Sunday, March 30, 2003 By DANIEL YEE <a href=www.cantonrep.com>Associated Press writer

Putting on surgical masks, domestic workers from the Philippines read their hometown newspapers during their weekly day off on Sunday in Hong Kong where the new flu-like disease shows no signs of letting up. The disease has killed at least 55 worldwide.

ATLANTA — U.S. health officials said Saturday that none of the antiviral drugs and other treatment they have tested are effective against a flu-like disease that has killed at least 54 people and sickened nearly 1,500 others around the world.

They also expanded their travel advisory, suggesting that anyone planning nonessential travel to mainland China, Hong Kong, Singapore or Hanoi, Vietnam, “may wish to postpone their trips until further notice.”

“The global epidemic continues to expand,” said Dr. Julie Gerberding, head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “We recognize this as an epidemic that is evolving.”

The CDC has reported 62 cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, in the United States, and at least 35 cases have been reported in Canada, where three people have died.

But the majority of the cases have been in Asia, where the illness is believed to have originated.

On Saturday, the first doctor to realize the world was dealing with an unfamiliar disease died of the illness in Thailand. Dr. Carlo Urbani, 46, of Italy, a World Health Organization expert on communicable diseases, became infected while working in Vietnam, where he diagnosed a U.S. businessman hospitalized in Hanoi, the U.N. agency said. The businessman later died.

U.S. health officials believe illness comes from a new form of coronavirus, the virus that causes about a fifth of all colds.

Gerberding said Saturday that no successful drugs or treatments had yet been found.

“We have no evidence that any specific antiviral, steroid treatment or other agents that are targeting this virus have any benefit to patients,” she said.

Two possible diagnostic tests that detect antibodies, indicating a person’s immune system has reacted to the virus, are under development, and CDC officials hope to soon be able to supply those tests to state health departments, CDC officials said.

In Hong Kong, the number of people suffering from flu-like disease increased sharply Saturday to 12 people killed and 470 sickened. Hong Kong health secretary Dr. Yeoh Eng-kiong said more residents likely will become sick. More than 1,000 have been quarantined.

Thousands of Hong Kong residents donned surgical masks but many others refused to venture out, and activity in the usually bustling city stopped. Schools were closed and some companies shut down after workers became sick.

Singapore, which has had two deaths, nearly doubled the number of people quarantined to more than 1,500 on Friday.

The illness appears to have originated in China, which has been criticized for being slow in reporting cases. WHO officials who went to China to investigate the disease said Beijing has promised to improve monitoring of the illness, with daily updates from every province.

“We are desperate to know more about the scope and the magnitude of” SARS in China, Gerberding said. “It’s the biggest predictor of where this will be headed in coming weeks.”

On the Net: CDC: www.cdc.gov World Health Organization: www.who.int

<a href=www.abs-cbnnews.com>abs-cbnNEWS.com monitor

TORONTO - Health officials closed a second Toronto-area hospital to new patients and asked hundreds of its employees to quarantine themselves as a deadly flu-like illness continued to spread worldwide.

Anyone who has worked at York Central Hospital since March 16 has been asked to stay in their homes for 10 days to try to contain the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome, hospital president Frank Lussing said Saturday. The hospital has 1,800 employees.

The disease has killed three people in Canada and caused authorities to advise thousands of people in Toronto, the largest city, to quarantine themselves at home. Worldwide, the disease has killed at least 54 people and sickened nearly 1,500.

U.S. health officials said Saturday that none of the antiviral drugs and other treatment they have tested are effective against SARS.

On Saturday, the disease killed Dr. Carlo Urbani, the World Health Organization doctor who was the first to identify the latest outbreak when it appeared in Vietnam.

Canada Newswire

TORONTO, March 30 /CNW/ - Ontario's lack of preparedness for the outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) has nurses extremely worried about the health of their patients, the community at large and their own safety, says Barb Wahl, RN, President of the Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA).
"We're seeing a shortage of supplies, especially the N-95 masks that nurses need to wear to protect themselves and the public. This is putting the public in danger," says Wahl. "These masks are essential gear in an event like this to stop the further spread of infection, and yet our nurses say some facilities are rationing them."
"Nurses also have reported they are being excluded at some facilities from meetings where plans are being formulated to deal with the outbreak. This is unacceptable to our members and should be unacceptable to the public," said Wahl.
Currently the majority of SARS cases in Ontario are front-line nurses and doctors, while many more are in quarantine in their homes awaiting to see if they will develop the disease. More nurses have been reporting symptoms, which means their families and colleagues are also at risk.
"With a nursing shortage already hampering our ability to provide safe patient care in Ontario, we can't afford to see even one of our nurses sidelined with SARS, especially during an outbreak like this. It is essential that they are fully protected when caring for these patients," said Wahl.
Asked to notify ONA if any of their employers are not complying with the provincial 12-point directive to Toronto and GTA facilities for containment of SARS, nurses have been reporting some alarming scenarios, including:
- some facilities haven't got N-95 masks to provide to staff.
- nurses are being made to wear masks beyond their effectiveness because of rationing or limited supplies.
- nurses are being told to decided for themselves whether or not they need to wear a mask.
- nurses are being asked to care for both SARS patients in isolation wards and non-SARS patients in regular wards, which increases the chances of contamination.
"If we are to control this outbreak and ensure that more health care workers aren't infected, they must be provided with full protective gear for treating SARS patients," said Wahl. "That includes gowns, gloves, eye protection and masks. And as the front-line care providers, nurses must be involved in planning and implementing strategies for dealing with the outbreak."
ONA is urging the provincial government to broaden its 12-point directive to facilities across Ontario, which includes visitor restrictions, encompassing hospitals, homes for the aged, nursing homes, retirement homes, and home care in the community.
"We strongly recommended facilities be closed to visitors early last week and yet many facilities are continuing to allow the public to come and go at will. This has to stop. We can't emphasize this enough," said Wahl.
ONA is the union representing 46,000 registered nurses and allied health professionals working in hospitals, long-term care facilities, community agencies, industry and other settings across Ontario.

For further information: Laura Ziemba, (416) 803-8028

The American Prospect By Jeremy Mayer Web Exclusive: 4.1.03

George W. Bush is under an international quarantine. It is not security concerns that prevent him from going overseas, nor is it the unseemly appearance of leaving the White House while our troops fight along the Euphrates. Rather, Bush can't leave America because his policies are intensely unpopular in almost every country on earth.

What country could this president visit that wouldn't immediately erupt into massive civil unrest? A Bush visit to Western Europe would make 2001's violent anti-globalization demonstrations in Genoa look like a tea party.

This explains why British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Bush's only real ally in this war, came to Washington instead of hosting Bush in London. It also explains why a few weeks ago Bush met with Blair and the leaders of Spain and Portugal in the Azores. By meeting at a U.S. airbase on an isolated archipelago with a population roughly equal to that of Akron, Ohio, Bush avoided the anger in the European streets. Although the Portuguese prime minister welcomed our president to "Europe," the sad truth is that Bush will not be welcome in the real Western Europe for months, if not years.

Some might say that the effective quarantine of an American president does not matter. After all, it has happened before, and with little apparent long-term effect. In the summer of 1960, as Japan debated a new treaty with the United States, leftist and pacifist forces launched demonstrations so vast that then-President Dwight Eisenhower canceled plans to visit. Similarly, in 1958, Vice President Richard Nixon's trip to South America met with such violent outrage that a warship was sent in case extraction by force became necessary. The extreme hostility to America's foreign policy in Japan and South America eventually subsided.

But this is different. The center of the rage is Western Europe, historically the home of America's closest allies. American presidents have often been greeted by cheering throngs of Europeans, as when Woodrow Wilson went to Paris in 1919. Trips to Europe produced some of the modern presidency's greatest moments, from John F. Kennedy's "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech to Ronald Reagan's eloquent elegy to the boys of D-Day. Even when the visit of an American president sparked demonstrations, it was clear to all concerned that the vast majority of the populace supported America's role in the world.

Today, as an ominous boycott of American products spreads, it is obvious that the anger at America is deep and extends far beyond Western Europe.

Bush's quarantine involves almost all of the Middle East, Latin America, Australia and New Zealand, and even some Asian countries. Polls in some Eastern European nations suggest less intense opposition to America, but those countries are geographically close to Western Europe -- a presidential visit to Bucharest would likely attract hundreds of thousands of demonstrators from Germany and France. A trip to a less stable nation, such as Egypt or Pakistan, could severely weaken or even bring down the host government.

The world's citizens are so helpless in the face of America's military supremacy and unilateral foreign policy that the only way they can express their anger is through civil unrest and boycotts. Even a visit to America's neighbors, Mexico or Canada, would produce scenes of unprecedented anti-American demonstrations.

And those images would matter here at home. In 1960, Kennedy used the anti-Nixon demonstrations abroad to argue that the nation was losing stature in the world. A foreign trip by Bush now would reveal to the average American in pictures -- so vivid that even FOX News couldn't spin them away -- just how bitterly our policies are opposed around the globe.

Once the war is over and the occupation begins, reporters will start to ask why our president isn't traveling anymore. Karl Rove will have to think of a place to send him. Outside of Israel or Afghanistan, the choices will be slim. Of course, Bush could safely go to a country where the government uses brutality to stop demonstrations. Which means that it has come to this: The American president, who once symbolized the value of freedom to many people around the world, can now only visit countries where dissent is crushed.

So what's it going to be, Mr. President: Havana or Beijing?

Jeremy Mayer is a visiting assistant professor at Georgetown University and the author of 9-11: The Giant Awakens.

Source

Analysis Even with Saddam Hussein's demise, "oil nationalism" could spark terrorism and sabotage if an occupying US does not strike the right notes, writes Valerie Marcel

Oil is important to America's foreign policy in the Middle East and if the outcome of this war is a stable Iraq, friendly to the US, it could benefit American energy security. But the present US-led military campaign against Iraq is not a war for Iraq's oil.

The previous Gulf War had a clear oil incentive. Protecting Middle East oil from Saddam Hussein's control was an important US objective of the Gulf War of 1990-91. By invading Kuwait, Iraq controlled the production of five million barrels of oil a day, doubling its reserves.

Iraq's own oil is much less important. With sustained investment over several years, Iraqi production could be raised to around 6 per cent of the world total, compared with Saudi potential of nearly three times that and Russian potential of nearly double that.

Oil is important, but if energy security - understood as ensuring a steady flow of cheap oil to the market - was the prime driver for current American foreign policy and war, the US would have intervened in Venezuela to bring an end to the strikes against Chavez's regime. Venezuela accounts for 14 per cent of US imports against Iraq's 7 per cent.

Another public concern is that if the US overthrows the Iraqi regime it will open Iraq's oil to exploitation by US oil companies. So far, American foreign policy has not done very much for the oil majors. US sanctions against Iran and Libya have barred access by American companies to those markets, while European and other companies have had a freer hand to invest in these oil rich countries.

More generally, widespread public resentment against American policy in the Middle East (vis-à-vis both Palestine and Iraq) has made it more difficult for US companies to do business in the region. Some are arguing that by invading Iraq and opening up that market to foreign investment, the Bush administration is finally attending to its friends in Houston, making up for past neglect. American companies will clearly have interesting, new opportunities in Iraq, but that's not the end of the story.

There will be a long wait before long-term investment takes off in Iraq. First, oil companies will not make long-term investments until a legitimate government is fully established. Second, oil nationalism could restrict investment.

During the occupation phase, which could last from six months to two years, many foreign companies will not engage in long-term investments because of the risk that their investments would not survive the US occupation. It would also be politically very risky for the US administration or Iraqi political representatives to propose terms that "give away" future oil. As an occupying force, the US and its allies will face intense scrutiny in their management of the oil sector.

For instance, the US may expect to use Iraq's oil revenues to finance its occupation costs. In this case, the domestic political benefits of minimising American expenses in the Iraq venture must be set against the risks of popular resentment of US neo-colonialism in the region.

The dominant view in the region is that oil is a national resource that belongs to the Arab people. Such oil nationalism could lead to terrorism and sabotage.

To minimise resistance from the Middle East, US-led forces may want to involve the UN in their efforts. They will have to secure a UN mandate to access the oil funds or for UN bodies to participate in the humanitarian and reconstruction effort. The recalcitrant Security Council members could make their support conditional on a truly multilateral involvement in Iraq (thus tying America's hands in the management of the oil sector) and a role for their companies in the reconstruction effort.

Following the disarmament and stabilisation of the country, the US and its allies will want to transfer powers to a transition Iraqi government. This transition phase could last between three and five years. During this slow process of political consolidation, the new Iraqi government will be sensitive to domestic and international pressures.

It will face a difficult dilemma: it will be torn between the need for capital to rebuild the country and its need to safeguard its nationalist credentials by protecting its oil from foreign interests. It is likely Iraqis would rather delay their oil boom than open the door too wide to foreign companies.

They will probably find an intermediate solution, where service companies do contracting work on the existing oil fields and oil companies get short-term Iranian-type contracts. There may be sufficient takers of contracts on these terms to achieve production levels up to around 4 million barrels a day, with the development of one or two new fields of intermediate size or the phased development of large fields.

However, it seems important to question any assumption that a legitimate independent regime would maintain the generous contract terms that Saddam Hussein's regime offered under the pressure of international isolation and embargo.

Although the new regime will be desperate to increase its oil revenues to fund reconstruction, this consideration must be set against its need to safeguard its nationalist credentials by protecting its oil from foreign interests.

Dr Valerie Marcel is a senior energy research fellow at the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London