 The leaders of the United States, Japan and South Korea met in Camp David, a traditional site for high stakes diplomacy. What is on the agenda at a time when tensions are rising in East Asia? A South African court has ordered that the government disclose contracts it signed with various entities including big pharma companies for COVID-19 vaccines. Why is this verdict important for South Africa and the rest of the world? And finally, we are at the final stage of the FIFA Women's World Cup. Spain and England are the contesting teams for the championship. What have been the highlights so far? This is Daily Debrief. These are your stories for the day. And before we go any further, if you're watching this on YouTube, don't forget to hit that subscribe button. US President Joe Biden held a meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and South Korean President Yun Sukiyol at Camp David on Friday. Now, out of the meeting came a host of steps to strengthen ties between these countries who have anyway been moving closer in recent times. The meeting in significance is East Asia and the Pacific region has been increasingly militarized. And Japan and South Korea are both ruled by right-wing parties. So what came out of this summit and what can we expect in the coming months? We are with us, Anish. Anish, thank you for joining us. So first of all, we've been looking forward in some senses to this meeting. We've had a couple of shows before where we mentioned this as well. So what were the major conclusions of this summit at Camp David? Yeah, so it's broadly two pretty much ideas that they want to bring up, which is one is to basically condemn China and North Korea. And the other is to reinforce their commitment, their prior commitments of pushing for a stronger military alliance. The thing is that the statement, there hasn't been a joint statement yet, but what we still have is a very big set of understanding, which isn't really new. We haven't seen anything new from what they have said in previous meetings, where we've seen similar meetings in Seoul and in Tokyo. And in all of these cases, there hasn't been much difference from what they've actually said in earlier statements. But what we do understand is this is basically their attempt to create a new set of, to reinforce their force and to show off strength of sorts in the region, especially, and US trying to show off that it has to a major allies in the East right now. Now, the problem that comes with this is that when we think Camp David, it's usually used for historic summits. Now, this is something that the US has been trying very hard to push for, to at least the Biden administration has been trying to push this as some kind of a historic summit between three nations. But what we are seeing is something not very different from what has actually happened, and it didn't be advertised in the manner that it did. Because some of the things, they actually made some more significant decisions, including South Korea talking about having a sort of military deal with Japan, which is not something very different, what they did. And US is not necessary in that situation either, but definitely this is part of it. And obviously, they're doubling down on their provocations against China and North Korea in this situation. And we see them talking about aggressive behavior of these two countries in the Asia Pacific. When we look at the fact that the more aggressive military drills that US has conducted in the region, especially across the DMZ, in the last couple of months, it clearly shows the level of aggression that US and its allies have been conducting in the region. So obviously, these factors definitely come in. So what we're looking at is essentially just the same wine and new bottle. In any context, I think important to also look at the fact that the United States has always had an alliance, a very strong alliance with Japan. It has had a very strong alliance with South Korea at various points. The lot of the politics in these countries has been influenced by the US. But South Korea and Japan themselves are not really always had a very strong relationship. In fact, there has been quite substantial tension between these countries because of various historical incidents, the legacy of World War II, the Japanese imperialism that took place. So it's not that these two countries have had a very strong relationship. So has that been changing in recent times? I mean, definitely, what we are looking at under the current conservative administration in South Korea and from Seoul under Yonsekiyo, it's pretty much like what the mainstream media would say like attempts at thawing a strained relation. But it's not necessarily what we're looking at. Like prior to that, it didn't exist. Like the kind of strained relation that they're talking about is basically South Korea taking a very more pragmatic set of steps when it comes to A, its own national interest and B, its historic grievances of its own citizens. And so that is something that is very often now not playing a major role when it comes to South Korea's dealings with Japan. Now, something very important that we need to talk about, like obviously we spoke about the reparations as a matter of reparations of imperialist crimes in the Korean peninsula and how the two living survivors still have their cases in Korean courts are still continue to fight for those reparations. But the South Korean government has actually given the Japanese a way out with the new fund of its sorts where it will be South Koreans who will be paying for Japanese war crimes. But that aside, in a couple of days, we're looking at a very possible release of Fukushima's contaminated waters by Japan. And this is something that a lot of Koreans are quite divided about, not divided. Most of them are actually quite opposed to it, especially the people on the coast, the fishing community and not just the South Koreans, also the Japanese, but definitely this has been a major issue in Korea. The government had to run multiple consultation sessions where they try to apparently advise people how it is safe and whatever, trying to convince their own citizen about another country's needs. And this is something that you do not see very much, even with the most friendliest of countries. So in this case, South Korean state at the current moment, the government is not really taking the concerns of its citizenry as seriously, especially when it comes to Japan. So this rush to actually just bury the hatchet and create some kind of solid military-political alliance with a former imperialist is something that is quite an issues. And so even though you have a very pro-Japanese government at the end power, a large part of South Koreans do not really view some of these policies very favorably. And that is something that is not given as much coverage as it should be right now in the mainstream media. Thank you so much for talking to us. We'll keep tracking this issue very significantly also because it shows that the US continuing to make sure that it has a strong presence in the Korean peninsula, in Asia Pacific, in the Pacific region as a whole. Of course, people might ask why it should have such a strong presence, but that's definitely a larger question. So thank you so much for talking to us. In a crucial judgment, the court in South Africa has ordered the government to disclose contracts signed with key pharma giants for COVID-19 vaccines. The companies in question include Pfizer, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, and also suppliers from India, China and the Global Vaccine Initiative COVAX. The ruling came after a petition from an NGO called Health Justice Initiative. Now the NGO said that it wanted to examine the legality and cost-effectiveness of such agreements. To know more about this case and its relevance, we go to Jyotsna. Jyotsna, thank you so much for joining us. Very interesting verdict from the South African court asking the government to disclose all these details. The NGO asking that they want to examine the legality of these contracts that have been signed with various companies. So could you tell us why this is significant specifically in the South African context? You have written about this. We have talked a lot about the kind of contracts that were made at that time. Many of them shouted in secrecy. Big pharma giants often benefitting. Yes, thank you Prashant. So this verdict, if I just can tell you in short what has really happened in South Africa, which is like in one sense a big victory for the access to medicine movement. And it comes at a time when otherwise things had started to look bleak because the trip's favor decision was like really a watered down decision that we saw. And there are also pandemic treaty discussions that are going on at the level of WHO and at global level. And we are seeing that there is so much of pushback by the developed countries and the developed countries and pharmaceutical companies as to not to have those provisions which can lead to access to medicines and treatments. Now in that context to have something as strong as this is quite overwhelming. So what has happened is that the activists in South Africa led by HJI Health Justice International, they asked the government during when the COVID was at its peak to really make the contracts which the government had signed with various companies for vaccines, COVID vaccines. And they asked that those contracts should be made public. These companies were Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, etc. But those contracts were never made public and nobody knew what was contained in them. And it raised issues of transparency of accountability. People knew that there are many problems with those contracts. In fact, we had also reported for people's dispatch, if you remember, in January 2021 because some of the contracts from countries like Colombia and all were leaked and we saw that they had really problematic clauses. So HJI took it upon itself, went to the court in South Africa and asked the court to intervene in this matter. It was yesterday, it was the day before yesterday on August 17th that actually the court said the government has to make all the contracts of vaccination which was signed between the government and companies for COVID-19 vaccines. They should be made public within 10 days. So we are hoping that in 10 days we will actually have not the leaked versions but the versions which the governments put out to see how the contracts were. Right, just as we have to elaborate on this a bit further, could you maybe take us through using the example of Colombia but also generally what activists have been saying, why were some of these contracts that were signed with big pharma companies during COVID-19 problematic? So any contract which is not made public, which has used people's money is a problem, that's the principle. But especially with regard to these, because the leaked contracts showed the terms on which the companies agreed to provide vaccines to the countries and which did not include only the countries of the global south, it also included countries like the US and the UK and other European countries. If you look at the contracts, you really feel that those weren't really agreed upon between the parties who were equal but the pharma companies are so much more powerful than even some of the governments. For example, it questions sovereignty of the countries. Pfizer's contract with Colombia, for example, said that if Pfizer is providing the vaccine and the government is buying it, they are not giving it on discount or anything, right? If that is happening, if the government is buying it from Pfizer, they cannot buy it from anyone else. The government cannot decide to donate or sell it to some other country if they want to. It also had clauses like of indemnification, which is you have to put your national assets as collateral to the company in case something goes wrong, the company actually can sell the national assets. It has outrageous conditions like this. And also one of the major, major problems is because and they were all agreed upon under non-disclosure agreements, one had to sign that before getting into the contracts, that it is widely believed and people who are in the know-how know it pretty well, that the price of the vaccines actually differed from country to country. Pfizer's and Johnson's literally sold the vaccines at whatever cost they wanted and they saw which country can pay more or is agreeing to pay more. So wherever there was more misery, of course, the governments wanted more of the vaccines. They were more desperate and Pfizer made use of it. So in that sense, if we see what this verdict has done, it's something like this, people are paying for these vaccines because when governments agree or enter into any of the agreements, it is through people's money. So people pay for the vaccines. It is there to be used for people's health, but people are not the ones who know what is contained in those agreements and they should know and this is what this judgment has done. And we are hoping that this judgment will really pave the way for other governments, other countries across the world to make the contracts public and not only for the COVID-19 vaccines, but all the contracts which are agreed upon between the companies and the governments should be put in public domain. We should know how much we are paying for medicines and treatments. And when we are discussing pandemic treaty, which I mentioned in the beginning, some of these clauses should enter into these treaty discussions and be actually on paper and written in ink in future if there is any crisis of health. Right, Jyotsana, thank you so much for that input. Very interesting points you've mentioned and I think it's a very important question you raised that considering that taxpayers are paying for these vaccines, shouldn't they have the right to know what kind of conditions big pharma companies may be setting so that they are able to get what at some points are often life-saving drugs. We remember during COVID-19, vaccination was a huge problem, the kind of inequities that existed and maybe this decision could be the start of similar things. So we'll hopefully get back to you when the contracts are officially out so that we can maybe discuss some of these practices as well. But thank you so much for now. Sure, thank you. And finally, it's time for the finals of the FIFA Women's World Cup 2023 that's being held in Australia and New Zealand. England and Spain, traditional powerhouses will be contesting for the championship on Sunday. Now, this has been a very interesting tournament, great football, huge attendance and a lot of interest and some important questions about the future of women's football. To get a 360-degree picture of the tournament and the debates around it, we go to Siddhant Ani. Siddhant, we are at the very final stage and now we are at that moment where I think we can also, for one, talk about the football, talk about the incredible matches that have taken place but in some senses also talk about some of the larger questions, the larger picture that emerges out of such an important tournament like the FIFA Women's World Cup. So let's first go to the sporting side, so to speak. So the finalists have decided Spain and England, traditional powerhouses, the Australians must be disappointed losing out the semi-finals, also missing a chance the third spot because Sweden won that match. So take us quickly through the semi-finals and what lies ahead for Sunday's tournament. Finally. Yeah, Prashanta, good to be back on the beach. Like you mentioned, of course, Australia disappointed at not being able to make it to that last stage. But I think the kind of support that the tournament has received here at least in most of the cities and big urban centres in Australia, population centres, will continue for the last game. There's of course a sizeable English also community that lives in Australia and works in Australia, so they will be out in full numbers. But what we saw in terms of the quality of both those two semi-finals was again, taking it a notch up from what we've been seeing progressively as this tournament has developed. I mean, England has, and in one sense, like we talk about all the time, anyone but England, it pains us to say this, but they have been superb and become so strong the longer they have played into the tournament, the semi-final against Australia was such a fluid and controlled performance. I mean, they knew exactly what they were doing and there was this magical goal from Sam Kerr who has become, I think, if Kerr were to stand for Prime Minister of Australia tomorrow, that vote would be won. But yeah, so beyond that incredible goal and Australia had a few other chances as well, but still 75,000 plus people were there in the ground, pretty much still the final whistle, cheering them on and hoping to write down to the end some sort of any excitement or even there to appreciate the effort they've put in to get through to the semi-finals and all of that. And for Spain, it's been a big battle. 12 of their national team players actually stood up in revolt against the management of the coach who is presently there as well, Jorge Vildas, who is leading this team. They are out of those 15 players, 12 have actually not been included in the squad. So they will be watching their teammates play the final from back in Spain while the issues continue to exist. They have not been addressed successfully by the Spanish Federation and we've seen how Prashant also that part of the story is something that has been sort of that resonates with women who are playing this sport across, whether you're from the developed western world or you're from Papua New Guinea who played their first women's World Cup, the conditions with which sort of the women's game is organized, handled, the levels of corruption, the fact that there's very little safeguarding and also mechanisms to sort of address issues when they come up. So whether it's Spain and like I was saying, Papua New Guinea Federation, I was talking to a friend who has come down from there and they were talking about the kind of stuff that's going on with their team as well. So extremely difficult situation in which all of these teams have sort of managed to get the sport to this level. And many, many people who have played a sort of founding role in that entire movement actually unable to participate in these joyful moments and the part that, you know, the glory aspect of sport. But I think many of them are appreciated by the wider community and also there is an understanding that this is now with the kind of explosion in terms of revenue, money, dollars that are being talked about with regard to this kind of women's sporting events. Everyone will come in for a slice of that pie, right? So for it to be any different structurally from what is happening already in men's football, those conversations are now starting to take place. Nice that you ended with that point because I believe Ghana Infantino, the president of FIFA also delivering a speech and also leading to quite a few discussions on what this tournament means for women's football as a whole. Like you said, the whole question of whether it's going to follow exactly the patterns of men's football. Interesting questions which I think, of course, they won't be an answer immediately, but some interesting debates it looks like. Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. Prasan Thanet also shows like how kind of with blinders, sports administrators at these highest levels have been looking at, you know, all the, I think, and this could probably apply to any women's sport. It's always from a male perspective and how the structures are and how those can be then replicated and lead to sort of building, you know, another property that becomes something that makes a profit. Like Infantino in his speech among, he said some, again, as is the norm. We remember the speech that he made in Qatar, where he felt all kinds of things and I think social media really quite effectively sort of critiqued that approach and it's much worse here where once again he's reiterated that women and speaking to women, that women need to convince us men what we need to do to change the sport, etc., etc. is essentially that a space needs to be carved out in the men's game. Whereas I think the women who have been fighting for this space to begin with are perhaps of the opinion that they can create their own space and they don't need to be attached to the same format. After all, FIFA, as well as these organized associations that control the sport in many countries have played a pivotal role in ensuring that women's sport or women's football, sorry, remains as underdeveloped, underfunded, under whatever it is as possible. It was banned in several countries for many, many years and federations had to act independently. The World Cup started unofficially only as late as the 90s that we actually had this kind of an event to begin with. So if the structure is not already so entrenched, then why not build a system that also takes on the learnings from the professional game that men have already, that already happens as far as the men are concerned, the problems with club football of which there are many and most are sort of finance and that kind of, right? And so create a structure that is possibly more equal, more egalitarian or at least there's some semblance of it. And beyond looking at these showcase events Prashant, because close to $600 million in revenue have been generated by the FIFA Women's World Cup 2023. And yet the FIFA president tells us that they have barely broken even, right? And this does not perhaps account for the expenses made by the city of Sydney, the government of New South Wales. So taxpayers' money that has gone into various projects related to this event. And so for example, after that semi-final in Sydney, when those 75,000 people were trying to get back to wherever they were, there was a massive drain breakdown. And these breakdowns are happening. Of course, the people running the trains are saying that there was vandalism. But if you look a little bit further, the unions have been fighting against understaffing, underfunding for security reasons and maintenance issues, not having enough people to do the kind of work that it requires to run a network. And especially if you're going to get so many more thousands on that network in a very concentrated period, it leads to issues. So from a very, that kind of micro level to a global level conversations, I think have been happening Prasanthana host of issues. Of course, when it comes to FIFA and these organized kind of symposiums and conventions, the track tends to be what these guys wanted to be, which is essentially very much focused on building marketing and those kind of things. But we have to see how some of these programs span out over the next few years. Yeah. And we have at least a fantastic final to look forward to because two top teams playing Prasanthana on Sunday. And again, one more chance to perhaps have some concluding conversations around this event. Right, Siddhanth. Thank you so much. We'll look forward to the final and maybe have one more conversation, like you said, on the conclusions of this World Cup and what it means. Thank you so much. Thanks Prasanth. And that's all we have time for in this weekend episode of Daily Deep Brief. Don't forget to visit our website peoplesdispatch.org. Don't forget to come to our YouTube channel, watch our videos from across the world of people's movements, of issues of geopolitical interest, and don't forget to hit that subscribe button. See you on Monday.