 Salaam. This is People's Dispatch and you're watching The Daily Debrief coming to you as always from our studios here in New Delhi with me, Siddhantani. On the show today we're looking at what the foreign ministers of the G7 grouping had to say at the end of their meeting in Nagano in Japan and of course how the rest of the world is receiving that communique. We also talk about what a second term for Miguel Diaz-Canel means for the people of Cuba. And finally, the WHO has launched a data repository, the first of its kind. We look at what this means, what kind of tools it holds and how it will empower policy makers in the public health sector. First up, the G7 in its communique at the conclusion of the meeting that I was mentioning of the foreign ministers in the city of Nagano which hosted the Winter Olympics of course once upon a time. In Japan, the Western dominated group called for, wait for it, the denuclearization of North Korea in a statement that many commentators are calling insubstantial. They also called out Russia and others while completely glossing over the fact that members of this very grouping need to be at the center of the global push for denuclearization. Anish joins us now via video chat for a further exploration of the latest in an ongoing absurdist drama. Anish, activists in the nuclear disarmament space have responded quite equivocally to the statement by the G7 foreign ministers calling it empty and not having any sort of concrete, any substance to it in terms of the parties that are actually holding the vast majority of nuclear weapons, nuclear warheads in the world today and also sort of the irony of this whole situation is that Hiroshima will host the G7 summit in about a month from now. What do you make of the statement North Korea being mentioned in it and the whole stand that the G7 has taken? Yeah, I think we can, yeah, that's a, it's an interesting situation right now because previously we never see in such interest by the G7, at least in the recent times on the North Korea's nuclear weapons, not because it wasn't often interest them, it was just that it wasn't something that they thought was necessary to have a communique. Now, in this case, we're not very sure what kind of messaging they're trying to say. Obviously, there have been some missile tests. Now, missile tests are not the same as a nuclear test. And so North Korea has not really violated any kind of, if you go by some of the statement made in that communique, where they alleged that North Korea has violated Security Council resolutions, it hasn't really done any of that sort in recent times that we can think of. Nevertheless, the statement is made and it targets very clearly the North Korean nuclear arsenal for basically no good reason. And so, and obviously there is that hypocrisy because considering the fact that then the head of states are going to meet in Hiroshima, the first ever nuclear bomb detonated site of that. And we will have the United States talking about, and its allies talking about smaller countries, smaller nuclear arsenal, while they uphold about thousands in their own kitty. It shows a certain hypocrisy. They actually used one of these weapons. Exactly. So all of these factors and the fact that the United States has recently not really worked towards actually completing the nuclear disarmament goals that it has set for itself and for the rest of the world as well. So there is no attempt to talk to say countries like Russia, France, UK, China, which are legally allowed according to international laws to hold nuclear weapons, or for that matter countries like India, Pakistan, and whether or not depending on which side you are Israel as well, to actually deal with that, to actually do away with nuclear weapons as a whole around the world. But obviously the specific targeting of North Korea is definitely showing us that there is an obvious, we also need to look at other parts of the communique where they're focusing a lot on the Indo-Pacific on China. So it is very clear that they're apart from Ukraine, obviously, it is very clear that they are trying to focus a lot more tensions in the East and Southeast Asian region. And that is definitely a sign, so to say, of G7 trying to maybe salvage its relevance in today's world, where some of these countries are not really that major economies to begin with. But all for that matter, it is trying to raise a certain kind of war or a war like rhetoric in a time when tensions are flying high in literal terms even in the region. So that is definitely a sort of disturbing development that we're looking at right now. Also a trend in so many ways, we've spoken about so many of these issues on Daily Debrief as well before, we've talked about the United States' own sort of take on upholding treaties that it has entered into and how it unilaterally decides to exit when the time is inconvenient or convenient for it. We've also talked about the statements made by South Korea's president ahead of the visit to the United States. And so the timing of it seems like this process of drumming up Cold War era narratives and bringing in all sorts of players into the situation. But essentially kind of creating this sense that there are lines. Yeah. Yeah. So it's going to be quite interesting. Well, interesting is the most mildest term to use. It's going to be something that we really need to watch out for because as I've said multiple times before and the risk of retreating myself, this is one of the regions which hasn't seen conflict or large scale conflict in decades in which for nearly more than half a century. And at this point in time, when you're trying to drum up Cold War rhetoric, not only against North Korea, but also China, it is going to be significantly problematic for everybody involved and not just, and when I'm saying everybody involved, it's basically the whole world at this point. So and we have to remember when we also need to talk about how with the whole talk about North Korean denuclearization, you need to remember the Korean peace process that was basically thrown under the bus because of the United States own sort of brinkmanship in the region. It included denuclearization as one of the aims of the whole peace process. And this was something that the two Koreas had decided on. So when something of that sort of achievement on itself, like something of this scale was completely disregarded because of US's own foreign policy problems and its gestures and statements and provocations in the Korean peninsula, it shows that the US's and its allies are not really that concerned about whether or not there is a dukey of free Korea or for that matter, peaceful Korea. But just the fact that they want to target North Korea at this point in time and use that as a proxy to target some of the countries that are not on, say, unfriendly terms with the North Korean government and its administration. So which is, which includes obviously China, Russia, but also other countries in the third world who still maintain a certain kind of relationship, which is just not neither friendly nor unfriendly. So it is sort of that, you know, a very pragmatic position and countries are being forced to take such unfragmatic positions. And as you said, lines are being drawn for no good reason when that shouldn't be the case. Many of the issues are quite, you know, something that countries can deal with themselves if they talk it out and use diplomacy. Exactly. And rather than giving space to that, interfering in such situations is definitely going to amplify what of the tensions we are seeing right now. And that is the most disturbing part at this point. I can't imagine that some of it is also not geared up to taking attention away from the recent stories of leaks and other things where so many of the US's G7 allies are very much a part of the story. All right, but thanks very much for that update, Anish, today and have a good weekend. Next up, Cuba's National Assembly voted in Miguel Díaz-Canel as president of the island nation for a second five year term, a decision that has been viewed in terms of maintaining stability and continuity in the face of a deep economic crisis. A crisis, of course, that's been fueled by decades of blockade and economic sanctions by the United States. The legislative body voted overwhelmingly in favor of a second term for Díaz-Canel. Zoe has more. She's been covering Cuba extensively. Zoe, what are the challenges ahead in terms of this second term for Miguel Díaz-Canel? Miguel Díaz-Canel was elected for second term as president on Wednesday, April 19th. He was elected by Cuba's National Assembly, which was in turn elected on March 26th in the legislative elections. He was elected alongside Salvador Valdez Meza, who was serving as vice president, and also the head of the leadership of the National Assembly was also elected this day. There are major challenges ahead for Miguel Díaz-Canel already in his first term, the first five years that he served as president. He had to face some of the most challenging years that Cuba has had to face. This includes both the intensification of the blockade under the Trump administration, looking, for example, the over 200 measures, the unilateral coercive measures that were imposed by Donald Trump, his administration during his presidency, the inclusion of Cuba on the state sponsors of terrorism lists, and both of the motivations or justifications for both of these moves, the increased unilateral coercive measures and the inclusion of Cuba on the state sponsors of terrorism lists, both of the reasons that the Trump administration gave for actually taking these actions have been proven to be not legitimate, have no base. But still, Diaz-Canel has had to face this moment in which already Cuba's limited ability to engage in financial transactions with foreign banks, not even banks in the United States, but banks in Europe, banks across the country, across the world, engaging in any of those transactions has become extremely difficult. Trade, any sort of cooperation, even medical cooperation, Cuba's ability to buy medicine, ability to buy food, all of this has been made more difficult with these measures that happened, of course, during the Trump administration. And then in 2020 is when the COVID-19 pandemic starts, which puts Cuba, again, in a very, very difficult situation. It's a country that relies a lot on tourism. And of course, in order to protect its population, Cuba closed its borders to the world for many months. They lost, of course, this revenue from tourism, which is again, one of the biggest external contributors to GDP. So a lot of lost income there. But Diaz-Canel has really taken on these challenges with an extremely a position that's of great commitment to the revolution of continuing Cuba's process. And I think that in the coming period, there's definitely going to be continued challenges, even though Joe Biden, who's from the Democratic Party, who was Obama's vice president, Obama, of course, historically, started to warm the relations between Cuba and the United States. And despite Biden having some promises of changing and reversing some of the Trump-era policies, all of these do remain in place. So these challenges continue for Diaz-Canel. And of course, Washington has also been very interested in intensifying political opposition and fomenting different groups into taking actions. There's been Diaz-Canel, of course, had to face the very challenging day of July 11th when people were on the streets upset, of course, because of the socioeconomic conditions that they're subjected to because of this blockade. But from there, of course, it's been the justification for Washington to impose and to have rhetoric about human rights in Cuba, about the silencing of protests of dissent. And so all of these factors have kind of come together in the last several years, not to mention the natural disasters that have hit Cuba, the different hurricanes, the fire at the Matanzas Supertanker Facility. These have been tremendous, tremendous challenges for Cuba, for the Cuban people, for the Cuban government, and of course with Miguel Diaz-Canel at the head of all these efforts. So it's likely that these challenges are going to continue. And it remains to see how the international pressures against the blockade against US policy against Cuba will play out. Will this actually cause force the US to change their approach towards Cuba? This will make it a lot easier for Cuba to survive and thrive. But it seems like that's going to be a lasting challenge. Right. And in continuation from there, what has been the policy direction so far for those who might be a little bit less informed on what's been going on in Cuba, that Diaz-Canel has taken. And are we likely to see him build on it? Or maybe are some changes necessary? So as I mentioned, there have been tremendous challenges for Cuba in the last several years. And in the five years that Miguel Diaz-Canel already served as president, many of these challenges remain. And so far, his, his orientation towards these tremendous difficulties facing Cuba has not been to shy away from the goals or the dreams of the revolution, which have to do with guaranteeing health care education, and the a good standard of life for the people. Miguel Diaz-Canel has not given up on these promises and of course has has even tried to bring the revolution and take it even further. So under his leadership, Cuba passed one of the most progressive codes on families that exist in the world, legalizing same sex marriage, redefining what it means to be a family, giving more rights to children, to elderly people, to disabled people. He's taken forward many, many important initiatives across the country, and across the world and in the region. So as Latin America has become every day more and more progressive with more progressive leaders being elected, Miguel Diaz-Canel in his leadership has been at the forefront of many of these regional initiatives, not only regarding these political issues of sovereignty regarding the United States, but also economic cooperation amongst the country's medical cooperation. Miguel Diaz-Canel has really insisted on the importance of medical cooperation with many countries after different disasters that have taken place over the past several years, including the COVID-19 pandemic, medical internationalism has remained at the forefront of the country's strategy to engage with the world. Also very important initiatives in addressing inflation on a regional level. So it we're likely to see continued and especially with the changes that have happened in the region, continued regional cooperation, being a priority under Miguel Diaz-Canel's leadership, continuing to deepen the revolution, expanding people's understanding of politics and their political rights, continuing Cuba's commitment to free and quality education and health care and a standard of life. The challenges continue. Cuba's in a very, very critical moment. But Diaz-Canel has showed that this is not a moment to abandon all of the promises that the country made and that the people have fought so long for and sacrificed for. Right. Thanks very much for that update. And finally the WHO launched yesterday, the Health Inequalities Data Repository. It's a global accessible repository, the largest of its kind and designed to equip a host of stakeholders in the public health sector, whether it's government or NGO, with information and tools to better tailor the delivery of vital programs and interventions. Basically, it aims to get policy design more streamlined, to be more locally effective, while also allowing for better informed decisions at the macro level. And Avrachar of the People's Health Movement has been looking at these developments or this repository, and has this to say about how it might work or might not. Anna, this is quite a major sort of data repository, nothing like it exists currently in the world. So plenty of potential, I would imagine. Yes, definitely. So this new repository of global health inequality data that the WHO launched. The idea behind it is to actually look at the data in a different way. So for now, you know, we get the data, but it's not, it's aggregated. So we don't usually have the breakdown into different elements. This is interesting, because it provides people, researchers, activists, and people who actually make the policies to look into how the health of specific populations is affected by some things in in the world. So for example, you know, it's, it's a very big repository. So it looks at different aspects, it looks looks at how COVID-19, for example, impacted mental health among people from different education backgrounds from different economic backgrounds. It also compares, you know, how, for example, maternal and infant health is going in different parts of the world, but also then broken down into income categories. And ideally, and it's a very, very ideally, it should mean that the governments that are thinking about improving their health policies can now look at this data and say, okay, so we have a major problem in this field, let's do something about that. We have the WHO has provided us with the technical guidance to do it. So, you know, ideally, we should be able to come up with targeted policies that can actually make a major difference in the lives of people. But then on the other hand, you know, we already know that this kind of thing, it's a bit of it gets messed up. So it's not in the past, also, it has been shown that data collection is essential. So we cannot work if we don't have access to data. But it it's not all about it, of course, then, you know, you do need the resources to actually sit down and to look at the data and say, okay, I have money to do this. If you don't have money to do this, then it's, it can get very frustrating. Also, I suppose one of the first challenges would be that yes, the WHO is providing the technical know how and how to do this. But much of the reporting as well as the company or the input of the data would come from the very same governments that are then using this tool, which, you know, across the spectrum of at least low and middle income countries presents all sorts of issues. Yeah. And I think that's a very good point, because you know, different countries report on different things. So if you look at the repository now, for example, you'll find data on well, actually, you'll find plenty of data from low and middle income countries, which are stepping up in the reporting and really making an effort. But then even if you look at some formally classified high income countries like Croatia, Croatia has reported on very few of those things, which the repository wants to address. So it's, it's still a process. And also it's something that I think that the WHO is counting on that it's something that's going to take time, that it's also going to take some pressure and some encouragement to countries to actually, you know, feed into this repository and make the most of it. So, so quickly, if we can, like, so if I, if I'm a country that is being asked to sign on to this database, and if I say, I already know what my specific health concerns are. And in fact, I, you know, so I don't need the rest of your data. I'm happy with what I have. How do you sort of respond to that sort of attitude if it all drops up? Well, I mean, it depends on what kind of data you already have. If you have the very elementary data, I think that now it's already understood, or at least shared, you know, shared approach that it's not, it doesn't address the specific problems that we want to address adequately. If you, I don't know, if you look at the impact of COVID-19 on a population, let's say you want to look at people who with high education, you also need to look at how it, if it impacted differently, men and women of this, this education background, you cannot just take one, one category and then say this, the solution that I make for this will cover all it won't. It actually makes it easier for you. It's not easier. It's it takes more time, but it's informed. Yes. And it makes more, it makes a greater impact, which is what we want to achieve at the end of the day. Thanks very much, Anna, for that. And we will, of course, see how that goes, but also speak to you soon for more updates probably next week until then have a good weekend. Thanks. All right, this was our last episode of the Daily DB for this week. We'll be back on Monday, but in the meantime, our website will be up and running, of course, and then we'll have updates and stories as always. We invite you to head there to check those out. It's peoplesdispatch.org. Also, don't forget to follow us on the social media platform of your choice. We'll be back on Monday. Until then, have a good weekend. Goodbye.