders; Nigeria, Russia, Syria and Vietnam. The State Department's current list of “countries of particular concern” regarding religious freedom includes China, Saudi Arabia, North Korea and Iran.

Inclusion among the nations with the poorest religious freedom records can lead to new sanctions, although the executive branch is also empowered to rely on already-imposed sanctions or issue a waiver.

Sudan and Uzbekistan are currently on a State Department watch list for nations where religious freedom infringement is not as widespread, constant and significant as those in the lowest-ranked tier.

The commission's latest annual report recommends the addition of 11 more nations that the State Department has not yet put on that watch list: Afghanistan, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, the Central African Republic, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Malaysia and Turkey.

The Russia-Saudi Oil-Price War Is a Fraud and a Farce

Authentic news,No fake news.

By Mike Whitney

Global Research, April 16, 2020

Region: Middle East & North Africa, Russia and FSU, USA

Theme: Global Economy, Media Disinformation, Oil and Energy

The Russia-Saudi oil-price war is a fabrication concocted by the media. There’s not a word of truth to any of it. Yes, there was a dust up at an OPEC meeting in early March that led to production increases and plunging prices. That part is true. But Saudi Arabia’s oil-dumping strategy wasn’t aimed at Russia, it was aimed at US shale oil producers. But not for the reasons you’ve read about in the media.

The Saudis aren’t trying to destroy the US shale oil business. That’s another fiction. They just want US producers to play by the rules and pitch in when prices need support. That might seem like a stretch, but it’s true.

You see, US oil producers are not what-you’d-call “team players”. They don’t cooperate with foreign producers, they’re not willing to share the costs of flagging demand, and they never lift a finger to support prices. US oil producers are the next-door-neighbor that parks his beat-up Plymouth on the front lawn and then surrounds it with rusty appliances. They don’t care about anyone but themselves.

What Putin and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman want is for US producers to share the pain of oil production cuts in order to stabilize prices. It’s an entirely reasonable request. Here’s a clip from an article at oilprice.com that helps to explain what’s really going on:

“… there was a sliver of hope that oil prices may rebound after Reuters reported that Saudi Arabia, Russia and allied oil producers will agree to deep cuts to their crude output at talks this week but only if the United States and several others join in with curbs to help prop up prices that have been hammered by the coronavirus crisis. However, in an attempt to have its cake and eat it too, the U.S. DOE said on Tuesday that U.S. output is already falling without government action, in line with the White House’s insistence that it would not intervene in the private markets….

… OPEC+ will require the United States to make cuts in order to come to an agreement: The EIA report today demonstrates that there are already projected cuts of 2 (million bpd), without any intervention from the federal government,” the U.S. Energy Department said.

That is not enough for OPEC+ however, and certainly not Russia, which on Wednesday made clear that market-driven declines in oil production shouldn’t be considered as cuts intended to stabilize the market, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov tells reporters on conference call.

“These are completely different cuts. You are comparing the overall demand drop with cuts to stabilize global markets. It’s like comparing length and width,” Peskov said…..Moscow’s participation is highly contingent on the US, and is unlikely to agree to output cuts if the US does not join the effort.” (“Historic Oil Deal On The Verge Of Collapse As Russia Balks At U.S. ‘Cuts’”, oilprice.com)

Putin is being reasonable and fair. If everyone else is forced to cut supply, then US oil producers should have to cut supply too. But they don’t want to share the pain, so they’ve settled on a strategy for weaseling out of it. They want their reductions in output (from weak demand during the pandemic) to count as “production cuts”. They even have a name for this swindle, they call it “organic production cuts”, which means no cuts at all. This is the way hucksters do business not responsible adults.

What does Putin want from this deal?

Price stability. Yes, he’d like to see prices settle somewhere north of $45 per barrel but that’s not going to happen for a while. The combination of a weaker demand (due to the coronavirus) and oversupply (from the Saudis flooding the market) have ensured that prices will remain low for the foreseeable future. Even so, Putin understood what the Saudis were doing by flooding the market, and he knew it wasn’t directed at Russia. The Saudis were trying to persuade US oil producers to stop freeloading and cut production like everyone else. That’s the long and short of it. Check out this excerpt from an article by oil expert, Simon Watkins at oilprice.com:

Did the U.S. and the Saudis Conspire to Push Down Oil Prices?

“Saudi Arabia was continually peeved …(because) its efforts to keep oil prices up through various OPEC and OPEC+ agreements were allowing these very shale producers to make a lot more money than the Saudis, relatively speaking. The reason for this was that U.S. shale producers…. were not bound in to the OPEC/OPEC+ production quotas so could fill the output gaps created by OPEC producers.” (“The Sad Truth About The OPEC+ Production Cut”, Simon Watkins, oilprice.com)

This is what the media fails to tell their readers, that US oil producers– who don’t participate in any collective effort to stabilize prices– have been exploiting OPEC production quotas in order to fatten the bottom line at the expense of others. US producers figured out how to game the system and make a bundle in the process. Is it any wonder why the Saudis were pissed?? Here’s more from the same article:

“This allowed the U.S. a rolling 3-4 million bpd advantage over Saudi in the oil exports game, meaning that it quickly became the world’s number one oil producer…. Hence, Saudi Arabia decided initially to unilaterally announce its intention for the last OPEC+ deal to be much bigger than that which it had pre-agreed with Russia, hoping to ambush the Russians into agreeing. Russia, however, turned around and told Saudi Arabia to figuratively go and reproduce with itself. MbS,… then decided to launch an all-out price war.” (oilprice.com)

So you can see that this really had nothing to do with Russian at all. The Crown Prince was simply frustrated at the way US oil producers were gaming the system, which is why he felt like he had to respond by flooding the market. The obvious target was the US shale oil industry that was taking advantage of the quotas, refusing to cooperate with fellow oil producers and generally freeloading off the existing quota system.

And what’s funny, is that as soon as the Saudis started putting the screws to the US fracking gang, they all scampered off to Washington en masse to beg for help from Papa Trump. Which is why Trump decided to make emergency calls to Moscow and Riyadh to see if he could hash out a deal.

It’s worth noting that domestic oil producers have been involved in other dodgy activities in the past. Check out this excerpt from an article in the Guardian in 2014, the last time oil prices crashed:

“After standing at well over $110 a barrel in the summer, the cost of crude has collapsed. Prices are down by a quarter in the past three months….

Think about how the Obama administration sees the state of the world. It wants Tehran to come to heel over its nuclear programme. It wants Vladimir Putin to back off in eastern Ukraine. But after recent experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, the White House has no desire to put American boots on the ground. Instead, with the help of its Saudi ally, Washington is trying to drive down the oil price by flooding an already weak market with crude. As the Russians and the Iranians are heavily dependent on oil exports, the assumption is that they will become easier to deal with…

The Saudis did something similar in the mid-1980s. Then, the geopolitical motivation for a move that sent the oil price to below $10 a barrel was to destabilize Saddam Hussein’s regime….

Washington’s willingness to play the oil card stems from the belief that domestic supplies of energy from fracking make it possible for the US to become the world’s biggest oil producer. In a speech last year, Tom Donilon, then Barack Obama’s national security adviser, said the US was now less vulnerable to global oil shocks. The cushion provided by shale oil and gas “affords us a stronger hand in pursuing and implementing our national security goals”. (“Stakes are high as US plays the oil card against Iran and Russia”, The Guardian)

This excerpt shows that Washington is more than willing to use the “oil card” if it helps to achieve its geopolitical objectives. Not surprisingly, good buddy, Saudi Arabia, has historically played a key role in helping to promote those goals. The current incident, however, is the exact opposite. The Saudis aren’t helping the US achieve its objectives, quite the contrary, they’re lashing out in frustration. They feel like they’re being squeezed by Washington (and US producers) and they want to prove that they have the means to fight back. Flooding the market was just MBS’s way of “letting off steam”.

Trump understands this, but he also understands who ultimately calls the shots, which is why he took the unusual step of explicitly warning the Saudis that they’d better shape up and step in line or there’d be hell to pay. Here’s a little background that will help to connect the dots:

“..the deal made in 1945 between the U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Saudi King at the time, Abdulaziz, that has defined the relationship between the two countries ever since… the deal that was struck between the two men on board the U.S. Navy cruiser Quincy… was that the U.S. would receive all of the oil supplies it needed for as long as Saudi Arabia had oil in place, in return for which the U.S. would guarantee the security of the ruling House of Saud. The deal has altered slightly ever since the rise of the U.S. shale oil industry and Saudi Arabia’s attempt to destroy it from 2014 to 2016, in that the U.S. still guarantees the security of the House of Saud but it also expects Saudi Arabia not only to supply the U.S. with whatever oil it needs for as long as it can but also – and this is key to everything that has followed – it also allows the U.S. shale industry to continue to function and to grow.

As far as the U.S. is concerned, if t his means that the Saudis lose out to U.S. shale producers by keeping oil prices up but losing out on export opportunities to these U.S. firms then tough..

As U.S. President Donald Trump has made clear whenever he has sensed a lack of understanding on the part of Saudi Arabia for the huge benefit that the U.S. is doing the ruling family: “He [Saudi King Salman] would not last in power for two weeks without the backing of the U.S. military.” (“The Sad Truth About The OPEC+ Production Cut”, Simon Watkins, Oil Price)

Trump felt like he had to remind the Saudis how the system actually works: Washington gives the orders and the Saudi’s obey. Simple, right? In fact, the Crown Prince has already slashed oil production dramatically and is fully complying with Trump’s directives, because he knows if he doesn’t, he’s going to wind up like Saddam Hussein or Muammar Gaddafi.

Meanwhile, US shale oil producers won’t be required to make any cuts at all or, as the New York Times puts it: “It was not immediately clear if the Trump administration made a formal commitment to cut production in the United States.”

Got that? So everyone else cuts production, everyone else sees their revenues shrink, and everyone else pitches-in to put a floor under prices. Everyone except the “exceptional” American oil producers from the exceptional United States. They don’t have to do a damn thing.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

The original source of this article is Global Research

Could High Blood Pressure at Night Have an Effect on Your Brain?

Authentic news,No fake news.

Newswise — MINNEAPOLIS – Most people’s blood pressure goes down during the night, which doctors call “dipping.” But for some people, especially those with high blood pressure, their nighttime pressure stays the same or even goes up, called “reverse dipping.” A new study shows that people with high blood pressure and reverse dipping may be more likely to have small areas in the brain that appear damaged from vascular disease and associated memory problems. The study is published in the April 15, 2020, online issue of Neurology®, the medical journal of the American Academy of Neurology.

“These results add to the mounting evidence that shows the importance of vascular risk factors in contributing to memory problems,” said study author Adam M. Brickman, Ph.D., of Columbia University in New York, N.Y. “They also point to the potential impact of preventing high blood pressure through efforts such as maintaining a healthy weight, being physically active and having a healthy diet.”

The study involved 435 people with an average age of 59 who were enrolled in a study of aging in Venezuela. Their blood pressure was monitored for 24 hours at home with a device that took their pressure every 15 minutes during the day and every 30 minutes at night. They had brain scans to look for the small areas in the brain that appear damaged from vascular disease, called white matter hyperintensities. They also took tests of their memory and other thinking skills.

A majority of the people, 59%, had high blood pressure, which was defined as a 24-hour average of more than 130/80 mmHg, or were taking medication for high blood pressure. In half the people, the blood pressure dipped at night, in 40% it stayed the same, and in 10% it went up.

The researchers found that after adjusting for age, the people with high blood pressure and reverse dipping had over twice the amount of white matter hyperintensities as the other participants. They had an average of over six cubic centimeters of these white matter changes in the periventricular area of the brain, while the other participants had an average of 2.5 cubic centimeters or less.

Those with high blood pressure and the reverse dipping had lower scores on a memory test than the other participants. They had average scores of about 33 while the other participants had average scores of about 40. These differences in memory across groups were explained partially by the differences in blood pressure and dipping status.   

“It appears that reverse dipping may amplify the effects of high blood pressure on people’s cerebrovascular health and associated cognitive abilities,” Brickman said.

The study looked at people at one point in time. It does not show that nighttime blood pressure increases cause the white matter changes and memory problems. It only shows the association.

“Longer studies that follow people over time will be needed to determine whether these factors do indeed lead to white matter changes and memory problems, although our initial findings are indeed consistent with this hypothesis,” Brickman said.

He noted that the study included only middle-aged and older adults, so the results may not apply to people of other ages.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health.

As US Unemployment Hits a Staggering 22 Million, Will UN Layoffs Be Far Behind?

Authentic news,No fake news.

Credit: United Nations

UNITED NATIONS, Apr 17 2020 (IPS) - The deadly coronavirus COVID-19, which has shut down the UN secretariat in New York, along with 32 of its agencies globally, has forced over 37,500 UN staffers worldwide to work from their homes.

Asked about a decision to re-open the Secretariat building after nearly a month-long hiatus, UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said: “I don’t know. I think, some experts have said, it’s the virus that will decide.”

Still, there are several other lingering questions which remain unanswered– specifically against the backdrop of a severe new cash crisis threatening the survival of the UN and aggravated by a global economic meltdown.

If the crisis continues, will there be staff layoffs in a country where more than 22 million people have lost their jobs as a result of the pandemic.?

In New York city alone – host to the United Nations – it is estimated that 475,000 jobs will be lost by March 2021, and nearly 60,000 workers in the New York’s five boroughs will be out of work before July this year, according to a report last week from the city’s Independent Budget Office.

Among some of the questions raised by staffers: how long can the UN keep its staff on its payroll while the Organization is fast running out of cash– and is on an austerity drive freezing new recruitment?

If there are salary cuts, will they start at the top with senior management (as is done in several private sector firms in the US). Or will it start at the bottom?

And, equally important question by staffers: will medical coverage be affected?

As things stand, if UN staffers are laid off, they are unlikely to qualify for unemployment benefits from New York State because the UN is an international organization with its own independent status.

Meanwhile, will the global economic recession have a direct or an indirect impact on the estimated $53 billion UN Pension Fund on which UN retirees survive? What was the reason, for the sudden resignation of a senior official, which is being kept under wraps?

And what is the future of educational grants staffers are entitled to?

Credit: United Nations

Guy Candusso, a former First Vice President of the UN Staff Union, told IPS the UN was in bad shape financially long before this pandemic hit the Organization.

“We know member states are now under tremendous pressure but they still must step up and fulfill their obligations.”

If there are to be furloughs of staff, it should be the very last step taken by the organization, and done across all levels of staff and management, he argued.

“In any case, the Organization must continue to pay their medical insurance. It should not be cut as it is more necessary now than ever.”

Candusso also pointed out that UN staff in New York were never eligible for unemployment insurance.

“I don’t know if the current law passed by the US Congress makes UN staff eligible for any benefits,” he said.

In a letter to 92 heads of departments, regional commissions, special political missions and peacekeeping operations, Catherine Pollard, Under-Secretary-General for Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance, says contributions for regular budget assessments have “sharply declined” in the first quarter of 2020 relative to earlier years, and the payment of assessments by the 193 member states currently stands at 42 percent compared to 50 percent by this time in earlier years.

This has resulted in a collection gap of more than $220 million while outstanding contributions for regular budget have reached $2.27 billion, said Pollard.

As a result, the UN has decided to temporarily suspend all hiring for regular budget vacancies and limit all non-post expenses while postponing all discretionary spending unless it is directly and immediately linked to ongoing mandated activities—activities approved by the General Assembly, the UN’s highest policy making body.

Pollard also said that even peacekeeping operations face increasing liquidity pressure with outstanding contributions amounting to $3.16 billion.

Ian Richards, a UN Staff representative and former President of the 60,000-strong Coordinating Committee of International Staff Unions and Associations (CCISUA), told IPS there are a number of factors at play, and for this reason, it is too early to draw hard conclusions.

“Yes, governments have had to devote a lot of resources to trying to mitigate the impact of the crisis within their borders, and for some countries, money is limited.”

“But many also realise that efforts to fight this global pandemic at home and abroad are only as strong as the world’s weakest health systems and economies –and the world’s most vulnerable populations”.

“So. we are seeing aid budgets being redirected to this area,” he noted.

The UN’s ability to position itself in this area and demonstrate the importance of international coordination, is key to securing funding stability.

“Staff are certainly worried, but we all have a role to play here”, said Richards .

“At the same time, we need to be vigilant about vulnerable staff, such as those on temporary or uber-style contracts, falling through the gaps”.

“The Secretary-General has made assurances to protect a great many of them, but they are also the most impacted by the postponement of conferences and other activities,” he said.

Samir Sanbar, a former UN Assistant Secretary-General and head of the Department of Public Information (now re-christened Department of Global Communications) told IPS “unprecedented times require unprecedented creative handling”.

Focus on essential staff is crucial for the U.N. to survive when member states, particularly those unabashedly failing to pay their assessed dues, avert minimum required action.

He pointed out that many U.N. programmes and Funds, like UNDP, UNICEF,UNHCR and UNRWA depend on voluntary contributions.

Certain governments which are not even paying their mandatory dues may use the global virus as a pretext to avoid or delay payments.

The Secretary General who is trying his best called for ceasefire in conflicts but with limited results. And peacekeeping operations are increasingly vulnerable, said Sanbar.

Staff face risk of catching the virus working in close proximity while not getting adequate payment– let alone required per diem, he said.

Sanbar said countries contributing troops are more likely to focus on their internal needs while staff representatives who would normally meet to co-ordinate and propose action are limited by home confinement.

“Let us hope the obvious threat in varied forms inspires unity of thought and action among leadership and staff of all the U.N. system,” he declared.

Andreas Bummel, Executive Director, Democracy Without Borders, told IPS the liquidity crisis has been lingering for more than a year and major contributors should not be allowed to use the coronavirus pandemic as an excuse to continue withholding their dues.

A strong and functional UN is in the best interest of all member states and the world community, he said.