الكاتب: kafej

A highly infectious form of bird flu has been confirmed for the first time in Antarctic seals, threatening one of the most fragile ecosystems on the planet.

Scientists working for the UK’s Animal Plant Health Agency (APHA) detected the variant of the H5N1 virus in samples taken from dead elephant and fur seals on the sub-Antarctic island of South Georgia.

Dozens of animals are known to have died, with many more likely to have succumbed in remote bays and out at sea.

Experts at British Antarctic Survey told Sky News that the unfolding tragedy was a “mass mortality event”.

Dr Marco Falchieri, from the APHA, spent three weeks collecting samples from wildlife on South Georgia, a UK Overseas Territory in the Southern Ocean.

He said seals and seabirds share the same beaches, giving the virus a chance to transmit.

“It is significant because this level of mortality is not normally seen in this population,” he said.

“The fact that we found the virus suggests that it is responsible for the casualties that have been seen.”

Virus has swept the globe

The 2.3.4.4b form of the virus has swept the globe, spread by migrating birds. It has caused mass die-offs in several seabird colonies in the UK.

Any movement of the virus between birds and mammals is a concern to scientists who closely monitor ‘spillover events’ for any sign that it is mutating.

It’s thought to have killed thousands of sealions around South America, as well as large numbers of mink and foxes being farmed for fur in Europe. It has been detected in a small number of mammals in the UK, including seals and wild foxes.

But there’s no good evidence that the virus is spreading between mammals and the APHA scientists found no indication that the virus had adapted to surviving in seals.

These animals share the same environment with birds,” said Dr Falchieri.

Read more:
Third set of vaccines for foie gras ducks to try to halt bird flu outbreak
Hope in fight against lethal bird flu
Nearly 10,000 seabirds dead and sick across Scotland

“That’s the way we think these animals have been infected by the virus.”

Conservationists had hoped the vast Southern Ocean would stop the virus reaching Antarctica and South Georgia, but it was detected in October in corpses of brown skua, a large seabird.

‘Big relief’ for Antarctic penguins, for now

The new research by the APHA has also found the virus in kelp gulls and Antarctic terns, but so far it hasn’t been seen in penguins.

Professor Ashley Banyard, an avian influenza specialist at the APHA, told Sky News: “It’s a big relief to a lot of us that the penguins haven’t been affected.

“We don’t know whether that’s because there’s a lack of susceptibility, or that they’ve had prior exposure and some antibody response to a less pathogenic virus that may well have travelled asymptomatically in migrating birds.”

But penguins have been affected in other parts of the world and wildlife experts fear the consequences of the virus reaching the Antarctic continent itself.

Norman Ratcliffe, a seabird ecologist at British Antarctic Survey said: “These are mass mortality events at a well above the baseline levels.

“If the virus does establish on the continent it could potentially spread right around.

“That would affect the global population of Emperor penguins and a very large proportion of the world’s Adelie penguins as well.

“Leopard, crabeater and Weddell seals could also be infected.

“These are all species that really aren’t found anywhere else, so this would have global repercussions on Antarctic wildlife.”

Many Antarctic species are already struggling as the climate changes and sea ice retreats.

The International Court of Justice in the Hague is best thought of as the United Nation’s court or, in simpler terms, the world’s court.

It was set up as a branch of the UN to settle disputes between states and to give advisory opinions on matters of international law.

The UN is made up of member states. If they have disagreements, it is the court’s job to resolve them and pronounce judgment.

It has 15 judges elected from member states by the UN General Assembly and UN Security Council.

Israel-Hamas war live: Follow for the latest updates

Is that the right place to bring a case about genocide?

Not necessarily, and that is part of what judges must decide.

The court is more used to considering disputes over land, boundaries, and sovereignty, between two member nations

However, it has considered allegations of genocide before.

Ukraine accused Russia of the crime in its invasion in 2022.

But this is South Africa, a third-party country bringing a case about Israel

A precedent has been set for that as well.

In 2019, Gambia brought a case against Myanmar, alleging it had committed genocidal acts against the Rohingya people.

The ICJ is expected to decide whether it does have jurisdiction in this new case being brought by South Africa.

Why is South Africa bringing this case?

South Africa says it is doing so because it is horrified by Israel’s conduct during this war and it must stop.

It hopes not least for an interim ruling that will demand a ceasefire.

But Israel says it is acting for political reasons.

The South African ruling party – the ANC – has long been a close supporter of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) and South Africa sees the Gaza conflict as a colonial war with echoes of their own past conflict.

Israel says that is misleading nonsense.

Does South Africa have a case?

The South African case is that Israel has violated the Genocide Convention, to which it is a signatory.

It cites the huge number of Palestinians killed by Israel, and the deliberate restriction on supplies of water, food, fuel and medical supplies imposed by Israel.

And most worryingly for Israel, the inflammatory statements made by senior Israeli officials during the war dehumanising Palestinians and, the South Africans believe, inciting genocide.

What does Israel say in its defence?

The Israeli legal team is not saying much for now, saving it for the court.

But supporters and legal experts say there was no explicit command or programme of action conceived and executed to carry out a genocide – namely the destruction of an entire people.

And they say they have taken measures to avoid civilian casualties, which would be perverse if they were planning to wipe them all out.

Who is likely to win?

Genocide is one of the hardest allegations to prove in a court of law.

It requires a very high bar of proof.

Destroying an entire race or people requires the resources of a state.

South Africa must show that the government of Israel planned the annihilation of the people of Gaza, ordered it, and set in motion actions to achieve it.

Joining the dots between some inflammatory rhetoric and a lot of people dying will most likely not be enough.

So Israel has nothing to worry about?

Not necessarily.

It is fair to say that even if the court decides it has the jurisdiction to consider the case, reaching a firm conclusion either way will most likely take years.

But it can also make an interim judgement, and for that, the bar is much lower.

South Africa must only prove it is “plausible” that Israel plotted genocide.

For that to stick, the official statements, supply restrictions, and the extraordinary number of dead civilians may be enough.

And what would an interim judgment against Israel mean?

The court could then order action.

That could range from a demand Israel stop its inflammatory rhetoric, to an order that it ceases all military action until the case has been fully considered.

Read more from Sky News:
Gaza residents tell of desperate need for more food
British warship did ‘exactly what it was designed for’ to repel Houthi attack

That would put Israel and its backers, the US, in a bind, because they believe the war must go on until Hamas is dismantled.

Would Israel have to comply?

Both America and Russia have ignored ICJ rulings against them in the past.

Israel may try to do the same.

But it would be hard for Israel to continue a war in the teeth of a ruling handed down by a universally recognised court.

And it would still have to live with a reputation tainted by allegations of one of the worst possible crimes.

For a country established in the wake of a genocide against its own people, that would be a very bitter outcome indeed.

Starbucks is being sued in the US for alleged false advertising over how ethically sourced its products are.

The lawsuit centres on accusations it is getting coffee and tea from farms that have human rights and labour abuses, when the company says it is committed to “100% ethical sourcing”.

The legal action, which has been filed in court in Washington DC, is being brought on behalf of US consumers by the National Consumers League which cites reports about alleged abuses on farms in Guatemala, Kenya and Brazil.

The advocacy group alleges the world’s biggest coffee shop chain has continued to buy from these suppliers despite the alleged violations.

Sally Greenberg, the league’s chief executive, said: “On every bag of coffee and box of K-cups that Starbucks sells, Starbucks is heralding its commitment to 100% ethical sourcing.

“But it’s pretty clear that there are significant human rights and labour abuses across Starbucks’ supply chain.”

She said the lawsuit tries to prevent Starbucks from making claims in its advertising that it is “committed to 100% ethical coffee sourcing”, unless the company raises the standard of labour practices in its supply chain.

In recent years, officials in Brazil have clamped down on several reported Starbucks suppliers over alleged abusive and unsafe practices.

These accusations include farms taking the cost of harvesting equipment out of workers’ wages, not providing clean drinking water, personal protective equipment and toilets, and employing people who are underage, according to news organisation Reporter Brasil.

It said that in 2022, 17 workers, including three people under 18, were rescued by inspectors from “modern slavery” at a coffee farm managed by a man whose coffee roaster company got Starbucks’ seal of certification a month earlier.

Read more:
Starbucks launches olive oil coffee
Starbucks vanilla Frappuccino drinks recalled in US
Starbucks bosses sued by think tank over diversity push

Like many companies, Starbucks uses third-party certification programmes to ensure the integrity of its supply chains for tea and cocoa.

The company launched its own sourcing standards, called Coffee and Farmer Equity (C.A.F.E.) Practices, in 2004 to oversee its coffee sourcing in more than 30 countries.

The verification programme holds Starbucks coffee suppliers to more than 200 environmental, labour and quality standards. Farms which fail to meet those can be barred from supplying the company until corrective action is confirmed.

But experts say there have been questions over how effective such programmes are, reported NBC News, Sky’s US partner network.

In response to the Reporter Brasil stories and reported labour abuses in Kenya and Guatemala cited in the lawsuit, Starbucks issued statements that the company was “deeply concerned,” and it would “thoroughly investigate” claims of labour violations, “take immediate action” to suspend purchases or “ensure corrective action” occurred.

A spokesperson for Starbucks did not immediately respond to a request from NBC News, for comment on its sourcing relationships with the farms and companies mentioned in the lawsuit.

But in an earlier statement to NBC News, Starbucks said: “We take allegations like these extremely seriously and are actively engaged with farms to ensure they adhere to our standards.

“Each supply chain is required to undergo reverification regularly and we remain committed to working with our business partners to meet the expectations detailed in our Global Human Rights Statement.”