 Amazon is the latest tech giant to face an anti-trust case in the United States. What are the charges against the company? A high-level meeting was held at the United Nations to discuss the fight against tuberculosis. Where are we at in controlling this disease? And finally, Egypt is set to hold presidential elections in December, and Abdul Fateh El Sisi looks set to win a third term. What explains his vice-like grip on the country? This is the daily debrief. These are your stories for the day. The Federal Trade Commission in the United States in 17 states are suing tech giant Amazon for creating a monopoly. In this landmark case, Amazon stands charged with unfairly promoting its own platform and services and engaging in business practices that led users to pay more. Amazon may have become a vital part of life for many of us in many countries in the world, but activists have long called out a number of its practices for being both anti-labor and anti-consumer. While trade unions across the world have been fighting the company for its violations of workers' rights, this case has put the focus on its monopolistic practices. We go to Anish for more. Anish, very interesting times. We saw a case against Google being launched a few weeks ago by the Department of Justice, I believe, and now the FTC, which has been in the news a lot when it comes to issues of anti-trust and monopolies, is now going against Amazon. So maybe could you first give us a very, from a layman's perspective, a very brief idea of what really the case against Amazon is? It's slightly more complicated than, say, what other kind of similar anti-trust cases or litigations have happened with the FTC, say, against Google or even much earlier against Microsoft, because when it comes to Amazon, Amazon is pretty much a retail platform as well. It's not just a tech giant. So that is one of the issues where it comes. Primarily, the issue boils down to how it acts to pretty much cut off all competition of any kind of competition, not just among its sellers, but also pretty much all of its cash material. So what it does is like some of the practices that Amazon says is like standard retail practices, like bringing up discounts, bringing down prices so that it will prices become more attractive. But other than that, you also have issues of them actually. This is some of the litigations that have been raised. It's just like they would kick out or threaten sellers in their own platforms if they are selling outside of Amazon at a much cheaper rate. And that is possible because obviously, sellers have to put up a big share of their sales to Amazon. And very often, it's much cheaper for them to sell outside of Amazon, even though they do not want to completely do away with that option. They also kick out sellers for punished sellers from their full film and setters. Full film and setters are basically warehouses, storage units, which also conduct delivery services for these sellers, where you can send your products and then Amazon does pretty much the packaging, the delivery, warehousing everything for them. But it obviously comes with a higher share price and that is pretty much one of the other ways that they punish sellers. They also punish sellers if the same products that they sell is sold by others or any other platform at much lower rate. And that is also something that pretty much basically punishes sellers, dictates their rates, dictates them of how they want to conduct their business. And it pretty much, so Amazon stops being just a retail platform. It basically becomes the sort of monopolistic mega corporation that is controlling all sorts of mom-and-pop shop stores around the country. In any context also, what is likely to happen, for instance, if say the case against Amazon succeeds, if Amazon is found guilty of this kind of monopolistic behavior? It's very difficult to say because it's beginning with the fact that it's very, it is not that likely. It's a 50-50 chance at how things stand right now for Amazon to be even convicted of monopolistic behavior. But even if it does get convicted of it, it's more likely that they will be let off with a fight. And that has pretty much been the most stringent of practices that we have seen in the West, where monopolies have been allowed as long as corporates are willing to pay a couple of million dollars or a hundred million dollars in fines. And we have seen that in Europe, the US is far worse. We have seen many big tech companies completely going scot-free. And the fact that Amazon is fighting this case and not trying to come up with a settlement with the FTC or with a compromise, or even preempt the entire lawsuit by actually creating its own, you know, adjustments in its own structure and process clearly shows that it expects to win very easily from this entire litigation. And that speaks volumes about the, about how capitalism functions in the United States, where monopolies are allowed as long as they're big enough to actually pay their way through the system. And it is interesting because what Amazon has thrived on is, of course, one by offering convenience to users to sometimes offering low prices in various ways. But we also know that behind this, there is this whole system of very exploitative labor. We have seen labor movements across the world take up, you know, very powerful actions against Amazon. People have been suffering in various parts of the world. There's a make Amazon pay campaign, for instance. And now there's an interesting kind of a move that has sort of come out, come out against Amazon in terms of trying to target it from its monopolistic perspective. So thank you so much for talking to us. And we'll definitely be tracking this issue as time passes because it's definitely one of the more interesting cases of our time. Thank you so much. The UN General Assembly held its second high level meeting on the fight against tuberculosis on September 22nd. It couldn't have been more timely. TB kills approximately 1.5 million people a year and is the most deadly infectious disease according to experts. The fight against the disease is complicated by the emergence of a drug resistance strain, which is more difficult to cure. There are also questions if the global community is doing enough to ensure the availability of medicines. We go to Jozna Singh for more. Jozna, thank you so much for joining us. Quite a lot on the health agenda at the UN General Assembly, though that's not often talked about so much as the geopolitical issues. So may let's first start with the discussion around TB itself. We know that the important recently, for instance, TB became the most deadly infectious disease once again. There's been a lot of discussion on medication. So what were the kind of discussions at this high level summit on TB? So Prashant, during the UN General Assembly, there was a resolution that was passed on tuberculosis. And as always, the thing is that firstly, it was in 2018 that the first such resolution was passed. It was for the first time that the UN General Assembly had taken up TB as a major issue. So and also it was in the context of drug-resistant TB, which has been increasing across the world in the last 15 years or so. So UN did take note of that and it happened. And during this particular General Assembly, the idea was to take stock of the situation where have we come in the last five to six years and what is to be done. Now firstly, the problem is that we on most of the targets that the UN had set, UN has failed, the UN has said the world leaders have failed badly. For example, the idea was to raise a fund of $5 billion a year for research and development and other things to be done for tuberculosis. We are far, far short of it. We are nowhere close. And constantly, the reason given is that COVID-19 pandemic that started to, that did not allow much progress on the TB front. So while of course, because of COVID, tuberculosis faced a lot of back, I mean, it went, we lost a lot of decades of progress that we can't deny. But at the same time, even before that, the data shows that we were not really meeting the targets. So it is not good to just put it on the pandemic, but also what is the world leaders doing if they're not investing enough money on the deadliest of the disease. And just to give you an example, every year 1.6 million people die of tuberculosis. And that is the same as the population of Manhattan. So we are losing a Manhattan a year to tuberculosis. But in terms of the political will, one does not see. And it is the same thing that we are seeing now also in the declaration. It has some good words. It again talks about the same targets. It is again saying that we will need the targets, but by 2030. But we also know that in the past few years, the progress has been dismal. And there is no reason to believe it will change because the declaration doesn't really talk about the fact that, you know, you have something like intellectual property barriers, et cetera, which need to be addressed, more investment definitely has to be made. There has to be some words which talk about making things mandatory on part of the government and especially the developed countries to do so that tuberculosis, we can get rid of it by 2030. But we do not see any of that is strong language coming in the declaration. Yeah. Right. Also, I believe also there were other discussions, including on the pandemic treaty, some of which, you know, turned out to be a bit controversial. Also, could you maybe tell us what that is about as well? Yes. So there were three more topics that you are related to health that were part of UNGA and the declarations were made. The pandemic treaty, of course, is one of them. Then SDGs, which also has some portions regarding health and then the universal health coverage. So to note, I think the overall political, you know, things that happen around UNGA also shows the increasing polarization world over. So 11 countries actually wrote to the general body and the secretariat that they are not happy with the way declarations regarding health have been developed and are going to be issued during this. It is a very big thing. 11 countries which included countries like Bolivia, Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, all of these are the countries which are facing the unilateral coercive measures or unilateral sanctions by the United States. And they all said that we are suffering badly because of these sanctions and the process with which the UN itself is working is very problematic. So they wrote that there is no democratic process through which these declarations have been arrived at. Russia also joined this group of 11 countries and they made major objections to it. So it is like these countries actually represent one third of the population of the earth. So they have not agreed with these declarations. So I think this is something to take note of. And of course, there are major problems, especially with regard to pandemic treaty. And it is because these discussions are happening at so many levels. G20 is discussing it. We at the level of WHO we are discussing it. And essentially the pandemic treaty, the way it gets framed is something which is going to guide how we will treat future pandemics, which can happen. And so you do not see any strong language. It actually saying that the countries should have domestically fund any response in future, it is indicating something like this. It is impossible. It is the duty of the richer countries to really ensure that in a pandemic situation, they do fund the poorer nations and ensure that the pandemic does not spread. And it is because of their politics and their economics that the poor countries faced problems during COVID-19. So none of those learnings seem to have been taken on board while preparing this declaration. It is like it will not, it is so far from anything which can lead to equity or equitable access to medicines, medical products in the future. So that is a huge problem. And a lot of people have objected to it. Organizations like MSF, like AIDS Healthcare Foundation, they really objected to what is the way the declaration has come out, the wordings of the declaration. It does not talk about intellectual property barriers. It does not say that the big pharma companies cannot really make a killing out of a pandemic. So it is a problematic one. And next year when at the level of WHO, the pandemic treaty is being discussed, we hope that UNGA's declaration does not guide the outcome because otherwise the poor countries will be at a losing end. And these countries, 11 countries, really have taken a stand, which is strong. And we hope that other developing countries follow the suit. Right. Jyosa, thank you so much for that analysis of what happened at the UN General Assembly. I think it ties into a lot of the issues we have been talking about at the geopolitical level as well, at the level of financial institutions. Very similar issues, I think, being raised when it comes to health. So very important discussion to keep track of. Thank you so much. And finally, Egypt is set to hold presidential elections from December 10th. incumbent Abdul Fateh LCC is, of course, the favorite to win what could be his third term. LCC became the president in 2014 and has won two elections with such huge margins that many have questioned if they were even fair. The same concerns remain about the upcoming elections as well. Under CC, both the economic condition and human rights situation have declined. But with the help of his foreign allies, he is held on to power. We go to Abdul for an early analysis. Abdul, thank you so much for joining us. So elections being announced in Egypt, of course, Abdul Fateh LCC has not announced his candidature yet, but widely expected that he will contest his elections going for his third term. Now, the key question here, of course, in everyone's minds is that what are the possibilities of this election being free and fair because that is a big complaint raised against previous processes and also how is sort of LCC kind of, you know, let's use the word manipulated or change the institutional framework of Egypt itself. Well, Prashant, given the experience of the last two presidential elections under CC in Egypt in 2014 and 2018, it is very unlikely that this time is going to be very different. For various reasons, of course, one, CC has this obsession of winning with huge margins and showing to the world or the Egyptian people that he has no contest at all. So every time, no matter what is the ground situation, CC always wins with at least 96, 97 percent of all the votes pulled in the last two elections. That's what happened. And this is one. And of course, one can easily say that this is not a result which one can achieve in an election which is held free and fair. Second, the Election Commission in Egypt makes sure that CC has no serious contender. So it either rejects those candidates who are considered to be popular or have or basically some kind of political persecution starts against anyone who shows interest in participating in an election against CC and contesting elections against CC. And this time is again, we have seen this is happening for last months, various last few months. Ahmad Tantawi, who is considered to be a serious contender, though his popularity is not that big that he can challenge CC, has already faced spy incidents of spying on his phone by a software which was made in Israel. And given the fact that the political parties most of the other political parties which are considered to be ideological threats are banned and so on and so forth. As far as the institutional arrangements under CC have been done, of course, the first major changes he did in 2019 that he amended the constitution and which basically allowed him to basically contest for presidential election for at least two more terms and that one and the term of the president which was four years before has been now increased to six years. So this basically allows him, if this continues, to stay in power for at least 12 more years from now. And that basically has been done under CC's regime. Right, Abdul, in this context, how do you sort of assess the legacy of Abdul Fateh Al CC so far? It's been, I believe, close to 10 years since now, since he's come to power. And he's really, of course, had an impact in terms of repression, in terms of changing the country's constitution. And also a very important, other key question, I guess, is how has he sort of managed to stay in power despite all these reasons for resentment against him, including the economic crisis? Well Prashant, it is not very difficult to know the reasons or to guess the reason that despite massive food and other inflation in the country, despite rising poverty in the country, despite the fact that Egypt has been on the verge of a failed state for many years now, CC has been able to keep himself in power only through repression. There is no other explanation for that. And this is, in a way, a kind of reenactment of the Hosni Mubarak period, despite the elections, periodic elections, and so on and so forth. His legacy, of course, CC's legacy is basically a legacy of repression. He is only considered to be a kind of a person who defeated the massive euphoria of popular hope, which was generated post 2011 uprisings. And he has been able to kind of completely dismantle that hope. He has, if you see, despite the global criticism about his repressive regimes, even from the closed allies like the United States, CC has not burst a bit. He initiated the so-called national dialogue a few months back in which he tried to basically, at least that was the attempt, that was the stated objective, to bring all the dissenting voices on a table and sit and negotiate, create a national consensus. Despite that process started, we don't know where it is going, what is the fate of it. Nobody knows. On one side, there is national dialogue going. On the other side, the activists continue to be imprisoned. Political parties, which are considered to be popular or a threat to CC's power are banned. Some of them are declared as terrorist organizations. Their leaders are living in exile and so on and so forth. So overall, if one has to say CC's legacy, of course, it is a legacy of repression and a legacy of Oslim Obarak. Thank you so much, Abdul for talking to us. We'll definitely be tracking the campaign as it proceeds as well. I guess a very, very important election as far as Egypt is concerned and its future is concerned. Thank you so much. And that's all we have time for in this episode of Daily Debrief. Do come back tomorrow for a fresh episode. In the meanwhile, do visit our website, peoplesdispatch.org. Follow us on all the social media platforms. And if you haven't hit that subscribe button on YouTube already, please do. See you tomorrow.