radiofree.asia

Category: South Africa

  • Attacks Against Shack Dwellers’ Movement Abahlali BaseMjondolo Continue In South Africa

    On May 5, Nokuthula Mabaso, a militant land rights activist in South Africa was assassinated. Mabaso was a leader of Abahlali baseMjondolo (AbM), South Africa’s militant shack dwellers’ movement that fights for land rights of the urban poor. She was the third activist of the movement to be killed in less than two months.

    The post Attacks Against Shack Dwellers’ Movement Abahlali BaseMjondolo Continue In South Africa appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Coronavirus subvariants cause concern as government pretends the pandemic is over

    The coronavirus (Covid-19) BA.1 and BA.2 ‘Omicron’ lineages have been dominant in the UK for some months. There’s also a subvariant, known as ‘XE’, within the UK.

    But the government’s agenda in recent months has been all about “living with Covid”. Following pressure from backbenchers, the government is opposed to mask-wearing and other precautions. 

    Government all over the place

    In November 2021, The Canary reported on news that the Omicron BA.1 variant had arrived in the UK. In February, we warned of the Omicron variant BA.2 (also known as the ‘Stealth’ variant because it proved more difficult to track). Also, in February WebMD reported that according to a Japanese study (then in preprint, now published in Cell):

    therapeutic monoclonal antibodies used to treat people infected with COVID didn’t have much effect on BA.2.

    It didn’t take long before that variant became dominant. We now know of further subvariants, including XE, which is different in that it is a ‘recombination’ of BA.1 and BA.2.

    Johnson has reportedly said that in response to emerging subvariants, he cannot “take any options off the table”. Yet in regard to another lockdown, he added how he wanted to avoid that ever happening again; in other words, it’s the usual mixed messaging..

    XE ‘recombinant’

    A recombinant, which is further explained in an article in The Conversation, is when:

    two different variants infect the same cell, in the same person, at the same time. From there, they can combine their genetic material, resulting in a virus that possesses a mix of genes from both infecting “parent” viruses. This recombinant variant may then spread to other people – as has been the case with omicron XE.

    It adds:

    Recombinant viruses can exhibit marked changes in their behaviour, such as increased infectiousness, evasion of our existing immunity to the virus, or resistance to drugs.

    Though a Time article from 8 April said “The good news is that there are still relatively few XE cases”. It quotes Dr. Andrew Badley, chair of the SARS-CoV-2 COVID-19 Task Force and professor of infectious disease at the Mayo Clinic:

    We’ve known about the existence of the XE variant since the middle of January… Now, two and a half months later, we’re still seeing cases, but it hasn’t exploded…

    Omicron was first identified in November, and within four weeks it was all over the world. So it’s not as dominant a new strain as Omicron was

    Other subvariants on the horizon

    In a Twitter thread, Independent SAGE member Professor Christine Pagel warns of a new wave of infections that could result from the subvariants:

    Pagel explains that South Africa is experiencing “a new wave” on the back of subvariants BA.4 and BA.5, and in the US subvariant BA.2.12.1 is “growing rapidly”:

    Further in the thread, Pagel warns that should BA.4, BA 5, and BA.2.12.1 “take off” in the UK, we will likely see a “new wave of infections”:

    Such infections, she adds, could mean thousands more people suffering from Long Covid. She also explains that with Omicron, compared to previous variants, “immunity is not that long lived & it gives less protection against non-Omicron variants”:

    Some good news – but…

    As Pagel notes, we’re currently on a downward slope, and the percentage of people testing positive for coronavirus appears to be decreasing in England, Scotland, Wales and the north of Ireland. Hospital admissions related to coronavirus are also decreasing.

    But that doesn’t mean we should drop our guard. Especially as more infections increase the risk of mutating variants that may evade existing vaccines. Additionally, Long Covid remains a significant and serious risk. It can impact patients’ quality of life over the long term, even if they don’t end up in hospital.

    Meanwhile, when it comes to coronavirus announcements, the government can be characterised as basically absent without leave. Indeed, its absence of updates on the virus is tantamount to suppression of information – information that affects all of our health and wellbeing.

    Featured image via YouTube

    By Tom Coburg

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Marking Workers’ Day in Dispiriting Times

    Most young people in South Africa do not have a job and are, under current circumstances, unlikely to ever have one. For years, deindustrialization and the collapse of mining laid waste to unionized jobs. Now state austerity is hacking away at the public sector. Many of the few new jobs that are being created are poorly paid, precarious and not well unionized.

    Some of this can be ascribed to powerful global forces that are difficult for any state to resist. And the deep structural features of our society were built by colonialism and are so entrenched that they cannot easily be changed. But there is no doubt that the ANC’s poor economic policy choices have also been a significant part of the failure to build a viable economy. This has been compounded by the appalling state of public education, the collapse of a significant part of the ANC into a violent kleptocracy, the decay of infrastructure and a series of damaging events such as the brutally enforced hard Covid lockdowns, the winter riots and the recent floods in KwaZulu-Natal.

    The post Marking Workers’ Day in Dispiriting Times appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Cost of the Ukraine War Felt in Africa, Global South

    While international news headlines remain largely focused on the war in Ukraine, little attention is given to the horrific consequences of the war which are felt in many regions around the world. Even when these repercussions are discussed, disproportionate coverage is allocated to European countries, like Germany and Austria, due to their heavy reliance on Russian energy sources.

    The horrific scenario, however, awaits countries in the Global South which, unlike Germany, will not be able to eventually substitute Russian raw material from elsewhere. Countries like Tunisia, Sri Lanka and Ghana and numerous others, are facing serious food shortages in the short, medium and long term.

    The World Bank is warning of a “human catastrophe” as a result of a burgeoning food crisis, itself resulting from the Russia-Ukraine war. The World Bank President, David Malpass, told the BBC that his institution estimates a “huge” jump in food prices, reaching as high as 37%, which would mean that the poorest of people would be forced to “eat less and have less money for anything else such as schooling.”

    This foreboding crisis is now compounding an existing global food crisis, resulting from major disruptions in the global supply chains, as a direct outcome of the Covid-19 pandemic, as well as pre-existing problems, resulting from wars and civil unrest, corruption, economic mismanagement, social inequality and more.

    Even prior to the war in Ukraine, the world was already getting hungrier. According to the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), an estimated 811 million people in the world “faced hunger in 2020”, with a massive jump of 118 million compared to the previous year. Considering the continued deterioration of global economies, especially in the developing world, and the subsequent and unprecedented inflation worldwide, the number must have made several large jumps since the publishing of FAO’s report in July 2021, reporting on the previous year.

    Indeed, inflation is now a global phenomenon. The consumer price index in the United States has increased by 8.5% from a year earlier, according to the financial media company, Bloomberg. In Europe, “inflation (reached) record 7.5%”, according to the latest data released by Eurostat. As troubling as these numbers are, western societies with relatively healthy economies and potential room for government subsidies, are more likely to weather the inflation storm, if compared to countries in Africa, South America, the Middle East and many parts of Asia.

    The war in Ukraine has immediately impacted food supplies to many parts of the world. Russia and Ukraine combined contribute 30% of global wheat exports. Millions of tons of these exports find their way to food-import-dependent countries in the Global South – mainly the regions of South Asia, the Middle East, North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa. Considering that some of these regions, comprising some of the poorest countries in the world, have already been struggling under the weight of pre-existing food crises, it is safe to say that tens of millions of people already are, or are likely to go, hungry in the coming months and years.

    Another factor resulting from the war is the severe US-led western sanctions on Russia. The harm of these sanctions is likely to be felt more in other countries than in Russia itself, due to the fact that the latter is largely food and energy independent.

    Although the overall size of the Russian economy is comparatively smaller than that of leading global economic powers like the US and China, its contributions to the world economy makes it absolutely critical. For example, Russia accounts for a quarter of the world’s natural gas exports, according to the World Bank, and 18% of coal and wheat exports, 14% of fertilizers and platinum shipments, and 11% of crude oil. Cutting off the world from such a massive wealth of natural resources while it is desperately trying to recover from the horrendous impact of the pandemic is equivalent to an act of economic self-mutilation.

    Of course, some are likely to suffer more than others. While economic growth is estimated to shrink by a large margin – up to 50% in some cases – in countries that fuel regional and international growth such as Turkey, South Africa and Indonesia, the crisis is expected to be much more severe in countries that aim for mere economic subsistence, including many African countries.

    An April report published by the humanitarian group, Oxfam, citing an alert issued by 11 international humanitarian organizations, warned that “West Africa is hit by its worst food crisis in a decade.” Currently, there are 27 million people going hungry in that region, a number that may rise to 38 million in June if nothing is done to stave off the crisis. According to the report, this number would represent “a new historic level”, as it would be an increase by more than a third compared to last year. Like other struggling regions, the massive food shortage is a result of the war in Ukraine, in addition to pre-existing problems, lead amongst them the pandemic and climate change.

    While the thousands of sanctions imposed on Russia are yet to achieve any of their intended purpose, it is poor countries that are already feeling the burden of the war, sanctions and geopolitical tussle between great powers. As the west is busy dealing with its own economic woes, little heed is being paid to those suffering most. And as the world is forced to transition to a new global economic order, it will take years for small economies to successfully make that adjustment.

    While it is important that we acknowledge the vast changes to the world’s geopolitical map, let us not forget that millions of people are going hungry, paying the price for a global conflict of which they are not part.

    The post Cost of the Ukraine War Felt in Africa, Global South first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • South Africa: Durban flood disaster unveils state climate sloth

    Patrick Bond and Mary Galvin report on the recent catastrophic floods in Durban, South Africa, which have exposed Cyril Ramaphosa’s government’s criminal negligence and failure to take action on climate change.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • Human Rights Day in South Africa: how to be a good human rights defender

    South Africa in the special position to have its own human rights day, not on 10 December but on 21 March, historically linked with 21 March 1960 and the events of Sharpeville. In a Maverick Citizen panel discussion on Monday 21 March, representatives of a range of civil society movements explored what it means to be an activist. The panellists discussed their own experiences of activism: the world needs activists, who in turn need commonality for success and survival 

    On 22 March 2022 Tamsin Metelerkamp reported on the event:

    The current times — filled as they are with uncertainty and suffering — require all or most people to be active rather than passive. Though those involved in activism will become weary, they should not step back from the struggle, according to Delani Majola, communications officer for the Ahmed Kathrada Foundation. The need for activism in today’s world is far more urgent than it ever was before.

    “It means that we need to… find linkages with one another, we need to recharge each other. I think we will not achieve anything — so whether it’s small victories, small gains — but we will not achieve anything if we sit back and become passive and give in to defeat,” said Majola.

    Among the speakers involved in the discussion were also Nkateko Blessing Muyimane, a medical student who recently fled Ukraine and started the non-governmental organisation, SA Safe Corridor for Students; Jennifer Matibi, founding member of Nirvana, an initiative that assists young women of the Johannesburg inner city to create spaces in which they can grow; Thandeka Gqubule-Mbeki, former SABC economics editor and current PhD student at the University of Johannesburg; Siyabonga Ndlangamandla, board member at Makers Valley Partnership; and Shaeera Kalla, board member of Section27 and member of the #PayTheGrants campaign. Nkateko Blessing Muyimane, a medical student who recently fled Ukraine and began an NGO, SA Safe Corridor for Students, to assist those students still trapped in the country.

    The discussion was facilitated by Maverick Citizen editor Mark Heywood and journalist Zukiswa Pikoli. Zukiswa Pikoli, journalist with Maverick Citizen.

    Spaces for activism have become smaller in recent years, according to Kalla. This not only calls for more voices and action in these spaces but also cooperation and support among the different groups within civil society. There are, she emphasised, links between the various causes for which people advocate — from basic income and food sovereignty to free media and mental health.

    “Being a good activist is really about also building relationships, and I think those spaces that one creates are filled with those relationships,” said Kalla. “[T]hat’s how you sustain momentum and that’s how you figure out how to take one idea and create an intersectional… spectrum, a spectrum of issues that support it, and they take it to the next level.”

    She added that the “typical image” of an activist should not override the everyday struggles that people face in society. While activism is a choice for some, for others it is a lived reality; a state of fighting a system that was built against them.

    Activism should come from a place of compassion, according to Muyimane. He defines activists as those who want to make an environment a better place. The decision of a person to throw themselves into a course of action is often very personal, said Gqubule-Mbeki. It can be rooted in their worldview, an innate sense of justice or outrage at something they have witnessed or experienced.

    Gqubule-Mbeki’s own journey as an activist began with her experience of forced removals under apartheid. She saw both her grandparents and her parents lose their homes to this unjust policy. Thandeka Gqubule-Mbeki, PhD student and part-time lecturer at the University of Johannesburg addressing the audience. Johannesburg, 21 March 2022. (Photo: Shiraaz Mohamed)

    “So, [activism is] partly personal, partly a decision to make your beliefs publicly relevant and to impact policy and how human beings relate to each other, and how societies are constructed,” she said.

    Over and above the “imagination” it takes to stand up for something, Kalla believes activism is about sustaining human beings, creating a political culture and ensuring that people feel safe. In this way, separate causes are united by their common drive to see people live with dignity.

    “It’s about making sure people feel seen, feel safe and feel cherished, whether or not you’re personally affected, in a direct sense,” she said. “[T]he fact that you are a human being, and you can have empathy and you can see an unjust system and want to do something about it, is enough to start trying to understand what it is that you can contribute to, in whatever form.”

    There is currently a large pushback against democracy defenders by capital, corporations and institutions, according to Gqubule-Mbeki. If the victimisation of human rights activists is to be addressed, there is a need for an examination and improvement of certain laws, including the Protected Disclosures Act and Witness Protection Act.

    “We must ratchet up the consequences of acting against activists, vulnerable human beings, women, and so on. So, I think that’s one of the challenges that we tend to have going forward,” said Gqubule-Mbeki.

    Another challenge related to activism is the toll it can take on people’s mental health. Kalla recalled a period in her time as an activist when she struggled to eat and live healthily, saying that it taught her about creating sustainable spaces within movements. ..It is important to address the issue of “toxic behaviour” within movements, should it arise, she continued. “A lesson that I’ve learned is that you have to be tender. So, tenderness is fundamental, but firmness is equally fundamental, so that you don’t create an unhealthy space, then it collapses.”

    Being a young woman whose activism has brought her into meetings dominated by older, more experienced people, Matibi has sometimes questioned her own standards and achievements. She manages these uncertainties by building supportive networks within civil society. Jennifer Matibi, founding member of Nirvana, an initiative that assists young women of the Johannesburg inner city to create spaces in which they can grow.

    “Being involved with other activists, being involved with other people that are doing the work that you’re currently doing, …I have people that I can reach out to who are actually in the space and doing the kind of work that I’m doing,” said Matibi.

    As an activist, it is important to guard against the potential for hubris, said Gqubule-Mbeki. This can be done through supporting other activists and offering solidarity to those who are struggling for change. However, it also requires a keen awareness of those representatives of commercial and state interests who might try and “sidle up” to a cause.

    “So, when you read vested interests, then you are able not to [sell out] to money, because money – once it comes into your cause and is not properly governed – it becomes toxic and [those providing the money] can go to communities and you can give them a disproportionate power,” said Gqubule-Mbeki. “And then when the state sidles up to you, you have to be equally weary, but also conscious that this is the state’s job. The state is the collective people.” Siyabonga Ndlangamandla, board Member at Makers Valley Partnership as he listens to other panelists talk. Johannesburg, 21 March 2022. (Photo: Shiraaz Mohamed)

    Activism is not an exclusive or an elite phenomenon, according to Majola. It can take the form of signing a petition, joining a demonstration or simply participating and engaging as part of an audience.

    “[W]e shouldn’t sanctify or glorify activists, because ultimately, we’re still human,” he said. “So, I think anybody can get into activism, and those who are already in, I think it’s important to base and ground your movements in fact and truth.”

    The world needs activists, who in turn need commonality for success and survival 

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • Amid Rolling Blackouts, Energy Workers Fight For Clean Public Power

    The lights went out around Johannesburg on a Monday morning in November 2021, not to flicker back on until early that Friday in some areas. It marked the last rolling blackout of a year troubled by more outages than any in recent memory. The fate of Eskom, the beleaguered power utility behind the crisis, is now at the center of South Africa’s struggle for a just energy transition — a break from fossil fuels without leaving behind frontline communities or energy workers.

    As a public company, Eskom has a constitutional mandate to guarantee electricity as a basic right. But the utility struggles to meet that mandate with its aging equipment, staggering debt, corruption and rules that require it to break even, which drive exorbitant rate hikes.

    The post Amid Rolling Blackouts, Energy Workers Fight For Clean Public Power appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • New “Compromise” On IP Waiver For Covid Vaccines Is Worse Than No Deal, Activists Say

    On Tuesday, after a year and a half of negotiations over an intellectual property waiver for Covid-related products, the United States, European Union, India and South Africa reportedly reached agreement on a temporary waiver of patent rules for Covid vaccines. Global health activists, however, are slamming the tentative deal as not only insufficient, but a potential setback, because it excludes tests and treatments, includes a carveout for China, and introduces new barriers for the production of generic treatments that could have implications far beyond the Covid crisis.

    The post New “Compromise” On IP Waiver For Covid Vaccines Is Worse Than No Deal, Activists Say appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Should the Basic Income Grant become a permanent line item on the national budget in South Africa?

    In 2020, the South African government introduced a Social Distress Relief (SDR) Grant of R350 to provide much-needed support for those who were particularly vulnerable to the impacts of the pandemic. Should it be permanent?

    By: Vernon Pillay.

    Original Post: https://www.iol.co.za/business-report/economy/should-the-basic-income-grant-become-a-permanent-line-item-on-the-national-budget-9bee7ba3-9270-4650-a113-e05b49534cfa?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1647355095

    Two years later, the grant; now referred to as the Basic Income Grant, has become a fundamental part of the South African zeitgeist, and a hotly debated topic amongst politicians, analysts and civil society. With many South Africans having become reliant on this grant, the writing is on the wall for the state. The question is therefore not whether the grant will become a permanent fixture of South African economic policy, but how it will be designed to meet the needs of the population – and who will be picking up the cheque.

    Michael Sachs looks at the Basic Income Grant and whether it should become a permanent line item on the national budget.

    Sachs is an Adjunct Professor at University of the Witwatersrand. He has held positions in government as the Chief Director of Fiscal Policy and the Chief Director of International Finance and Development, Currently, Sachs is the Deputy Chair of the Finance and Fiscal Commission – an advisory body to the South African government.

    The state is faced with the task of balancing a social, moral and historical imperative with the fiscal and policy tradeoffs of this critical decision.

    “I would argue that the Basic Income Grant; or Basic Income Support as I prefer to refer to it, is in effect, a done deal and impossible to withdraw for a number of sociopolitical reasons. The question is how will this grant be designed in its evolution into prevailing South African policy, and what the parameters will be,” said Sachs.

    On the topic of whether the issuing of such a grant could encourage the development of a culture of dependency, Sachs asserted his view that there is little merit to this perspective. As a country, we have struggled with increasing mass unemployment and poverty since the onset of democracy – this, according to Sachs, is at the crux of the issue.

    It is difficult to envisage a South African state that is able to sustain growth and development to a point where the entire population can be employed. The R350 grant speaks to this inability to curb record-high unemployment by job creation and economic growth alone.

    “When we look at other grants – like child support and old age grants – we see evidence both globally and locally, that cash payments of this nature can serve as an enabler to encourage more people to participate in the local economy. R350 could cover taxi fare from a rural location into a city centre; for example, where someone could find employment that would otherwise be inaccessible. When debating this issue therefore, it’s important to look at South Africa’s history and formulate a plan that considers our experience as a nation and our unique socioeconomic position,” Sachs elaborates.

    As Sachs argued, the formal issuing of a Basic Income Grant will necessitate the raising of taxes. It is, as he explains, “an inevitability.” The challenge for government is how far taxes can be raised before the detrimental impact on job creation and growth begins to chip away at the economy.

    Value-Added Tax (VAT) and Personal Income Tax are the two most viable candidates for raising the quantum that is required to sustain a Basic Income grant, according to Sachs. These two forms of tax are tried and tested methods of increasing tax revenue, as opposed to corporate income tax, which fluctuates quite significantly due to its cyclical nature and therefore does not provide the consistent revenue flow that is necessary to produce stability.

    Again, instead of a singular focus on how tax can be increased and possibly how that tax burden can be shouldered by the wealthiest 1%, Sachs advocates for a broader solution that includes how South Africa can broaden the tax base. The redistributive approach of taxing the wealthiest South Africans is idealistic, but not necessarily practical.

    Taking this approach could erode the tax base further if the affluent members of society decide to move their money offshore or emigrate. VAT, on the other hand is more broadly distributed and could be a more progressive method of increasing tax revenue. The key is striking the delicate balance between redistributive polices and building a broader tax base that will help to sustain the economy in the long term.

    Of course, as Sachs explains, the pivotal point at which the state finds itself concerns more than just taxation. There is a pressing need for the public sector to address the issues that serve as economic constraints, the most significant of which is the energy crisis.

    “There are two sides to this challenge,” Sachs continues, “there is the question of how to support and uplift the most vulnerable members of society, and then there’s the question of how South Africa can stimulate growth and development at the same time. These issues are inextricably interconnected with the country’s political affairs.

    As South Africans we need to remain hopeful that we can recover economically, but people need to understand that it’s unlikely we’ll see a scenario where South Africa turns into Singapore.”

    Sachs referenced the philosophy of Thabo Mbeki, who stated that there are two societies and two economies within South Africa – that of the ‘haves,’ and that of the ‘have nots.’

    In Sach’s opinion, current events have caused the country to go further down the path of division rather than moving towards solidarity and building an economy that everyone can contribute to.

    The question for government now is whether establishing a grant of this nature will serve to exacerbate or transform the societal divisions that separate South Africans.

    Sachs asserts, “these ‘bigger picture’ questions are the ones that we need to answer if we are to work towards a sustainable fiscus and economic policy that builds us up in the long-term.”

    South Africa finds itself at a crossroads in terms of its economic and political future. And with the turbulence of the global climate, there are a myriad of factors to consider. There is no simple answer to this complex issue. As individuals, prudent financial management is now more necessary than ever to ensure that we are able to weather the economic difficulties and remain active participants in stimulating the economy.

    The post Should the Basic Income Grant become a permanent line item on the national budget in South Africa? appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • People of colour fleeing Ukraine attacked by Polish nationalists

    Non-white refugees face violence and racist abuse in Przemyśl, as police warn of fake reports of ‘migrants committing crimes’

    Police in Poland have warned that fake reports of violent crimes being committed by people fleeing Ukraine are circulating on social media after Polish nationalists attacked and abused groups of African, south Asian and Middle Eastern people who had crossed the border last night.

    Attackers dressed in black sought out groups of non-white refugees, mainly students who had just arrived in Poland at Przemyśl train station from cities in Ukraine after the Russian invasion. According to the police, three Indians were beaten up by a group of five men, leaving one of them hospitalised.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • The Next Step in Palestine’s Anti-Apartheid Struggle is the Most Difficult

    When Nelson Mandela was freed from his Robben Island prison on February 11, 1991, my family, friends and neighbors followed the event with keen interest as they gathered in the living room of my old home in the Nuseirat Refugee Camp in the Gaza Strip.

    This emotional event took place years before Mandela uttered his famous quote “our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians”.  For us Palestinians Mandela did not need to reaffirm the South African people’s solidarity with Palestine by using these words or any other combination of words. We already knew. Emotions ran high on that day; tears were shed; supplications were made to Allah that Palestine, too, would be free soon. “Inshallah,” God willing, everyone in the room murmured with unprecedented optimism.

    Though three decades have passed without that coveted freedom, something is finally changing as far as the Palestine liberation movement is concerned. A whole generation of Palestinian activists, who either grew up or were even born after Mandela’s release, was influenced by that significant moment: Mandela’s release and the start of the official dismantling of the racist, apartheid regime of South Africa.

    Even the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993 between Israel and some in the Palestinian leadership of the PLO – which served as a major disruption of the grassroots, people-oriented liberation movement in Palestine – did not completely end what eventually became a decided anti-Israeli apartheid struggle in Palestine. Oslo, the so-called ‘peace process’ – and the disastrous ‘security coordination’ between the Palestinian leadership, exemplified in the Palestinian Authority (PA), and Israel – resulted in derailed Palestinian energies, wasted time, deepened existing factional divides, and confused Palestinian supporters everywhere. However, it did not – though it tried – occupy every political space available for Palestinian expression and mobilization.

    With time and, in fact, soon after its formation in 1994, Palestinians began realizing that the PA was not a platform for liberation, but a hindrance to it. A new generation of Palestinians is now attempting to articulate, or refashion, a new discourse for liberation that is based on inclusiveness, grassroots, community-based activism that is backed by a growing global solidarity movement.

    The May events of last year – the mass protests throughout occupied Palestine and the subsequent Israeli war on Gaza – highlighted the role of Palestine’s youth who, through elaborate coordination, incessant campaigning and utilizing of social media platforms, managed to present the Palestinian struggle in a new light – bereft of the archaic language of the PA and its aging leaders. It also surpassed, in its collective thinking, the stifling and self-defeating emphasis on factions and self-serving ideologies.

    And the world responded in kind. Despite a powerful Israeli propaganda machine, expensive hasbara campaigns and near-total support for Israel by the western government and mainstream media alike, sympathy for Palestinians has reached an all-time high. For example, a major public opinion poll published by Gallup on May 28, 2021, revealed that “… the percentages of Americans viewing (Palestine) favorably and saying they sympathize more with the Palestinians than the Israelis in the conflict inched up to all-time highs this year.”

    Moreover, major international human rights organizations, including Israelis, began to finally recognize what their Palestinian colleagues have argued for decades:

    “The Israeli regime implements laws, practices and state violence designed to cement the supremacy of one group – Jews – over another – Palestinians,” said B’tselem in January 2021.

    “Laws, policies and statements by leading Israeli officials make plain that the objective of maintaining Jewish Israeli control over demographics, political power and land has long guided government policy,” said Human Rights Watch in April 2021.

    “This system of apartheid has been built and maintained over decades by successive Israeli governments across all territories they have controlled, regardless of the political party in power at the time,” said Amnesty International on February 1, 2022.

    Now that the human rights and legal foundation of recognizing Israeli apartheid is finally falling into place, it is a matter of time before a critical mass of popular support for Palestine’s own anti-apartheid movement follows, pushing politicians everywhere, but especially in the West, to pressure Israel into ending its system of racial discrimination.

    However, this is where the South Africa and Palestine models begin to differ. Though western colonialism has plagued South Africa as early as the 17th century, apartheid in that country only became official in 1948, the very year that Israel was established on the ruins of historic Palestine.

    While South African resistance to colonialism and apartheid has gone through numerous and overwhelming challenges, there was an element of unity that made it nearly impossible for the apartheid regime to conquer all political forces in that country, even after the banning, in 1960, of the African National Congress (ANC) and the subsequent mprisonment of Mandela in 1962. While South Africans continued to rally behind the ANC, another front of popular resistance, the United Democratic Front, emerged, in the early 1980s to fulfill several important roles, amongst them the building of international solidarity around the country’s anti-apartheid struggle.

    The blood of 176 protesters at the Soweto township and thousands more was the fuel that made freedom, the dismantling of apartheid and the freedom of Mandela and his comrades possible.

    For Palestinians, however, the reality is quite different. While Palestinians are embarking on a new stage of their anti-apartheid struggle, it must be said that the PA, which has openly collaborated with Israel, cannot possibly be a vehicle for liberation. Palestinians, especially the youth, who have not been corrupted by the decades-long system of nepotism and favoritism enshrined by the PA, must know this well.

    Rationally, Palestinians cannot stage a sustained anti-apartheid campaign when the PA is allowed to serve the role of being Palestine’s representative, while still benefiting from the perks and financial rewards associated with the Israeli occupation.

    Meanwhile, it is also not possible for Palestinians to mount a popular movement in complete independence from the PA, Palestine’s largest employer, whose US-trained security forces keep watch on every street corner that falls within the PA-administered areas in the West Bank.

    As they move forward, Palestinians must truly study the South African experience, not merely in terms of historical parallels and symbolism, but to deeply probe its successes, shortcomings and fault lines. Most importantly, Palestinians must also reflect on the unavoidable truth – that those who have normalized and profited from the Israeli occupation and apartheid cannot possibly be the ones who will bring freedom and justice to Palestine.

    The post The Next Step in Palestine’s Anti-Apartheid Struggle is the Most Difficult first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • This man started his own ice-cream business with his Covid cash grant, and now employs four people

    Thando Makhubu opened up an ice cream business during the coronavirus pandemic. He generated R10,000 within weeks thanks to a special grant.

    By: Phumi Ramalepe.

    Original Post: https://www.businessinsider.co.za/man-opened-ice-cream-business-with-r350-grant-2022-2 |

    KEY POINTS:

    • Thando Makhubu, a self-employed photographer from Soweto, opened up an ice cream business during the coronavirus pandemic.
    • He started up with R700 in August 2020, and generated a profit of about R10,000 within weeks.
    • The 30-year-old entrepreneur got a special mention from President Cyril Ramaphosa during this year’s State of the Nation Address.

    With only R700 saved from a R350 Covid-19 grant, Thando Makhubu from Jabulani, Soweto, started his own ice cream business during South Africa’s initial hard lockdown.

    The 30-year-old photographer started Soweto Creamery in his mother’s house in Soweto after gigs were cancelled due to lockdown restrictions. He now employs four people.

    Soweto Creamery (Business Insider Phumi Ramalepe)
    Soweto Creamery

    Makhubu recalls seeing images of the product on Pinterest and thought he’d give it a try in August 2020.

    “The idea was not really thought out. I saw the ice cream on social media and wanted to try it out. If it worked it worked, if not then life goes on,” he said.

    Makhubu needed something to do to generate an income during the lockdown, and while he waited, he applied for the R350 Covid-19 grant.

    The R350 Covid-19 Social Relief of Distress Grant was introduced in 2020 as a result of economic hardships caused by the coronavirus pandemic. The grant is given to individuals who are currently unemployed and do not receive any form of income, social grant, or UIF payment.

    “The reason why I qualified for the R350 grant was because I was working as a self-employed photographer, focusing on events photography.

    “I also worked with other social establishments which rely on a crowd, but there was none, so government announced the R350 grant. It’s not a lot for most but it’s something,” he said.

    To start out, Makhubu used R700 that he had saved over two months. The aim wasn’t really to start a business but to create samples and then take photos of them.

    He initially bought about 20 small containers for the ice cream, a few tubs of ice cream, sweets, biscuits and cookies in order to bring the concept to life.

    The first products that Makhubu created were the Chocolate Overload and Planet Sweetness. Together with his brother, Makhubu took professional photos of the ice cream and posted them on their WhatsApp statuses.

    After friends and family saw the images, some of them stopped by for a taste. One of their socialite friends, Mohale Motaung, saw the images and popped by to buy some ice-cream as well.

    “On the fourth of August, Mohale came with his friends. He bought some ice-cream, posted us on his Instagram which has close to a million followers, and his other social media platforms.

    “He advised us to create a Twitter account. I changed my photography Twitter account to Soweto Creamery and we went from 50 followers to about 6,000 in just a week. People started coming,” Makhubu said.

    Sales

    After officially opening in August, Mkhize said the company generated sales of about R10,000 within a few weeks.

    The growth motivated them to invest in a much bigger freezer and to source ice-cream from nearby sellers. They have also invested in a waffle-maker, commercial blender, and milkshake maker.

    “We want to increase assortment. For some people what we offer is a lot, so we want to have protein smoothies, thick milkshakes and waffles for people who love that kind of stuff,” said the owner.

    During his speech at this year’s State of The Nation Address, President Cyril Ramaphosa gave Makhubu and his business a special shout out, but Makhubu has no idea how the president knew about him.

    “To be honest, I was not even watching TV, I was at the gym. When I switched on my phone, I saw videos of the president, but I thought it was memes.

    “When I played the video, I heard my name. I paused, rewound multiple times and heard my name, I could not believe it,” said Makhubu.

    Mint Immensity (Supplied)

    The following day he received calls from different people wanting to find out more about him. According to Makhubu, the sudden popularity has somewhat boosted his business as more people know about it now.

    Currently, Makhubu has four employees. His mother, brother, sister and a neighbour who helps customers with parking.

    The entrepreneur plans on investing in the company’s own ice-cream maker, and wants to make sure to invest in good quality equipment. The next step will be to roll out franchises across the country and work in an even bigger venue.

    To emerging entrepreneurs who have dreams of starting their own business, Makhubu advises them to “start small, and don’t be afraid to fail. Social media is very powerful, so they need to put in a lot of effort in that as well.”

    The post This man started his own ice-cream business with his Covid cash grant, and now employs four people appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Big Pharma Sought to Undermine South African Efforts to Produce COVID Vaccines

    Researcher Emile Hendricks works in Afrigen's analytical laboratory in Cape Town, South African, on December 10, 2021.

    Documents published Wednesday by a prominent medical journal reveal that a foundation representing the German company BioNTech — Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine partner — has been working behind the scenes to undercut African scientists’ burgeoning effort to produce an mRNA-based coronavirus vaccine.

    In August, according to The BMJ, the kENUP Foundation urged South African government officials to shut down a World Health Organization-backed initiative aiming to make an mRNA vaccine using Moderna’s shot as a template.

    “The WHO Vaccine Technology Transfer Hub’s project of copying the manufacturing process of Moderna’s Covid-19 vaccine should be terminated immediately. This is to prevent damage to Afrigen, BioVac, and Moderna,” the kENUP Foundation wrote in a 20-page document, referring to two South African companies taking part in the vaccine effort.

    As an alternative, The BMJ reported, kENUP promoted “BioNTech’s proposal to ship mRNA factories housed in sea containers from Europe to Africa, initially staffed with BioNTech workers, and a proposed new regulatory pathway to approve the vaccines made in these factories.”

    “The novel pathway has been described as paternalistic and unworkable by some experts, as it seems to bypass local regulators,” the outlet observed.

    South Africa’s mRNA project, which has recently started to bear fruit, was made necessary by the pharmaceutical industry’s persistent refusal to share its technology with the world, denying lower-income countries the ability to produce their own shots. Without support from Big Pharma or rich governments, South African scientists and the WHO opted to try to replicate Moderna’s vaccine using publicly available information, including the shot’s mRNA sequence.

    Safety trials for the new vaccine are expected to begin later this year.

    Public health campaigners who have praised the work of South African scientists responded to the kENUP Foundation’s campaign with outrage.

    “To push for the termination of this lifesaving project in order to protect the interests of pharmaceutical companies is shameful, at a time when over 90% of people in the poorest countries still haven’t been fully vaccinated,” Anna Marriott, health policy manager at Oxfam International, said in a statement Thursday. “What needs terminating are the pharmaceutical monopolies locking the lifesaving vaccines out of reach for millions of people across low- and middle-income countries.”

    “The failure of rich country governments to step in and break these all-powerful monopolies is unforgivable,” Marriott added. “They must end their blind faith that profit-hungry pharma corporations will voluntarily do the right thing by humanity.”

    In its August missive to South African officials, the kENUP Foundation argued that the “sustainability outlook” for the WHO-backed mRNA project “is not favorable,” warning that Moderna could resume enforcement of patent rights once it deems the pandemic over, posing potentially serious legal challenges.

    But officials working on the project insist that it is not running afoul of patent protections.

    “There’s no infringement taking place here whatsoever,” Martin Friede, a WHO official helping to coordinate the initiative, told Politico last week.

    In a November statement, the Medicines Patent Pool — a United Nations-backed organization supporting the South Africa project — dismissed “unfounded rumors” that the mRNA vaccine technology hub “intends to infringe patents.”

    “The Medicines Patent Pool, which is responsible for the intellectual property and licensing elements of the hub, wishes to make it clear that this is not the case,” the organization said. “MPP will ensure that technology used in the hub is either not covered by patents or that licenses and/or commitments-not-to-enforce are in place to enable freedom to operate.”

    Charles Gore, executive director of MPP, told The BMJ that “clearly, somebody has been going around Africa saying that we’re going to infringe patents, which is extremely unfortunate since it’s completely untrue.”

    As The BMJ explained, “South African law contains a provision authorizing scientists and manufacturers to carry out research and development regardless of patent protection, meaning that the hub’s reverse engineering of Moderna’s vaccine is legal.”

    “Moderna has also publicly promised not to enforce its Covid-19 related patents during the pandemic and said that it was willing to license its intellectual property after that period,” the publication noted. “The hub is in talks with Moderna to obtain such a license.”

    Fatima Hassan, founder and director of the South Africa-based Health Justice Initiative, said Thursday that “for two years, Western pharmaceutical giants have peddled falsehoods claiming that intellectual property rules are not a barrier to global vaccine production.”

    “Yet, now that lower-income countries have started developing Covid-19 vaccines, pharmaceutical industry goons are threatening South African manufacturers with patent infringement,” Hassan continued. “This shameful scaremongering is further evidence that world leaders need to suspend intellectual property on all Covid-19 vaccines, tests, and treatments to unlock the productive capacity needed to end this pandemic.”

    “If we don’t,” Hassan added, “Big Pharma will try to bully and intimidate Global South manufacturers into submission.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Is opposition to basic income support for vulnerable adults informed by evidence or ideology?

    Ideology is a frequent discriminatory stumbling block that fuels opposition to basic income support for millions of South Africans

    By Alex van den Heever.

    Original post: https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2022-01-30-is-opposition-to-basic-income-support-for-vulnerable-adults-informed-by-evidence-or-ideology/#Echobox=1643571804

    The recent ‘leaking’ of a President’s Economic Advisory Council note arguing against basic income support for millions of South Africans raises many questions about whether this is really a debate about technical constraints or one that is ideological — with technical considerations largely irrelevant.

    For over two decades, pretty much the same thinking has dominated economic policy in South Africa — with what appears to be a perpetuation of poor economic and social outcomes.

    The question is whether these poor outcomes are an accident of fate, or just the result of the repeated application of the same kinds of thinking.

    In this respect, it is worth noting that if the Republicans in the US were to impose their dystopic vision on any society from scratch, it would pretty much look like South Africa today.

    It would be characterised by structural poverty and deep social divides arising from market failures in the distribution of income and its close relative, the social distribution of risk.

    Only the well-off would have any form of social security and the rest, well, that’s not the problem of government or the privileged.

    So, why is the distribution of risk so important to incomes?

    There are many events that can disrupt the flow of incomes to families.

    These include the death, disability or illness of a breadwinner as well as normal activities such as giving birth and looking after an infant child or losing employment due to old age.

    In addition, the loss of employment due to the structure of the economy and economic cycles imposes severe costs and hardships on individual households outside of their control.

    The operative phrase here is “outside of their control”.

    While the occurrence and duration of these various events cannot be predicted at the individual level, they are, however, predictable at a societal level. This is quite simply why social security systems pool these risks.

    Not only will most of these events occur at some point in any household’s lifetime, but they will happen to some households somewhere at all points in time.

    However, the effects of these events are not evenly distributed.

    Not unexpectedly, the more precarious a household’s social condition, the more catastrophic the impact of such an event, with the effects harming the lives and life paths of households.

    The converse is equally true: the less precarious a household’s social condition, the greater its ability to mitigate the effects of such an event alone.

    Think of a game of “snakes and ladders”, where for most of the population there are many more snakes than ladders. For the privileged few, in contrast, there are few or no snakes and just ladders.

    In such a game, “winning” and “losing” outcomes are structured into the game and have little to do with effort levels, competence or even chance.

    In any society that individualises the bearing of such income-harming events, socially predictable risks are implicitly transferred onto the households that have no real ability to manage them on their own.

    Only a very small percentage of households will be able to manage such risks on their own — roughly equivalent to half of the highest-earning 10% of households.

    The systemic outcome of individualising the distribution of risk in this way is to cement in disadvantage, which then “mysteriously” manifests as endemic poverty and inequality.

    Social protection regimes redistribute the snakes and ladders, expanding access to ladders and reducing the impact of snakes.

    To conventional economists, the social implications of these risk distributions are invisible — and therefore, to them, do not exist.

    There was a time when surgeons also did not recognise the importance of washing their hands prior to surgery.

    Why? Because the existence of “germs” was just a theory, as no one could see them.

    It took the invention and use of the microscope to convince surgeons they were killing their patients.

    This mindset is age-old and reflects the path dependency of entrenched practices and thinking where emergent evidence will not be considered until such time as it becomes overwhelming and obvious to pretty much everyone.

    The recent note by the President’s Economic Advisory Council (PEAC) on the extension of basic income to income-compromised adults closely resembles this failure on the part of surgeons.

    As with bad waiters, there are “none so blind as those who do not wish to see”.

    Conventional economists, in fact, have no technical expertise or models to understand the social and economic transmission mechanisms associated with social income-pooling schemes.

    They are therefore not in any position to comment with authority or evidence on the social and economic effects of any social security arrangement, whether in reference to a system of basic income or social insurance.

    Conventional macroeconomic models, used for relatively basic projections or limited policy assessments, also over-aggregate the key features of any economy (and society), and cannot be used for anything other than the crudest of appraisals.

    So, what such economists, using such models, cannot see, effectively “doesn’t exist”.

    When it comes to the resulting policy analysis, the evidence gaps are invariably filled by selecting assumptions that reflect the prejudices of the economists involved and drive all the results. Alternatively, they just cut out the middleman and run with assumptions.

    If we leap back in time to reflect on the utilitarian economists of the 19th century, it illustrates in fairly stark terms how evidence-free theorising in economics persists to this day.

    For instance, there was a UK Royal Commission that in 1834 examined and reported on the workings of the “poor laws” which governed income relief (social assistance) paid by local authorities to those without adequate incomes.

    A particular target of the commission was the so-called “Speenhandland system”, which supplemented the income of poor households based on the price of bread (a food poverty line of sorts) and family size.

    These measures had been introduced via the “poor laws” system to address the fact that even earned incomes were insufficient to support poor families.

    The Royal Commission, however, determined that the system of relief for the poor had the following outcomes:

    • “paupers claimed relief regardless of their merits”;
    • “large families received the most relief, therefore improvident marriages were encouraged and this led to larger families”;
    • “women were able to claim relief for their illegitimate children, so the system encouraged immorality”;
    • “labourers had no incentive to work hard and be thrifty when worthless idlers got more relief than could be earned by honest hard work”;
    • “employers kept wages deliberately low”;
    • “paupers had no respect for an employer when they knew that their wages would be supplemented by the parish”; and
    • “men were discouraged from providing for their families and aged parents because they could ‘be put on the rates’”.

    These outcomes were not informed by evidence and instead reflected views that “the existing ‘poor law’ undermined the prosperity of the country because it interfered with the ‘natural’ laws of supply and demand”.

    The commission worked from the premise that poverty was inevitable (“the poor are always with you”) and that only the “deserving poor” merited support.

    If you were able-bodied, you were by definition “undeserving”.

    The commission consequently recommended a “poor laws” regime that expressly punished the able-bodied poor through a draconian workhouse system.

    This, they assumed, would create an incentive for the poor to sort themselves out.

    The idea that being poor was the outcome of structure rather than conduct was beyond the limited worldview of the utilitarian Benthamites of the period.

    But how different are these views from those that inform government policy in South Africa today?

    Importantly, how much evidence is used to inform such views?

    It is worth noting that this 1834 position was comprehensively thrown out with the post-World War 2 European consensus on social protection, where redistributive schemes were systematically and comprehensively introduced to eliminate poverty and inequality.

    After all, how could you ask the (majority) poor to fight for you against Hitler and Stalin when your society offered them nothing but hardship and suffering?

    It was plainly understood that if you treat people like dirt, they may, and probably will, treat you the same at some point.

    Were a Sweden or a France to eliminate their redistributive schemes now, their levels of poverty and inequality would gravitate towards South Africa’s outcomes.

    Stable societies require that resources are reasonably pooled at the societal level using good institutions to transfer the burden of social risks faced by everyone, from individual households to society as a whole.

    In simple terms: you restructure the distribution of snakes and ladders to provide the maximum opportunity for advancement to all.

    To a large extent, the PEAC rejects this view and instead reflects the conventional wisdom espoused by the Royal Commission, arguing that social support for the “able-bodied” will allegedly undermine employment and fiscal sustainability:

    “Significantly increased social grant spending would likely weaken the position of poor South Africans as it would erode public services and infrastructure, slow down employment creation and result in a crisis for public finances that would take years to resolve.”

    This mirrors Commissioner Nassau Senior’s argument (from the Royal Commission) that “the great test which must be applied to any project of state action in regard to relief [social assistance] is the question whether it has any tendency to increase that which it is proposed to diminish”.

    The commission’s argument is simple: if you provide income support to able-bodied people, they will have no incentive to work.

    And economists, “as everyone knows”, are the “pre-eminent experts on incentives”, at least in their own minds.

    But if the fear of starvation worked as an incentive to generate economic growth, South Africa would be the fastest-growing economy in the world.

    However, very little has changed with respect to both poverty and inequality from 1994, and there are no policies proposed — outside of income support for those in income poverty — that are any different to what has been proposed before.  

    Along these lines, the PEAC effectively adopts an ideological posture, arguing that “inclusive economic growth must be built on employment creation. Our vision must be to promote employment rather than ever-increasing state-funded income support. For those of working-age, grant support should be temporary with clear pathways to employment… We face a real danger of policy error at a macroeconomic level where we will limit our economy’s growth and job creation potential by increasing the system of social grant payments in an unsustainable manner that would weaken economic [sic] and undermine the country’s capacity to address poverty and unemployment” (p. 14).

    According to this thesis, labour markets are primarily responsible for the distribution of income, and growth expands labour markets.

    Along the same lines as the Royal Commission, therefore, income support to the able-bodied undermines the integrity of the labour market and therefore growth.

    It is worth noting that this proposition isn’t really arguing that income support for working-age adults is not feasible. It is in fact arguing that it should not be done at all. Ever.

    With this reading, and consistent with those of the Royal Commission, even if funds were available, this policy should not be pursued.

    Invoking macroeconomic arguments and fiscal constraints, therefore, comes across as mere window-dressing for ideological opposition to such an income-support programme.

    That is, when poor households are concerned.

    For consistency, such a position would require a re-assessment of all programmes funded through the fiscus that involve income support provided to working-age adults in South Africa.

    It may surprise many to find out that we have many such programmes, and they are not cheap.

    They have the following features in common: they subsidise the top 10% of income earners; they largely fly under the radar as they are provided through the tax system; and they have no associated macroeconomic or other appraisals to support their social and economic outcomes.

    The estimates in 2018 values are (Annexure B – Tax Expenditure Statement):

    • Tax subsidies for retirement provision, which include deductions against contributions and the elimination of the 18% withholding tax on retirement fund assets in 2003:

    o   Subsidies on contributions: R87-billion

    o   Subsidies related to the return on investments of retirement fund assets:   R46-billion (own estimate — also see Social Budget bulletin 2)

    o   Total = R133 billion

    • Tax-free savings accounts: R3.4-billion
    • Employment tax incentive: R4.5-billion
    • Participation exemption, which exempts foreign dividends from income tax if a South African resident holds at least 10% of the total equity shares and voting rights in a foreign company declaring a foreign dividend: R11-billion

    In total, these subsidies amount to an annual set of permanent obligations on the fiscus for working-age adults quantified in 2018 values at around R146-billion.

    In contrast, the potential maximum recurrent value of the Covid-19 social relief of distress (SRD) grant in 2021 prices (not 2018 values) is around R56-billion with a maximum, but unlikely, ceiling value of around R76-billion at maturity.

    The PEAC proposal for the Covid-19 SRD grant is, however, R0.

    The irony should not escape anyone that, according to the PEAC, it is fiscally and macroeconomically irresponsible to provide income support to the millions of income-compromised adults of working age in South Africa, while government presently funds working-age adults in the top decile to the tune of R146-billion per annum (in 2018 values).

    In the game of snakes and ladders, the PEAC clearly has no concerns about more ladders for the privileged and more snakes for the poor.

    This is important because it raises clear questions about the authenticity of the PEAC’s admonitions about fiscal and macroeconomy responsibility.

    Importantly, therefore, there is ample scope for a restructuring of the fiscal snakes and ladders to achieve a more effective social outcome with available resources.

    Not exercising this discretion to support income-vulnerable households is therefore quite evidently a policy choice and not an imposition conditioned by an unfortunate set of time-bound economic circumstances.

    Let no one be fooled.

    Professor Alex van den Heever is chair in the field of Social Security Systems Administration and Management Studies at Wits School of Governance and chairperson of the Expert Panel on Basic Income Support.

    The post Is opposition to basic income support for vulnerable adults informed by evidence or ideology? appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • A BIG deal: Universal basic income could resuscitate South Africa’s economy — report

    Basic income support also helps boost investment aimed at improving nutrition, healthcare, housing and transport, the report adds.

    By: Sarah Smit

    Original Post: https://mg.co.za/business/2022-01-28-a-big-deal-universal-income-support-could-resuscitate-south-africas-economy-report/

    Despite its heavy price tag, a basic income grant (BIG) should be viewed as a means of addressing South Africa’s triple challenges: poverty, unemployment and inequality.

    This is according to a report commissioned by the National Economic Development and Labour Council, which found a basic income grant could add 0.5% to GDP growth by 2025 by improving household demand and boosting employment.

    The release of the report comes off the back of growing calls to implement a basic income grant, especially as South Africa’s unemployment crisis continues to deepen. In the third quarter of 2021, the unemployment rate rose to 34.9% — the highest recorded level since 2008.

    Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana is expected to make a call on whether a basic income grant is feasible when he delivers his maiden budget speech next month.

    The report, which considers the fiscal feasibility of providing income support to individuals between the ages of 18 and 59, concedes that the cost of implementing the grant is significant. 

    Based on the treasury’s base scenario for economic growth, the cost of extending the R350 social relief of distress grant to 2025 ranges from 2.8% to 2.9% of nominal GDP. This increases to 9.7% to 10.4% of nominal GDP over the projection period if a universal basic income grant is introduced at the upper-bound poverty line, which at the time the report was written was R1 268.

    But, according to the report, this high cost may very well be worthwhile. “Implementing a BIG has the potential to make significant inroads into improved income equality in South Africa and possible economic gains through the multiplier effect,” the report reads.

    The R350 grant, the report notes, has the potential to reduce the concentration of income of the top 10% to 49.9% in 2019/2020 on an income per capita basis to just below 47.1% by 2024/2025. The share of household income per capita as a percentage of the total in the lowest income decile is projected to increase from 0.8% in 2019/2020 to 7.0% by 2024/2025. 

    On top of addressing inequalities at the household level, the basic income grant “could impact macro-level economic growth directly, through increasing household productivity and employment, stimulating aggregate demand, affecting labour force participation and influencing savings and taxation”, the report notes.

    Basic income support also helps boost investment aimed at improving nutrition, healthcare, housing and transport, the report adds.

    The report weighs up whether a basic income grant could be funded by hiking personal income tax. The R350 grant, the report found, would result in an approximate average increase in effective tax rates of 8.2%. A universal BIG at the upper-bound poverty line

    would result in an approximate average increase in effective tax rates of 30%.

    The government has been cautioned against increasing the personal income tax, which would further burden South Africa’s small tax base. But, the report notes, “there are strong moral arguments given South Africa’s history and high-income inequality” for expanding personal income tax to fund a basic income grant.

    Given the significance of the cost attached to a universal basic income grant, the report suggests looking into whether a wealth tax should be implemented. 

    But a wealth tax may only be practically implemented over the medium term, the report notes. This means that personal income tax, corporate income tax and VAT remain the alternatives over the short-term if the implementation of a basic income grant takes place within the short term.

    The post A BIG deal: Universal basic income could resuscitate South Africa’s economy — report appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Time of Pandemics

    Time of Pandemics didn’t start out as a film about COVID-19, but only months into the project, the global pandemic was declared, writes Susan Price.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • Joining the dots: Pandemics and political economy

    Climate Justice puts the people most affected by the crisis at the centre of the solution. Health Justice must do the same, argues Rehad Desai.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • In South Africa as in Palestine: Why We Must Protect the Legacy of Desmond Tutu

    Long before intersectionality became a prevailing concept which helped delineate the relationship between various marginalized and oppressed groups, late South Africa’s Archbishop Desmond Tutu said it all in a few words and in a most inimitable style. “My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together,” he said.

    Like other freedom and justice icons, Tutu did not merely coin the kind of language that helped many around the world rise in solidarity with the oppressed people of South Africa, who fought a most inspiring and costly war against colonialism, racism and apartheid. He was a leader, a fighter and a true engaged intellectual.

    It is quite convenient for many in corporate media to forget all of this about Tutu, the same way they deliberately rewrote the story of Nelson Mandela, as if the leader of South Africa’s anti-apartheid movement was a pacifist, not a true warrior, in word and deed. Tutu is also depicted by some in the media as if he was merely a quotable man who helped in the ‘healing’ of the nation after the formal end of apartheid.

    There is no use to preach to South Africans, and those who knew Tutu well, to understand the great man’s centrality in the anti-apartheid struggle and in the shaping of a powerful narrative, which exposed and, eventually, demolished apartheid.

    As a Palestinian, however, I think it is very important to emphasize the crucial role played by Tutu in linking the apartheid experience in his country with Israeli apartheid and military occupation in Palestine, and in influencing a generation of Palestinian intellectuals who have sagaciously tapped into the collective South African anti-apartheid experience and applied many of its valuable lessons to the Palestinian experience as well.

    “When you go to the Holy Land and see what’s being done to the Palestinians at checkpoints, for us, it’s the kind of thing we experienced in South Africa,” Tutu told The Washington Post in an interview in 2013.

    To be accepted into mainstream circles, activists of high caliber are often careful in the language they use and in the references they make. With weak and indecisive intellectual courage, they falter at the first challenge or in the face of abuse and attacks by their detractors. Not Tutu. When the man began making references to an Israeli apartheid in Palestine, Zionists and their friends were merciless in their accusations that the beloved spiritual leader, in the words of infamous American Zionist lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, was “evil”.

    Dershowitz, hardly known for his moral fortitude and well known for his undying love for Israel, was one of those who used the opportunity to cowardly pounce on the great South African spiritual leader almost immediately after the news of his death.

    “The world is mourning Bishop Tutu, who just died the other day,” Dershowitz said during an interview on Fox News on December 28, adding, “Can I remind the world that although he did some good things, a lot of good things on apartheid, the man was a rampant anti-Semite and bigot?”

    Dershowitz also described Tutu as “evil”. Indeed, Tutu was also ‘evil’ in the eyes of the racist apartheid government of South Africa, as he was ‘evil’ in the eyes of Israel. Mandela, Che Guevara, Yasser Arafat, Malcolm X and Martin Luther King were also ‘evil’ in the eyes of the racists, the colonialists, the Zionists and the imperialists.

    Expectedly, Tutu did not back down despite years of pressure and abuse. “I know, first-hand, that Israel has created an apartheid reality within its borders and through its occupation. The parallels to my own beloved South Africa are painfully stark, indeed,” Tutu wrote in 2014, calling on US Presbyterians to impose sanctions on Israel.

    In that same year, an interview with the South African news outlet News 24, Tutu said:

    I have witnessed the systemic humiliation of Palestinian men, women and children by members of the Israeli security forces. Their humiliation is familiar to all black South Africans who were corralled and harassed and insulted and assaulted by the security forces of the apartheid government.

    It is such support by such great men and women like Tutu that gave the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement the needed impetus to build the foundation of its current success around the world.

    Tutu went further. Instead of appealing to people’s consciousness, he also reminded them that making the wrong moral choice is a moral indictment of them as well. “Those who turn a blind eye to injustice actually perpetuate injustice. If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor,” he said.

    In South Africa, in Palestine and all around the world, we mourn the death of Archbishop Tutu but we also celebrate his life. Particularly, we celebrate the legacy that this formidable intellectual and spiritual leader left behind.

    Palestinians all over the world paid tribute to Tutu. Palestinian Archbishop Atallah Hanna, himself a great warrior for justice, said that Tutu “will always be remembered for his rejection of racism and apartheid, including in Palestine.”

    Because of Tutu and his comrades, we have a roadmap on how to fight against and end apartheid, how to confront the racists and how to defeat racism; how to embrace our moral responsibility and how to strive for a better, more equitable world. And, because of Tutu, we are constantly reminded that Israeli apartheid in Palestine must be fought with the same ferocity, will and moral fortitude as that of South Africa.

    Tutu will never die, because his words continue to lead the way, in Palestine as in South Africa. Equally important, we must never allow the honorable legacy of Desmond Tutu to be exploited, demonized or rewritten by his detractors or by those whose sensibilities cannot accommodate the courage of this black fighter, who will continue to lead the way, long after his passing.

    The post In South Africa as in Palestine: Why We Must Protect the Legacy of Desmond Tutu first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The Media Lens Book Of Obituaries: Deleting Tutu’s Criticism Of Israel

    If we didn’t have better things to do, it would be a simple matter to produce The Media Lens Book of Obituaries.

    The cover might feature grim Death shrouded in tattered newsprint carrying a five-bladed scythe with ‘Ownership’, ‘Advertising’, ‘Sources’, ‘Flak’ and ‘Patriotism’ printed on the blades in reference to the famous five filters of Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky’s ‘propaganda model’ – the filters by which the lives and deaths of famous people are forever sliced and diced to suit the ghoulish needs of power.

    Following his death in 2004, we described how Ronald Reagan’s eight years as US President (1981-89) had resulted in a vast bloodbath as Washington poured money and weapons into client dictatorships and right-wing death squads across Central America. The death toll: more than 70,000 political killings in El Salvador, more than 100,000 in Guatemala, and 30,000 killed in the US Contra war waged against Nicaragua. Journalist Allan Nairn described the latter as ‘One of the most intensive campaigns of mass murder in recent history.’1

    On the BBC’s flagship Newsnight programme, Gavin Esler said of Reagan:

    ‘Many people believe that he restored faith in American military action after Vietnam through his willingness to use force, if necessary, in defence of American interests.’ 2

    At the liberal-left extreme, a Guardian editorial opined:

    ‘What is beyond doubt is that Mr Reagan made America feel good about itself again. He was, to quote Mr Wills again, “the first truly cheerful conservative”. He gave American conservatism a humanity and hope that it never had in the Goldwater or Nixon eras, but which endures today because of him, to the frustration of many more ideological conservatives. Unlike them, Mr Reagan was a congenital optimist, “hardwired for courtesy”, as his former speechwriter Peggy Noonan puts it.’ 3

    The basic rule: Official Friends of State are greeted by ostensibly independent corporate media with a wry, knowing, ultimately approving smile. Official Enemies of State are greeted with a sneer or a snarl.

    In the immediate aftermath of Margaret Thatcher’s death on 8 April 2013, we found 461 UK national newspaper articles mentioning the word ‘Thatcher’. Of these, 29 articles mentioned ‘Thatcher’ and ‘Saddam’. None mentioned that Thatcher had armed and financed the Iraqi dictator. Links to torture and mass murder that would have been front and centre in reviewing the life of any Official Enemy were airbrushed from history.

    Just five months after Iraq’s infamous March 1988 gas attack killing between 3-5,000 civilians in the Kurdish town of Halabja, Geoffrey Howe, Thatcher’s foreign secretary, noted in a secret report that ‘opportunities for sales of defence equipment to Iran and Iraq will be considerable’. 4

    In October 1989, foreign office minister William Waldegrave wrote of Iraq:

    ‘I doubt if there is any future market of such a scale anywhere where the UK is potentially so well-placed’ and that ‘the priority of Iraq in our policy should be very high.’5

    The British government spent fully £1bn propping up Saddam’s government with arms and other support; a figure that, of course, went absent without leave from media reporting in the lead up to the 2003 war.

    An Observer leader on Thatcher at least reassured us that we hadn’t imagined all of this:

    ‘the moral compass she deployed surveying the USSR and its client states served her less well on other international journeys. Among those she admired and supported were a number of men distinguished only by the craven brutality they showed in domestic affairs. Dictators such as General Zia-ul-Haq of Pakistan, Pol Pot of Cambodia and Chile’s Augusto Pinochet’.

    Thatcher’s ‘moral compass’ merely ‘served her less well’, we were to believe. In fact, there was no ‘moral compass’; there was state support for corporate profit at any human cost. Here, as everywhere else in the ‘mainstream’, readers were spared the details of UK crimes against humanity that were as readily available as they were damning.

    Also in 2013, following the death of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Craig Murray, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, commented:

    ‘He applied the huge increase in revenues to massively successful poverty alleviation via social programmes, housing and education… There are millions of people in Venezuela whose hard lives are a bit better and have hope for the future because of Chávez. There are billionaires in London and New York who have a few hundred million less each because of Chávez. Nobody can deny the truth of both those statements.’

    The corporate media version of events was nutshelled by an editorial in the Independent titled:

    ‘Hugo Chávez – an era of grand political illusion comes to an end’

    This of a leader who had reduced poverty by half, having sparked a regional move towards greater independence from the ruthless superpower to the North. The editorial continued:

    ‘Mr Chávez was no run-of-the-mill dictator. His offences were far from the excesses of a Colonel Gaddafi, say. What he was, more than anything, was an illusionist – a showman who used his prodigious powers of persuasion to present a corrupt autocracy fuelled by petrodollars as a socialist utopia in the making. The show now over, he leaves a hollowed-out country crippled by poverty, violence and crime. So much for the revolution.’

    For the oligarch-owned Independent, then, Chávez – who had won 15 democratic elections, including four presidential elections – was a ‘dictator’.

    By contrast, the Independent’s April 2013 Thatcher obituary contained no mention of Pol Pot, Zia-ul-Haq, Pinochet, or Saddam. Her role in bolstering some of the world’s bloodiest tyrants through the arms trade was not mentioned.

    Desmond Tutu – A ‘Rampant Antisemite And Bigot’

    A further example of five-scythe filtering was provided by recent media coverage following the death of Desmond Tutu, the former Archbishop of Cape Town and chairman of South Africa’s truth and reconciliation commission. Tutu was one of the great leaders of the anti-apartheid movement, but he protested many other forms of oppression. In 2002, the Guardian published an opinion piece in which Tutu commented:

    ‘I’ve been very deeply distressed in my visit to the Holy Land; it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa. I have seen the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about.’

    Deemed an unforgivable Thought Crime now, Tutu drew comparisons between the fate suffered by Jews in the Holocaust to that suffered by Palestinians under Israeli occupation:

    ‘Have our Jewish sisters and brothers forgotten their humiliation? Have they forgotten the collective punishment, the home demolitions, in their own history so soon? Have they turned their backs on their profound and noble religious traditions? Have they forgotten that God cares deeply about the downtrodden?

    ‘Israel will never get true security and safety through oppressing another people. A true peace can ultimately be built only on justice. We condemn the violence of suicide bombers, and we condemn the corruption of young minds taught hatred; but we also condemn the violence of military incursions in the occupied lands, and the inhumanity that won’t let ambulances reach the injured.’

    Tutu even drew attention to the power of the pro-Israel lobby in smearing criticism of Israel as ‘anti-semitism’:

    ‘to criticise it is to be immediately dubbed anti-semitic, as if the Palestinians were not semitic. I am not even anti-white, despite the madness of that group. And how did it come about that Israel was collaborating with the apartheid government on security measures?’

    He would not have been at all surprised by this comment from Alan Dershowitz — lawyer for Donald Trump, Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein – after Tutu’s death:

    ‘Can I remind the world that… the man was a rampant antisemite and bigot?’

    Elsewhere, Tutu wrote:

    ‘The withdrawal of trade with South Africa… was ultimately one of the key levers that brought the apartheid state – bloodlessly – to its knees… Those who continue to do business with Israel, who contribute to a sense of “normalcy” in Israeli society, are doing the people of Israel and Palestine a disservice.’

    In December 2020, Tutu added:

    ‘Apartheid was horrible in South Africa and it’s horrible when Israel practises its own form of apartheid against the Palestinians, with checkpoints and a system of oppressive policies. Indeed another US statute, the Leahy law, prohibits US military aid to governments that systematically violate human rights.’

    In a stirring example of just how low the Guardian has sunk under the editorship of Katharine Viner, the same newspaper that published Tutu’s comments made no mention whatever of Palestinians or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in its obituary on 6 December 2021.

    In response, a Change.org petition, signed by more than 3,250 people, sent a searing open letter to Viner:

    ‘Tutu’s repeated criticism of Israeli apartheid policies, and his commitment to the cause of the Palestinian people, are all simply omitted.’

    The petition added:

    ‘Astonishingly, your editorial team has now demonstrated that this was not an oversight but deliberate policy. We have been told by the authors of a series of posts to your obituary page, which pointed out this glaring omission, that the posts were systematically deleted by your staff within minutes because they “didn’t abide by our community standards”. We can only assume that The Guardian is now saying that any reference to the apartheid character of Israeli policies is antisemitic. The logic is inescapable: the editorial view of The Guardian newspaper is now that Desmond Tutu, who held that Israeli oppression of the Palestinians was worse than South African Apartheid (as he wrote for your newspaper in 2002), was an antisemite.’

    As the Palestine Solidarity Campaign noted:

    ‘After correspondence from PSC and others, including some who had had their posts removed, the Guardian has now reposted all of the deleted comments… We are also pleased that the Guardian has now published a piece that addresses Tutu’s support for Palestinian rights…’

    An obituary in The Times managed two tiny mentions in passing on Tutu’s criticism:

    ‘In characteristically robust language he condemned the war in Iraq, President Mugabe’s repression in Zimbabwe and Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians.’

    And:

    ‘He condemned President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as the official capital of Israel in 2017 as “inflammatory and discriminatory”.’

    A Telegraph obituary noted merely of Tutu:

    ‘… in 2019 he condemned Donald Trump’s decision to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem despite Palestinian opposition’.

    The Independent also managed a tiny reference in passing:

    ‘Mr Tutu also strived to draw awareness to a wide range of issues – including Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories, LGBT+ rights, and climate change…’

    In four substantial pieces on Tutu, the BBC managed a total of two sentences in one article:

    ‘Later he angered the Israelis when, during a Christmas pilgrimage to the Holy Land, he compared black South Africans with the Arabs in the occupied West Bank and Gaza.

    ‘He said he could not understand how people who had suffered as the Jews had, could inflict such suffering on the Palestinians.’

    The BBC made no mention of the issue here, here and here.

    In the US, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting reviewed US state-corporate press performance:

    ‘The New York Times (12/26/21) obituary reduced [Tutu’s] Palestine advocacy to one incident in 2010 when “he unsuccessfully urged a touring Cape Town opera company” to not perform in the country, quoting his urging the company to postpone its production of Porgy and Bess “until both Israeli and Palestinian opera lovers of the region have equal opportunity and unfettered access to attend performances”.

    ‘The AP obituary (12/26/21) ignored this issue entirely, as did obituaries in USA Today (12/26/21), the BBC (12/26/21) and NPR (12/26/21). The Washington Post (12/26/21) did the issue some justice, saying that Tutu “repeatedly compared Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza to South Africa during the apartheid regime.” While CNN‘s initial obituary (12/26/21) devoted only part of a sentence to his call for a boycott of Israel in 2014, a follow-up piece explored his broad range of activism: “As South Africa Mourns Desmond Tutu, So Do LGBTQ Groups, Palestinians and Climate Activists” (11/27/21).’

    Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer responded to the death of Tutu:

    ‘Desmond Tutu was a tower of a man, and a leader of moral activism. He dedicated his life to tackling injustice and standing up for the oppressed. His impact on the world crosses borders and echoes through generations. May he rest in peace.’

    As the website Skwawkbox noted accurately in response:

    ‘But if Tutu had been a Labour member, Starmer would probably have expelled him, at least if he had the spine to do it, for comments in support of Palestinians and of boycotts and sanctions against Israel…’

    Clearly, our media guardians of power were keen to say as little as possible about Tutu’s criticism of Israel without exposing themselves as outright totalitarians by blanking the issue 100% – 99% is a much better look, especially when reviewing the life of a courageous anti-fascist.

    Needless to say, anyone reading the above corporate obituaries will have been left none the wiser about the true extent of the criticism of Israel expressed by Tutu, a widely-revered, world-famous peacemaker. That matters – tiny gestures in the direction of truth, easily missed, help to ensure serious, pointed criticism of Israel can continue to be portrayed as the reserve of ‘racists’ and ‘crazies’, of ‘nobodies’ haunting the margins of civilised society and discourse.

    1. Democracy Now, 8 June 2004.
    2. Newsnight, 9 June 2004.
    3. ‘A rose-tinted president’, The Guardian, 7 June 2004.
    4. Quoted, Mark Curtis, Web of Deceit, Vintage, 2003, p. 37.
    5. Ibid, p. 37.
    The post The Media Lens Book Of Obituaries: Deleting Tutu’s Criticism Of Israel first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Desmond Tutu’s funeral and Kazakhstan clashes: human rights this fortnight – in pictures

    A roundup of the coverage of the struggle for human rights and freedoms, from Mexico to Hong Kong

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Tutu Obits Underplay His Advocacy for Palestine

     

    AP: Desmond Tutu, South Africa’s moral conscience, dies at 90

    AP (12/26/21) noted that Desmond Tutu “campaigned internationally for human rights”—but didn’t mention Israel/Palestine.

    Obituaries in the corporate and establishment press for South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu rightly celebrated him not only as one of the key leaders of the struggle against apartheid in his own country, but as a global advocate against oppression, including being a fierce Christian voice against homophobia.

    These obituaries often underplayed or ignored, however, that Tutu, as a South African crusader against apartheid, helped to normalize the idea that Palestinians suffered under a similar apartheid system. Likewise marginalized was the enormous amount of hate he received for his advocacy for Palestinians and his criticism of the Israeli government.

    The New York Times (12/26/21) obituary reduced his Palestine advocacy to one incident in 2010  when “he unsuccessfully urged a touring Cape Town opera company” to not perform in the country, quoting his urging the company to postpone its production of Porgy and Bess “until both Israeli and Palestinian opera lovers of the region have equal opportunity and unfettered access to attend performances.”

    The AP obituary (12/26/21) ignored this issue entirely, as did obituaries in USA Today (12/26/21), the BBC (12/26/21) and NPR (12/26/21). The Washington Post (12/26/21) did the issue some justice, saying that Tutu “repeatedly compared Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza to South Africa during the apartheid regime.” While CNN‘s initial obituary (12/26/21) devoted only part of a sentence to his call for a boycott of Israel in 2014, a follow-up piece explored his broad range of activism: “As South Africa Mourns Desmond Tutu, So Do LGBTQ Groups, Palestinians and Climate Activists” (11/27/21).

    Guardian petition

    Guardian: The Most Rev Desmond Tutu obituary

    Critics complained that the Guardian‘s obituary (12/26/21) contained all of four words on Desmond Tutu’s criticism of Israel. The paper later printed an op-ed (12/30/21) on his advocacy for Palestinians.

    As of this writing, more than 3,000 people had signed a petition demanding a correction to the Guardian’s obituary (12/26/21). Petitioners complained that while the obit

    documents the archbishop’s tireless struggle against oppression and racism of all kinds…Tutu’s repeated criticism of Israeli apartheid policies, and his commitment to the cause of the Palestinian people, are all simply omitted.

    The article’s lone mention of Israel cited Tutu’s blasting “the US for supporting the Contras in Nicaragua and Israel for bombing Beirut.” The petition said that the article “exemplifies the Guardian’s consistent pro-Israel bias,” a trend FAIR has previously documented (2/22/21). According to the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (12/30/21), activists were concerned with the Guardian’s “deletion of a large number of comments in response to the obituary which all highlighted Tutu’s condemnation of Israeli apartheid.” The comments were restored upon pressure, the group said, but the original deletion, the group said, still inspired unease.

    The Guardian (12/30/21) did eventually publish a piece on Tutu’s Palestine activism, in an apparent response to the media activism.

    As the Middle East Eye (12/26/21) reported, Tutu likened Palestinians’ political conditions to those of Black South Africans under apartheid. He supported the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign as a form of peaceful pressure, and often spoke of Israel’s policies as being contrary to the teachings of Jewish and Christian values.

    Upon his death, the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz (12/26/21) quoted Tutu’s defense of boycotting Israel, saying those who continue to do business with Israel “are contributing to the perpetuation of a profoundly unjust status quo.” “Those who contribute to Israel’s temporary isolation,” meanwhile, “are saying that Israelis and Palestinians are equally entitled to dignity and peace.”

    Reactionary pushback

    Alan Dershowitz on Fox News

    Alan Dershowitz on Fox News (12/27/21): “Let’s make sure that history remembers both the goods he did and the awful, awful bads that he did as well.”

    Skating over Tutu’s outspokenness about Palestinian rights in his official obituaries does a disservice to Tutu’s life, as his intense advocacy for Palestinians was a major part of his devotion to social justice, and like all campaigns for social justice, it inspired reactionary pushback from defenders of the status quo.

    The pro-Israel Anti-Defamation League (5/3/12) said that he “veered into classical religion-based antisemitism” with his condemnation of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. AP (10/4/07) reported that Tutu had even been disinvited from speaking at a university because the administration “worried his views on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict would offend the Jewish community.”

    The London Times (1/13/11) reported that a petition “signed by three well-known members of Cape Town’s Jewish community” accused Tutu of being a “bigot, dishonest, and a defamer of Israel and the Jewish community.” “Over the years,” they said, “Archbishop Tutu has been guilty of numerous antisemitic and anti-Israel statements.”

    Alan Dershowitz—lawyer for Donald Trump, Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein—even took to Fox News (12/27/21; Crooks & Liars, 12/28/21) to dance on Tutu’s grave: “Can I remind the world that…the man was a rampant antisemite and bigot?”

    This backlash is rooted in the idea that advocacy for the Palestinians must be antisemitic because Israel is an officially Jewish state—an idea that borrows from the now-ridiculous notion that fighting apartheid in South Africa was somehow anti-white. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency‘s obituary (12/26/21) highlighted this absurdity, saying Tutu “identified closely with the historical suffering of the Jewish people in his forceful advocacy against apartheid in South Africa.”

    A lasting legacy

    Underplaying this aspect of Tutu’s life also understates his impact, because it was Tutu, as a hero of South African liberation struggle, who gave major legitimacy to both the movement to boycott Israel and to critics who labeled Israel’s occupation as apartheid. Tutu’s early recognition that Israel’s anti-Palestinian policies mirrored what he had campaigned against in South Africa laid the groundwork for human rights groups like Human Rights Watch (New York Times, 4/27/21) and B’Tselem (NBC, 1/12/21) recognition of Israel’s occupation as a form of apartheid.

    The omission or underplaying of this facet of Tutu’s life is a reminder of how scared many corporate media institutions are of touching what is often called the third rail of politics. That the AP‘s obituary, for example, can highlight Tutu’s heroic commitment against homophobia but not his views on the Israel/Palestine conflict, or the backlash he faced as a result, underscores the limits of intersectional social justice in the establishment press.

     

    The post Tutu Obits Underplay His Advocacy for Palestine appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  • Desmond Tutu, human rights champion par excellence, is no more

    Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu, who was post-apartheid South Africa’s moral compass and the driver of its troubled reconciliation process, has died. He was 90 years old.

    He is the laureate of at least 10 human rights awards: For the complete list, see: https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/laureates/3E4065ED-420D-D94E-ECB1-4A2C91FE3BE6

    Andrew Donaldson in News24 of 26 December 2021 published an interesting obituary: A tireless social activist and human rights defender, Tutu not only coined the term “Rainbow Nation” to describe the country’s ethnic diversity but, after the first democratic elections in 1994, went on to become its conscience, using his international profile in campaigns against HIV/Aids, tuberculosis, poverty, racism, xenophobia, sexism, homophobia and transphobia, among others…

    His was a powerful, forthright voice, one that irked both the Nationalist government and its successor, the African National Congress and its allies. He was, an activist noted, “given to expressing his opinion in ways that are guaranteed to be outside the realm of comfortable politics”. As Tutu himself put it, in 2007, “I wish I could shut up, but I can’t, and I won’t.“..

    Both at home and abroad, Tutu’s opposition to apartheid, which he often likened to Nazism, was vigorous and unequivocal. The Nationalists twice revoked his passport, and he was briefly jailed in 1980 after a protest march. Many felt that his increasing international reputation and his advocacy of non-violence had spared Tutu from more harsh treatment by the government…

    He was a born orator and, according to the journalist Simon Hattenstone, “a natural performer [with] his hands and eyes flying all over the place, his voice impassioned and resonant; a tiny ball of love.”

    Tutu would often play down such adulation. “I was,” he once said of his reputation, “this man with the big nose and the easy name who personalised the South African situation.”…

    Following the Soweto riots in 1976, Tutu became an increasingly vocal supporter of economic sanctions and a vigorous opponent of US president Ronald Reagan’s “constructive engagement” with the Nationalist government.

    In 1978, he was appointed general secretary of the SACC, a position he used to further rally support, both local and international, against apartheid. He was just as harsh in his criticism of the violent tactics later used by some anti-apartheid activists, and was unequivocal in his opposition to terrorism and communism.

    Tutu’s finest hour came when he chaired the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which was set up to bear witness to, record and in some cases grant amnesty to the perpetrators of apartheid-relation human rights violations, as well as rule on reparation and the rehabilitation of victims…

    See also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2013/07/30/desmond-tutu-chooses-hell-over-homophobic-heaven/

    He is survived by his wife, four children, seven grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

    Desmond Tutu was responsible for countless notable quotes throughout his life as an activist and elder. TimesLive (Ernest Mabuza) of 26 December 2021 in “In his own words: Desmond Tutu’s unwavering stance on human rights” published 12 of his best:

    https://www.news24.com/news24/Obituaries/obituary-desmond-tutu-tenacious-charismatic-and-a-thorn-in-the-national-party-and-ancs-side-20211226

    https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/south-africa/2021-12-26-in-his-own-words-desmond-tutus-unwavering-stance-on-human-rights/

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • Archbishop Desmond Tutu (1931-2021) on Apartheid, War, Palestine, Guantánamo, Climate Crisis & More

    Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the South African anti-apartheid icon, has died at the age of 90. In 1984 Desmond Tutu won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work fighting to end white minority rule in South Africa. After the fall of apartheid, Archbishop Tutu chaired the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, where he pushed for restorative justice. He was a leading voice for human rights and peace around the world. He opposed the Iraq War and condemned the Israeli occupation in Palestine, comparing it to apartheid South Africa. We re-air two interviews Archbishop Tutu did on Democracy Now!, as well as two speeches on the Iraq War and the climate crisis.

    The post Archbishop Desmond Tutu (1931-2021) on Apartheid, War, Palestine, Guantánamo, Climate Crisis & More first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Archbishop Desmond Tutu: A friend of Aotearoa NZ and a champion of Palestinian human rights

    OBITUARY: By John Minto

    Palestine has lost a champion of the struggle against Israeli apartheid with the death of South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu, aged 90.

    Tutu is known internationally as a leader of the struggle against white minority rule in South Africa and won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work reconciling South Africans after the end of its brutal apartheid regime.

    He was the moral conscience of the country and sometimes highly critical of South Africa’s African National Congress (ANC)-led government, saying that some in the ANC leadership had stopped the apartheid gravy train “just long enough to jump on”.

    Relationship with New Zealand
    Archbishop Tutu was a warm friend of New Zealand and many New Zealanders across our political divides will feel a deep sadness at his passing.

    In the early 1980s when Tutu faced court action from the South African authorities, a delegation of church leaders from New Zealand, led by former Anglican Archbishop of Aotearoa New Zealand, the late Sir Paul Reeves, went to South Africa in an act of international solidarity.

    This was deeply appreciated by Archbishop Tutu.

    During the protests against the 1981 Springbok rugby tour, one of the three Auckland protest squads was called Tutu Squad in his honour.

    Later he came to New Zealand and at one point gave evidence as an expert witness on apartheid during a trial arising from 1981 tour protests.

    Such was his charisma, his mana and the deep respect he commanded everywhere that when he was called to the witness stand by Hone Harawira, the entire courtroom stood.

    In this case all the activists on trial were acquitted after the jury deliberated.

    John Minto talking to Archbishop Desmond Tutu
    Former HART chair John Minto talking to Archbishop Desmond Tutu during 2009. Image: PSNA

    Support for Palestinians
    Tutu was outspoken against injustices all around the world and in particular he condemned the racist policies faced by Palestinians from the Israeli regime. He frequently described Israel’s treatment of Palestinians as “worse” than that suffered by black South Africans.

    He said international solidarity with Palestinians such as through BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) was critical to ending injustices like apartheid.

    “I have witnessed the racially segregated roads and housing in the Holy Land that reminded me so much of the conditions we experienced in South Africa under apartheid,” said Tutu.

    “We could not have achieved our democracy without the help of people around the world, who through… non-violent means, such as boycotts and disinvestment, encouraged their governments and other corporate actors to reverse decades-long support for the apartheid regime.”

    In relation to Israeli policies towards Palestinians, Tutu said the world should “call it apartheid and boycott!”

    In honouring Tutu’s legacy, freedom-loving people around the world should follow his advice and spurn Israel till everyone living in historic Palestine has equal rights.

    Aotearoa New Zealand, the Palestinian struggle and the world have lost a dear friend and a great humanitarian.

    John Minto is national chair of Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) and former national chair of HART (Halt all Racist Tours).

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Desmond Tutu, Fierce Opponent of South African and Israeli Apartheid, Dies at 90

    Nobel Peace Prize laureate Desmond Tutu speaks during a press conference in Gaza City, on May 29, 2008, at the end of a fact finding mission to the impoverished and besieged coastal territory.

    Leaving behind a legacy of fighting for oppressed people in South Africa and around the world, Archbishop Desmond Tutu died Sunday at age 90 in Cape Town, South Africa. The cause was reportedly cancer.

    Advocates for human rights, health equity, economic justice, and nonviolence honored Tutu, who helped lead the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission which was formed afterwards.

    The Elders, the independent group of global leaders working for justice and good governance, said his “commitment to peace, love, and the fundamental equality of all human beings will endure to inspire future generations.”

    “The Elders would not be who they are today without his passion, commitment, and keen moral compass,” said Mary Robinson, former Irish president and chair of The Elders. “He inspired me to be a ‘prisoner of hope,’ in his inimitable phrase. [Tutu] was respected around the world for his dedication to justice, equality, and freedom. Today we mourn his death but affirm our determination to keep his beliefs alive.”

    Tutu served as The Elders’ first chair from 2007 until 2013, after becoming internationally recognized for his work leading Black South Africans in the fight against the apartheid system, which he condemned as “evil” while urging nonviolent methods of protest.

    He preached that apartheid threatened the dignity and humanity of both Black and white South Africans and called on international leaders to impose sanctions on the country’s government in protest of the apartheid system, a demand which led South African officials to revoke his passport twice.

    “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor,” Tutu famously said during the struggle against apartheid. “If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”

    He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his work in 1984. After the fall of the apartheid system in 1994, Tutu chaired the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which aimed to provide a record of the violence and injustice perpetrated by the government under the system. The archbishop sought to provide “restorative justice,” offering compensation to survivors and amnesty to perpetrators who cooperated with the inquiry.

    Tutu was a fierce critic of economic and racial inequality that persisted in South Africa following the formal end of the apartheid system, accusing President Thabo Mbeki in 2004 of serving a small number of elites while “too many, of our people live in grueling, demeaning, dehumanizing poverty.”

    “Can you explain how a Black person wakes up in a squalid ghetto today, almost 10 years after freedom?” Tutu said in 2003. “Then he goes to work in town, which is still largely White, in palatial homes. And at the end of the day, he goes back home to squalor?”

    Beyond his home country, Tutu was an outspoken critic of militarism and imperialism in the Global North, calling for former U.S. President George W. Bush and former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair to face prosecution at the International Criminal Court over their invasion and occupation of Iraq.

    Tutu was also a defender of Palestinians’ rights and a critic of Israel’s violent policies targeting millions of people in Gaza and the West Bank, comparing their treatment to the apartheid system.

    In 2014, as the Israeli Defense Forces carried out attacks that killed more than 2,100 Palestinians — the vast majority of whom were civilians — Tutu wrote an exclusive article in Israeli newspaper Haaretz, calling for a global boycott of Israel.

    He called on Israelis “to actively disassociate themselves and their profession from the design and construction of infrastructure related to perpetuating injustice, including the separation barrier, the security terminals and checkpoints, and the settlements built on occupied Palestinian land.”

    “Those who continue to do business with Israel, who contribute to a sense of ‘normalcy’ in Israeli society, are doing the people of Israel and Palestine a disservice,” Tutu wrote. “They are contributing to the perpetuation of a profoundly unjust status quo. Those who contribute to Israel’s temporary isolation are saying that Israelis and Palestinians are equally entitled to dignity and peace.”

    hat same year, Tutu called for a global divestment from the fossil fuel industry modeled on the international sanctions that he supported against South Africa, which helped to end apartheid.

    “We live in a world dominated by greed,” Tutu wrote in The Guardian. “We have allowed the interests of capital to outweigh the interests of human beings and our Earth. It is clear [the companies] are not simply going to give up; they stand to make too much money.”

    “People of conscience need to break their ties with corporations financing the injustice of climate change,” he added. “We can, for instance, boycott events, sports teams, and media programming sponsored by fossil-fuel energy companies… We can encourage more of our universities and municipalities and cultural institutions to cut their ties to the fossil-fuel industry.”

    Tutu was also recognized for his global fight for LGBTQ+ rights, his calls for an end to AIDS denialism in South Africa, and recently, his efforts to combat misinformation about Covid-19 vaccines.

    “Bishop Tutu meant so much to so many,” said Rev. Dr. William Barber II, co-chair of the anti-poverty Poor People’s Campaign in the U.S. “Thank God for his life. Let we who believe in freedom and justice be his legacy always.”

  • One horrifying image should be a deathblow to the fossil fuel industry’s expansion hopes

    The fossil fuel industry says it wants to be part of the solution to the climate crisis. Despite this, it’s busy trying to ensure it can exploit new parts of the Earth for more fossil fuels, with the staunch backing of governments.

    An image from a recent disaster in Nigeria shows what a dangerous path that would be to follow, especially for a world in the grips of two existential crises: climate and biodiversity.

    Utter disaster

    As the Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF) detailed in a report, an oil well blowout occurred on 1 November. It explained that:

    A blowout occurs whenever there is the release of uncontrollable oil and gas from an oil well or gas well after all pressure control systems fail.

    The November blowout happened at a well in an oilfield operated by Aiteo Eastern Exploration and Exploration Company in Bayelsa state. The spill wasn’t “top killed“, meaning plugged, until 8 December. HOMEF’s director Nnimmo Bassey posted an image on Twitter on 22 December that showed what those weeks of constantly spurting crude oil and fossil gas has done to the environment where the well is situated:

    As Bassey’s tweet highlighted, an investigation into the cause of the blowout is now underway.

    The HOMEF report said that such spills can ‘largely destroy’ the socio-economic wellbeing of people, who mainly rely on fishing and small-scale farming, where they occur. It continued, noting that spills can have:

    direct impacts on human health due to the heavy metals in the oil. Elements such as lead, cadmium, arsenic and mercury pose special health impacts, causing cancers, kidney failures, reproductive problems, birth defects and many others.

    Ecocide

    The report also asserted that the Aiteo spill has destroyed “immense tracts” of the Santa Barbara river’s mangrove forests, with their “heavily crude oil-soiled” roots exposed at low tide. It suggested that the mangrove swamps would likely have a “heavy presence of the polluting crude oil”, which would mean “that aquatic lives like periwinkle, crayfish, crabs, oysters and even fish would be wiped out”.

    HOMEF further noted that despite the company deploying booms that are meant to stem the spread of the oil, a “large volume of the crude oil was flowing out to the Santa Barbara River and spreading towards the Ocean”.

    Alarm bells

    Nigeria is, of course, no stranger to such disasters after six decades of exploitation for hydrocarbons. Neither are other countries where fossil fuel companies have operated. Attorney Steven Donziger, who is well known for his legal battle with oil giant Chevron, tweeted:

    But their ongoing experience should serve as an alarm bell for governments elsewhere that are currently being seduced by the fossil fuel industry’s charms.

    As HOMEF said, some blowouts are near impossible to control, due to the level of force involved or where they happen. Imagine then, if such a disaster were to occur in Namibia and Botswana, where ReconAfrica is engaged in exploring for oil? As The Canary has previously reported, its project could impact a watershed called the Okavango Delta. Those waters support the lives of tens of thousands of people, unfathomable numbers of wild animals, and huge amounts of vegetation.

    Bassey previously wrote that the ReconAfrica project is a “gamble” that risks turning the Okavango region “into an arena of death”. The image he posted on Twitter illustrates with sobering clarity exactly what that ‘death’ looks like.

    Destruction, every step of the way

    As legal action currently underway in South Africa shows, fossil fuel projects aren’t solely risky to people and the environment once they’re operational. A number of environmental groups and communities in the country are currently fighting to halt the seismic testing Shell is conducting along the Wild Coast. They argue, backed by scientific expertise, that the testing poses risks to sea life and people.

    Companies conduct seismic surveys to assess what oil and gas may lie under the ocean floor. In Shell’s case, it involves blasting the ocean with sound pulses on a regular basis over a period of months. The recorded feedback from those blasts will indicate the presence of fossil fuels or not.

    Groups have mounted two legal challenges against the testing. Natural Justice and other environmental and human rights-focused groups filed an urgent interdict application at the end of November. A judge heard that case on 1 December. He ruled against the applicants on 3 December, on the grounds that they hadn’t proven that the survey would do “irreparable harm” to marine life. The groups have applied to appeal the judgment.

    Wild Coast community members and groups filed a further urgent interdict in early December. A judge heard that case on 17 December. The judgment is currently pending.

    Irreparable harm

    The cases have variably accused Shell of moving forward with the surveys without the correct environmental authorisations and failing to meaningfully consult with affected communities. They have also asserted that the surveys threaten harm, including harm that could be irreparable and substantial, to communities and wildlife.

    In the case of the latter issue, Shell has argued that it has mitigation measures in place to minimise harm to ocean life. However, expert opinion presented in the second case characterised these measures as inadequate on a number of levels. Current scientific evidence shows that seismic surveys widely and negatively impact ocean ecosystems, from tiny organisms like zooplankton to large mammals such as whales.

    Moreover, Shell is ultimately carrying out these surveys in the hope it can drill the Wild Coast for fossil fuels. During a Daily Maverick webinar on the situation, conservation strategist at the South African Association for Marine Biological Research, Judy Mann-Lang, explained the risks of this. She highlighted that the Wild Coast hosts an extremely powerful current called the Agulhas Current. Mann-Lang warned:

    Our concern is that if oil or gas is found there, how are they going to extract it safely, given the incredible powerful current washing down that coast? How are they going to mitigate the risks of this current? What happens if something goes wrong? They don’t know. Predicting this current is difficult. It is not called the Wild Coast for nothing.

    Dinosaurs

    In a world already grappling with immense environmental crises, it is beyond comprehension that authorities would wilfully put further vital ecosystems – and all the living beings who depend on them – at risk in pursuit of more planet-burning fossil fuels. Shell, however, doesn’t appear to see things that way. During the first court hearing, its counsel argued [1:56.15] that “in matters like this”, namely “where there are allegations about harm to the environment”, there’s a “subtext” that:

    the commercial interests of private companies, and this is frankly especially companies with a big international footprint like Shell, must just yield to the supposed environmental interests or the interests of the public

    As a dinosaur of the fossil fuel era, Shell may not be used to having to ‘yield’ to the interests of life on Earth. But in our current catastrophic reality, continued life on Earth is not guaranteed at all, in no small part because of the actions of the fossil fuel industry.

    So if we’re to have a hope in hell of turning the tide, life simply must take priority over money and profit.

    Featured image via Reuters / Youtube

    By Tracy Keeling

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Panel proposes South Africa gradually start implementing basic income

    By Prinesha Naidoo

    Original article: https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/south-africa/2021-12-13-panel-proposes-gradual-start-to-basic-income-grant/

    A panel recommends South Africa gradually implements a basic income grant, beginning with the institutionalisation of a monthly welfare payment introduced last year to offset damage wrought by the coronavirus pandemic.

    “There is no alternative to a system of income support for income-compromised adults from the ages of 18 to 59 as a permanent part of the social protection framework,” Alex van den Heever, chair of social security systems administration and management studies at the University of Witwatersrand and a member of the panel, said on Monday.

    The panel was appointed by the department of social development, the International Labour Organisation and the UN-backed Joint Sustainable Development Goals Fund.

    The monthly welfare payment of R350, which was reintroduced after civil unrest in July, is set to end in March.

    While about 18-million South Africans, or a third of the population, receive welfare payments, most come in the form of old age pensions and child support payments.
    While about 18-million South Africans, or a third of the population, receive welfare payments, most come in the form of old age pensions and child support payments.

    Finance minister Enoch Godongwana last month resisted calls by civil society groups for increased welfare spending and the introduction of a basic income grant, a policy business organisations say is unaffordable. The National Treasury has said it will only set aside additional funds for social relief if state finances improve by February next year. 

    While about 18-million South Africans — a third of the population — receive welfare payments, most come in the form of old-age pensions and child support payments.

    SA is one of the world’s most unequal nations, according to the Thomas Piketty-backed World Inequality Lab.

    The post Panel proposes South Africa gradually start implementing basic income appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • RIP Comrade Ebrahim Ebrahim (July 1, 1937- December 6, 2021)

    Ebrahim Ebrehim was an exemplary comrade in the South African struggle for freedom, who until his death was a committed internationalist, writes Sidney Luckett.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • Omicron and the Travel Ban Itch

    Stick to the script: owe that duty of care to your population, so the legal experts in government tell you.  Self-interest pays, if in small amounts.  These rigid, formulaic assumptions have done wonders to harm and deter any spirit of cooperation regarding dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic.

    History’s record of humanity’s response to plagues, pandemics and disease is one of isolation, marginalisation, and exclusion.  The infected shall be kept away and sealed off from the healthy and wealthy.  This, inevitably, results in partiality, prejudice and distinctions.  Omicron, having been pumped with the prestige of a potential COVID super variant, has given dozens of countries grounds to stop travel, halt movement and stem flights.  As always, these measures have been applied unevenly and hypocritically.

    First reported by South Africa, the country now has the distinction of being, along with a range of other Southern African countries, pariahs in terms of international travel.  Little wonder that individuals such as the Chair of the South African Medical Association, Dr. Angelique Coetzee are alarmed at what was essentially a replay of the initial global response to COVID-19.

    In Coetzee’s judgment, Omicron, while seemingly harder to detect, does not deserve a ladle full of fear.  “Looking at the mildness of the symptoms that we are seeing, currently there is no reason for panicking, as we don’t see severely ill patients.”  The prevailing “clinical complaint is severe fatigue for one or two days, with the headache and body aches and pains.”  She also noted instances of a scratchy throat and dry coughing.

    South African Health Minister Joe Phaahla similarly reported that his country’s “clinicians have not witnessed severe illness.  Part of it may be because the majority of those who are positive are young people.”

    Vaccine manufacturers such as Moderna have been quick off the mark in sowing seeds of mild panic, claiming that existing COVID-19 vaccines will be less effective against Omicron.  According to the company’s chief executive, Stéphane Bancel, the number of Omicron mutations on the spike protein – the part of the virus famed for infecting human cells – and the speed of transmissibility, suggested an imminent “material drop” in effectiveness.

    This less than responsible prediction, in the absence of cold hard trials and laboratory results, was marvellous for speculators and someone was obviously making a packet on the sliding of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which slipped 652 points (1.9%) on November 30.  The S&P 500 and the Nasdaq also fell 1.9% and 1.6% respectively.

    The World Health Organisation has never been partial to the idea of a travel ban in the face of disease.  But it finds itself in a difficult position.  Closing the borders can inflict harm; but not encouraging closures might result in retrospective condemnation from governments who fear their populace and chances of survival at the ballot box.  The stance taken towards Omicron is that the haste on the part of many countries in sealing Southern African countries off has been irrational and disproportionate.

    In a statement from WHO Director-General, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, concern was expressed that countries such as Botswana and South Africa “are now penalized by others for doing the right thing.”  Nation states should “take rational, proportional risk-reduction measures, in keeping with International Health Regulations.”

    Suggestions included passenger screenings prior to and after travel, or the use of quarantine for international travellers.  “Blanket travel bans will not prevent the international spread of Omicron, and they place a heavy burden on lives and livelihoods.”

    The Director-General also made the pertinent point that the Delta variant remained pre-eminently dangerous.  With the tools already available to combat that mutation, using them effectively would invariably also “prevent transmission and save lives from Omicron.”

    These are also views held by the UN Secretary-General António Guterres, who has also suggested a testing regime for travellers rather than a shutting of the door. “With a virus that is truly borderless, travel restrictions that isolate any one country or region are not only deeply unfair and punitive – they are ineffective.”

    On a cooperative and collaborative level, the travel ban on South Africa has also had a discernible effect.  As Maria Van Kerhove, the WHO’s lead on COVID-19 remarked, South African researchers, despite being keen to share data, samples and information, find themselves facing obstacles in actually having samples “shipped out of the country”.

    As with other pandemics, gross inequality shadows, imposes and manifests in every phase of the response.  “We are living through a cycle of panic and neglect,” laments Tedros.  Be it the imposition of national quarantines, international closures, restrictions on access to diagnostic equipment, protective equipment, vaccines, the moneyed shall find their way to the top, if only because they were there to begin with.  Those without bountiful lucre, few resources other than ambition and little else other than hope, will be squashed, or at the very least find themselves isolated and delayed.

    In the whirlwind that is viral change and adjustment, the WHO has uttered some statements of sense.  But these are not going to find a home in countries which have invested billions in pandemic infrastructure and restrictions.  Vaccine mandates are being retained in some countries with high vaccination rates, which tends to make more than a mild mockery of the vaccination program itself.

    The talk of boosters means that those who have not satisfied the next round of regulatory safety will be barred from bar and border; from restaurant and recreation facility.  It is also a reminder that wealthier, high-income states will prioritise their own populations, leaving such collective efforts to immunise the globe, such as COVAX, behind.  Doing this will only serve to delay the vaccination of poorer countries and encourage the next roaring mutation to stumble onto the world stage.  There are many other potential Omicrons in the pipeline.

    In the meantime, countries such as South Africa may well rue their candour in disclosing a variant it was so quick to identify and sequence.  There is little to suggest that Omicron actually originated there but such details will never get in the way of irrational impulse and shoddy judgments.

    The post Omicron and the Travel Ban Itch first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Activists Make Last-Minute Bid To Stop Shell From Blasting In Whale Breeding Grounds

    Activists have made a last-minute bid to stop Royal Dutch Shell from exploring for oil and gas in whale breeding grounds off the coast of South Africa.

    The fossil-fuel giant had planned to search for oil and gas reserves by setting off underwater explosions along a stretch of South Africa known as the Wild Coast, according to MSN. The explorations were slated to begin December 1. However, four environmental and human rights organizations filed a legal challenge Monday night to stop the blasting, Greenpeace Africa said.

    “Shell’s activities threaten to destroy the Wild Coast and the lives of the people living there,” Greenpeace Africa senior climate campaigner Happy Khambule said in a statement about the challenge.

    The post Activists Make Last-Minute Bid To Stop Shell From Blasting In Whale Breeding Grounds appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.