 The foreign ministers of G7 countries are meeting in Japan and is expected taking a strong pro-Israel position. What is this humanitarian pause that is the subject of discussions? A new report indicates that globally health systems are doing better when it comes to recording cases of tuberculosis. But the challenge remains steep. What is the way ahead? And the U.S. has suspended talks on some aspects of digital trade in the Indo-Pacific trade framework and has actually reversed its position. What is this about? This is the Daily Debrief. These are your stories for the day. And before you go any further, if you're watching this on YouTube, please hit that subscribe button. As Israel's horrendous assault on Gaza continues, the foreign ministers of the G7 countries are meeting in Japan. However, hoping for any sense of balance or perspective for them would definitely be a mistake, as most of these countries seem to be firmly backing Israel and the United States. This is clear from their votes in the UN as well as talks about what is called a humanitarian pause. Now this humanitarian pause is not a ceasefire and is in fact a very cynical postscript to the word humanitarian. We have with us Abdul Firmur. Abdul, thanks for joining us. The G7 as a bloc is definitely the most suspect in this context, comprising countries which have taken some of the worst chances, I think one can very easily say when it comes to the Israeli war on Gaza, on the genocidal war. But what has this foreign minister's meeting sort of come with? What are the conclusions that or what are the suggestions they're coming up with? Well, they have taken a similar stance as they have taken before the meeting. Of course, this is similar. Nothing new has come out except for the fact that they have stated in the written format that the need of a humanitarian pause. This humanitarian pause has been kind of uttered many times before in the United States Security Council meetings by the same set of countries and so therefore it is nothing new. They have reiterated the similar instances of them believing in the Israeli right to self-defense, them believing that Hamas was responsible for what happened on October 7 and them believing that whatever Israel has been doing since last one month is all justified. So it seems that apart from the fact that there have been a little critical to the settler violence in the occupied West Bank and in East Jerusalem which has resulted in many fatalities there, Palestinian fatalities there, which is nothing new, which is going on for as long as the occupation has been there. Overall, this is what has happened. If you just want to see the zist of what is the result of the G7 meeting. So they have called for humanitarian pause and whether they are serious about it will be known in few hours from now if Israel agrees to it. Abdul, I think we need to sort of also go into this question of what this humanitarian pause and humanitarian truce is and it's actually I guess a bit of very cynical word play because the rest of the world, there are people in governments across the global south, people in the global north, they're all calling for a ceasefire. But you see these countries sort of talking about what is called the, governments talking about what is called the humanitarian pause. And I think this is also even the rhetoric that Netanyahu also seems to be using at certain points of time. So what is the difference between this humanitarian pause and a ceasefire? Well, the ceasefire would have meant that there is a longer, much more sustainable kind of seizing of the Israeli bombings on Gaza or the ground offensive. It's kind of a complete halt of all that. The period one can debate on, but it will be a more sustainable and longer pause in all those atrocities so that there would be a kind of stop taking of what is the overall condition, humanitarian condition on the ground and kind of attempts to kind of address the issues which Palestinians are facing because there is no drinking water, there is no electricity, there is not enough medicine, no food for the majority of Palestinian people in Gaza for a very long time. So all these needs to be addressed apart from the fact that the people who, more than 27,000 Palestinians who are injured in the bombings need to be taken care of. So all these things need to be arranged and that needs a longer, much more meaningful stop in Israeli attack on Gaza which could also lead to a kind of some kind of sustained peace at a citizen of hostilities. The pause means that there will be a breathing space for say few hours. Israel will stop bombing the reasons and then whatever you could do in those few hours you do move out and the Israel will start bombing again. In other words, it will also be advantageous to Israel because Israel has not committed to not attacking any civilian infrastructure which is supplied during the time of the period. So it is basically an attempt to kind of also give Israeli forces some kind of breathing space so that they can renew their attack over Palestinians. So it is beneficial for Israel in some ways and it does not serve any purpose when it comes to the Palestinians addressing the humanitarian issue in Palestinian territories. Very important point that you make also the fact that like you said, Israel is making outrageous claims about hospitals being Hamas centers. It is targeted, I think a Red Cross convoy was also recently targeted. Health relief workers, health workers, all of them dying as well. So the idea of this truth seems quite absurd and it's significant that the seven most powerful countries in the world are very much on board with that idea as well. And also I think Blinken making some comments about how neither Hamas nor Israel should be allowed to control Gaza at this point after all this happens as well. Yeah, so yeah, of course, if you see Red Cross, international Red Cross has faced attacks. The hospitals have faced attacks and Israeli pointed out Israel has been claiming that these attacks are not by mistake. They have deliberately done that because these things, these facilities, these institutions, infrastructure have been used by Hamas. So in a way if there is a pause, of course, they will have more opportunity to kind of figure out where all they can attack once the pause ends. And that's a tactical stand. By the way, they have given a condition that ceasefire, even this pause, by the way, will only come if Hamas and other Palestinian resistance release all the hostages they took during October 7th Operation Al-Aqsa flood. And until that happens, there will be no pause. So in a way, if Hamas and other Palestinian resistance forces release all the hostages, there will be no condition to kind of have any bargaining power vis-à-vis Israel and that will lead to further deterioration of the situation on the ground. And that's exactly what is the purpose of this kind of talk of humanitarian pause. It has no real intention of serving the humanitarian interests. Thank you so much, Abdel, for the analysis. The World Health Organization has released a 2023 global tuberculosis report, which is both good news and bad news. Now, the good news is that there is some reversal of the impact on COVID-19 on TB treatment. TB patients are among the worst affected due to disruptions to health systems and tracking mechanisms caused by COVID-19. The latest report says that the number of patients diagnosed in 2022 was 7.5 million. The bad news, however, is that so much remains to be done to give these patients access to good medication and economical rates, not to mention other issues such as drug-resistant TB. We have with us Anar Rachara, the Health People's Health Movement, for more. Thank you so much for joining us now. This report is widely looked forward to by activists across the health sector because it provides very crucial indicators on how the world is doing regarding combating a very important disease at this point. And we do know that over the past few years, there's been a huge amount of concern because of the impact COVID-19 had on the treatment of tuberculosis itself. So maybe could you first maybe give us some of the salient points regarding what the data, what does it show at this point? Sure. So the initial point would be that there seems to be an uptake in the global recovery when it comes to TB diagnosis and treatment, especially when we talk about the impact that COVID-19 has had, as you mentioned already. So for the last couple of years, we've seen a drop in reported cases in some of the countries which we know that are specifically impacted by the TB burden, including the Philippines and Indonesia and India, of course. And so this report seems to point that things are getting better in that way. So it also shows that there are still millions of people being diagnosed with TB every year, which is a very worrying fact, giving the fact that we've been living with TB for so long. The report points out that there's about 7.5 million people who were diagnosed with TB in 2022. And this is essentially, it's actually quite an important point because it's the highest figure that the WHO has published since they began monitoring this in 1995. So what the report says is that this increase in the number reported points to the fact that there is improved access and there is an improved provision of health services in countries, including in India, in Indonesia and in the Philippines, as I said. So these three countries together were responsible for about 60% of the global reduction of TB cases in the first COVID-19 years. And essentially what happened last year in 2022 was that they surpassed the numbers that they were reporting in 2019. What needs to be said, however, is that while this report shows or indicates that things might be picking up after the pandemic, there is still a significant gap when it comes to funding. So whichever indicator essentially we pick from the global target set at the international level, when it comes to TB, the world is majorly falling behind. So there is an especially big problem when it comes to development and research of new TB medical products, including vaccines, including drugs. And this is, so I don't think I need to stress how important of a problem this is because we know that there are millions of people who still don't have access to life-saving drugs and are therefore forced to undertake treatment, which is very difficult, which can have serious side effects and which essentially marks their lives in the years following that. And just to sort of clarify, the report says that it seems a bit paradoxical maybe, but it says that the increase in the number of cases, reported cases is positive and basically means that the health systems are back to sort of working and they're recording these cases, which means that treatment is taking place, right? In cases like this, if we have had a period when reporting was low because of the COVID-19 pandemic, so the bad news, the COVID-19 pandemic was so much of a stress on health systems that people were not able to access their services, they were not able to get diagnosis. But also, you know, it has to be said, an increase in number, it shows the increased capacity of the health system to actually see that there's a problem. But it's still not, it's not a sign that we're making actual progress because making actual progress would mean that more people can access the treatments and that they're actually benefiting from those treatments. And as I said, the situation with the research and development point shows that it's essentially, that's essentially not happening. So, you know, we still know that about two in five of drug-resistant tuberculosis are not getting treatment. And that's, you know, that has even more implications because drug-resistant tuberculosis acts in different ways than maybe the, let's call it, traditional tuberculosis would act. Right, so as far as activists are concerned, I think what are the key points that, you know, more pressure needs to be applied on, there needs to be more action as far as governmental bodies, as far as health systems are concerned? Well, those points have been pointed out for, well, unfortunately for years now, they haven't changed much. So, you know, for example, if we look at late last year already, there was a report by some activist group including the treatment action group and the stop, yeah, so essentially the treatment action group who said that there were important milestones being reached when it comes to how the world approaches tuberculosis. And so they said that then there was one billion US dollars mark was hit when it comes to investment into TB. But what they said then, so almost a year ago, was that because of the COVID-19 pandemic and because of the lag that was accumulated throughout this time, that was not a realistic expectation anymore. So it's not even more one billion dollars or two billion dollars yearly that should be invested in TB research and diagnosis and research and development, sorry, but it should be around five. So, you know, and when we look at those numbers, there's again, no doubt that not enough progress is being made and that essentially TB is not getting the same attention that other diseases are getting. So, you know, if we compare it to the investments that, for example, COVID-19 medical products have had, it's nowhere near that there and it's been a problem for much, much longer. Not to mention the fact that I think the bulk of the load is like you said in countries of the global south, which really need far more attention as well both from their governments, but also I think in terms of international support as well. Absolutely. Thank you so much Anna for speaking to us for giving us an evaluation and we've been tracking this issue on the show for a long time now and will continue to do so. Thank you so much. And finally, the US has suspended talks on certain digital trade aspects when it comes to the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework Initiative. The US has also reversed its position and is no longer pushing for rules that enable cross-border flow of data and prevent data localization. Now, this reversal by the US is based on domestic pressures that seek to regulate big tech and to understand this further, we have it as an issue. Anish we're in the complex realm of international trade negotiations not the easiest to talk about, but let's quickly go through the topic. So what are these negotiations that the US has taken this position on? What are the reasons? Well, currently the kind of negotiations that we're talking about is basically for digital trade rules and that would have impacted even policies, national policies or sovereign policies on how digital trade needs to be conducted and also how flow of data and this includes data localization, matters of data sovereignty being affected as part of these trade negotiations. The fact that the US has withdrawn is primarily a reflection of considering a different tack track on how to deal with these matters. Now, very recently we did see the US withdrawing from WTO initiative of about 90 countries to push for a sort of deal that would have allowed for what it calls free flow of data, but that would mean that it would prevent other countries from implementing policies that hamper or that regulate competition or regulate monopolies and obviously impose data localization for their people because obviously the whole thing with as you said like trade negotiations are obviously complex but digital trade or data trade of data or flow of data is even more complex because it doesn't really come within geographic boundaries. It's quite far more different than that and so if countries do not have the liberty to actually put in place anti-monopolistic practices or policies to foster fair competition and for most of all to impose a certain kind of rules that would make sure that data sovereignty is protected that the privacy of their people are protected. It is something that would impact a lot of even sovereign decisions on significantly other matters as well and so the fact that US has withdrawn from it is far more significant because obviously US was one of the biggest advocates for such kind of binding international rule regulations that would have prevented other countries from having their own independent policies on digital trade and withdrawing that also has its own complex kind of context both domestic and obviously other international pressures but it's definitely a sort of victory of progressive movements that the US government for the first time is actually overlooking a sort of a very key demand that has been raised by big tech or major tech monopolies within the US itself. As far as I understand there are two or three angles to it. One key aspect is that obviously this is not driven by any kind of sensitivity to the data flow or questions of sovereignty of countries but the US own domestic pools where there is clearly a very strong push to sort of regulate big tech within the US itself we have seen the FTC in the United States for instance take action we have seen Google for instance Google and Amazon both falling under the lens and I think there's a section of the Democratic Party especially which is trying to sort of reign in big tech in the US and that is why they have withdrawn but also important to I guess note that this is happening in the context of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework discussions where the US was trying to create its own alternative to relations between countries in the Pacific region and China itself. Yes, so it's quite interesting actually we can begin with the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework in that obviously one of the biggest partners that it is trying to pool and that the US is trying to pool in a sort of competitive set of trade relations in the region is India and India has a very stated policy of data localization protecting data sovereignty and also preventing any kind of digital monopolies to take hold within their own country and India has definitely opposed in the WTO the same kind of regulations that would have prevented all of these facts and that a country like India cannot be out of its purview if it wants to expand its influence or presence or at least trade or economic presence in the region and so that is one major aspect and these considerations were part of just one part of the aspect but the other as you pointed out has there is significant domestic pressures and it is not just like the progressive groups and also certain political leadership within the US but also a significant number of progressive movements within the US who have pressured the government to take action against digital monopolies who pretty much work as sovereign sovereigns of themselves we have seen that when it comes to dealing with a significant number of social media giants who have taken a very problematic position when it comes to privacy, when it comes to the use of AI when it comes to even how data is being used or commercialized and that is definitely part of it US is definitely far behind when it comes to its other western counterparts when it comes to protecting people's privacy, their digital footprint and so on but it is definitely being brought up to speed in the sense that there is significant pressures within the country from many people to actually rein in these monopolies who pretty much work outside of government regulations in many ways and they do not want any kind of new regulations and this is quite significant as I said it's quite significant that a US government is actually taking a position that is very clearly opposed to big tech monopolies and that clearly shows the kind of impact that popular movement, progressive groups and in fact also even people sections within the leadership and within the establishment have taken when it comes to these monopolies and it clearly speaks of how it actually shows how it is important absolutely important to rein in these corporations as well when you see that a Biden administration somebody like Biden who is a very establishment pro establishment pro corporate kind of guy taking a stated position of this sort and that is something that can have its own kind of repercussions across the world as well including the WTO where these negotiations are set to happen in next year where any kind of binding regulations or rules would be put in place and this position is definitely going to impact that Anish, thank you for that also very complex topic and very interesting discussions as well so we'll come back to it at some point that's all we have in this episode of the Daily Deep Brief do tune in tomorrow for another episode also visit our website peoplesdispatch.org and hit that subscribe button on YouTube