Category: South Africa

  • President Joe Biden speaks during an event on COVID-19 response and the vaccination program at the South Court Auditorium of Eisenhower Executive Office Building on July 6, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    The emergence of the new Omicron strain of COVID-19 is alarming, even if the exact danger it poses is still unclear. This development should serve as a reminder of what’s been clear from the beginning of the pandemic — that the only way to suppress the virus’s spread is to have a truly global vaccination effort. The most obvious way to increase global vaccine access is for the World Trade Organization to adopt India and South Africa’s proposal to waive intellectual property rights of the giant pharmaceutical companies that are claiming a monopoly on vaccine development. The Biden administration has opposed the waiver but now has begun to signal at least tepid support.

    Last Sunday, President Biden’s Chief Medical Adviser Anthony Fauci had warned that it was only a matter of time before the Omicron strain appeared in the U.S. He was proven right on Wednesday when California reported the first known case in a traveler from South Africa.

    As the Delta surge showed over the summer of 2021, the vast swaths of the United States where vaccine rates are low are incredibly vulnerable to each new variant. After an initially impressive vaccine rollout, the U.S.’s vaccination rate has dropped off considerably. As of late October, the United States had the lowest vaccination rates of G7 countries.

    If there is one spot of good news here, it’s that the Biden administration has embraced strong vaccination mandates, and the early data suggest that they’re working. In September, Biden issued an executive order requiring all federal workers to get the shot with exceptions in limited circumstances. As of November 23, 92 percent of the 3.5 million federal workers had gotten at least one shot, according to a White House fact sheet.

    As part of that executive order, Biden also required all employees of companies with more than 100 workers to get vaccinated, obtain a waiver, or face weekly testing by early January. That order was challenged by at least 27 states in various districts and was subsequently blocked by a federal appeals court. A federal judge also blocked a Biden order mandating that health care workers get the vaccine, after 10 states sued.

    Still, the company 3M (the largest producer of N95 masks in the U.S.) mandated that its employees get vaccinated in response to Biden’s executive order on federal workers. More broadly, Biden’s appeal to corporate behemoths to adopt vaccine mandates has seen some key success, as Procter & Gamble, Tyson Foods, and several airlines have required their workers to get the shot.

    Although national hard data is difficult to pin down, anecdotally, at least many vaccine-hesitant people have preferred to get the vaccine rather than face the prospect of losing their jobs. State and municipal mandates have been incredibly successful as well. In New York State, a mandate for health care workers saw the number of people covered jump about 10 percent — from 82 to 92 percent — in the week before the requirement took hold. Even cops, who are part of one of the most reactionary and anti-vaccine professions in the country, have largely acquiesced to the requirement, even as their police associations have challenged the mandates in court.

    The response from the right to the mandates — either those issued by Biden or by Democratic-controlled cities and states — has been predictable. Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves said Biden’s federal mandates were something out of “communist China or North Korea.” A Fox News weekend host said they were the “beginning of a communist-style social credit system.” Right-wing website Red State referred to Biden’s speech as “dictatorial,” and conservative commentator Ben Shapiro said it was an example of the “authoritarianism” of the “administrative state.” After the conservative television station Newsmax announced it would enforce its own mandate, host Steve Cortes tweeted that he would not comply with “any organization’s attempt to enforce Biden’s capricious & unscientific Medical Apartheid mandate.”

    In the months since Biden issued his federal mandate, the reactionary backlash hasn’t subsided, exactly, but conservatives have found other boogiemen to chase. Most notably, they rallied in a panic against in-school discussions of racism and oppression (which they inaccurately describe as “critical race theory”) in the Virginia gubernatorial race. Republicans have attacked Biden’s Build Back Better social spending plan as a reckless expansion of the welfare state. Rep. Lauren Boebert called Rep. Ilhan Omar a terrorist, then refused to publicly apologize. In short, conservatives are doing what they always do, and what they would have done had Biden not issued his executive orders on vaccine requirements.

    The clear lesson for Democrats here is that cowering in anticipation of a backlash is morally indefensible in addition to being political malpractice. The constant media refrain in the run-up to the Virginia election was that the Democrats hadn’t done enough with their power, or, in Beltway-speak, they didn’t have “wins” to bring home. Poll after poll shows that Biden’s political future relies on increasing vaccination rates, stemming future waves and inching the country closer to an end-state where COVID is more like the seasonal flu and less like a life-altering pandemic.

    Biden, and Democrats more broadly, will obviously get zero help from conservatives in this endeavor. Not only have the vast majority of Republican-controlled states resisted mask and vaccine mandates, but the GOP response to the Omicron variant has been even more mired in lies and conspiracy theories. Texas Republican and former Trump White House physician Ronny Jackson suggested the new variant had been invented by Democrats to justify mail-in voting in next year’s midterms. Similarly, Fox News hosts Will Cain and Pete Hegseth half-joked that the Biden administration would invent new variants “every two years” for their political benefit.

    In retrospect, it’s now clear that Biden waited far too long to initiate federal vaccine mandates, almost entirely because his administration was afraid of the backlash they might generate. According to vaccine expert Peter Hotez, 150,000 people in the United States have died of COVID since June, when vaccines became widely available for Americans over 18. At least some of those people could have been saved — in some cases, in spite of their own instincts — had Biden pressed for large-scale mandates earlier.

    There’s a rough analogy to be made here to another subject Democrats have waffled on for years for fear of sparking a backlash, specifically health care costs. There’s no question that much of the Democratic Party’s opposition to single-payer health care — or even a public option — is due to a genuine commitment to a privatized market, both ideologically and for the material benefit they get from health care sector lobbying. But the way that that commitment is often sold to liberal voters is that moving to a single-payer system would result in cries of authoritarianism and Stalinism from the right. As the left flank of the party has said for years, conservatives will accuse liberals of being socialists no matter what they do, so why not enact good policies and deal with the inevitable backlash when it comes.

    More broadly, Democrats have imposed strict limits on themselves so as not to trigger blowback from Republicans for exercising their power when they have it. This manifests in all sorts of ways — from the Obama administration settling on a stimulus that some advisers knew was too small at the outset of the great recession, to the continuing reluctance from the party’s conservative wing to abolish the filibuster (even as a limited carve-out for voting rights). The Biden administration has been dragging its feet on negotiating lower drug costs, preferring to leave it to Congress despite the fact that there is executive action Biden could take in the meantime. Activists have also argued that Biden has the legal authority to cancel student debt without going through Congress, an action the administration seems to have placed in a state of permanent review. Some experts believe Biden has the statutory authority to make college essentially free by forgiving “loans equal to average public-college tuition on a rolling basis for two- and four-year public colleges.”

    Every single one of these actions — not to mention any legislation Biden signs into law with only Democratic support — will generate massive backlash from conservatives. But so did federal, state and municipal vaccine mandates. Both morally and politically, the danger Democrats face is doing too little, losing power and being called authoritarians anyway.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The world’s richest countries have undermined the international cooperation we need to end this pandemic.

    This post was originally published on Dissent MagazineDissent Magazine.

  • An employee at the biotechnology company Afrigen works in a manufacturing laboratory in Cape Town.

    As debate over a proposal to temporarily waive intellectual property protections for COVID vaccines and treatments continues to stall at the World Trade Organization (WTO), members that remain opposed — including the United Kingdom, Switzerland and the European Union — are increasingly being accused of violating human rights on an international scale.

    Calls for the WTO to approve the so-called TRIPS waiver for vaccine patents and manufacturing technology is reaching a fever pitch with the emergence of the Omicron variant that was first identified in South Africa. Omicron has prompted travel bans across the world and inflamed tensions over massive global disparities in vaccine access, which experts and advocates have warned for months would allow the virus to mutate and spread outward from lower-income countries where vaccines remain out of reach for most people.

    Yet Moderna has refused to share the “recipe” for its COVID mRNA vaccine with a South African biotech firm and a World Health Organization (WHO) effort in Africa to transfer the technology necessary for making vaccines to African nations, where less than 1 in 10 people have received at least one dose of the vaccine. In the United States and Europe, monopolies on the crucial technology and know-how needed to make vaccines largely remains controlled by private pharmaceutical companies that received billions of dollars from wealthy governments to develop vaccines — and are now pulling in billions in global profit.

    “The spread of new variants is the direct result of the staggering inequitable access to vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics and other products needed to treat and contain the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Sangeeta Shashikant, a policy advisor for the Third World Network, in a call with reporters last week. “Intellectual property monopolies are causing the inequity.”

    Leaders of the Global Nurses Union, which represents 2.5 million health care workers in 28 countries, and the left coalition Progressive International sent a letter to the UN Human Rights Council on Monday decrying global “vaccine apartheid” and demanding an investigation into the countries that continue to block the TRIPS waiver at the WTO. The pandemic has caused a “staggering” number of deaths, the labor and political leaders wrote, with hundreds of thousands of frontline health care workers among them.

    “It is now clear: Continued opposition to the patent waiver is resulting in the violation of human rights of peoples across the world,” they wrote.

    The Council of Global Unions, which represents some 200 million workers worldwide, also released a statement on Monday urging the U.K., Switzerland, the European Union and Germany to drop their opposition. Critics and U.S. lawmakers have said the EU is representing Germany and the interests of its entrenched pharmaceutical industry by opposing the TRIPS waiver. Last week, human rights attorneys threatened to take legal action under international human rights law if the governments of Norway, Germany, the U.K. and Canada refuse to support the waiver.

    In what observers call an ironic twist, a meeting of WTO trade ministers with vaccines on the agenda was postponed this week due to Omicron and new travel restrictions in Switzerland, which hosts WTO meetings in Geneva. Advocacy groups demanded the meeting be postponed because trade ministers from countries in need of vaccines are unable to attend. WTO leaders said negotiations would continue, and the WTO council on intellectual property rights met on Monday.

    The conditions in which variants such as Omicron can flourish could have been avoided if the WTO adopted the waiver when it was introduced back in 2020, according to Deborah James, an international trade expert at the Center for Economic and Policy Research. By now, manufacturers would have scaled up the production of generic jabs for distribution in lower-income countries, if a waiver were in place. Still, a ministerial meeting is not needed to approve the waiver, and James said the WTO General Council could do so “this week.”

    “You couldn’t make this up if it were a novel,” James said in an interview. “It just shouldn’t be a trade organization that is deciding these things. You know the WTO has a default of always making decisions in favor of corporations.”

    As Omicron appeared with its many mutations, the World Health Organization, a South African biotech firm and Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention were already rushing to create an mRNA vaccine technology “transfer hub” as part of an effort to replicate Moderna’s vaccine and allow African countries to create their own supply of shots. South Africa’s vaccination rate, just under 25 percent of the population, lags behind most wealthy nations but is still among the highest in Africa.

    The biotech company working with the WHO, Afrigen Biotech, hopes to create a vaccine that is less expensive than Moderna’s and will not need to be kept frozen, making doses easier to distribute in lower-income countries, according to the Washington Post. Citing intellectual property protections, Moderna has refused to share its vaccine recipe and other know-how with Afrigen and the WHO technology hub, which would allow Afrigen to develop a generic vaccine much faster. Afrigen would also compete with Moderna in largely untapped markets in lower-income nations.

    In October 2020, India and South Africa introduced a WTO resolution that would temporarily waive international intellectual property rules for COVID vaccines and treatments. That resolution is now supported by about 100 countries. Proponents say the waiver would allow manufacturers in both countries to create a broad supply of generic vaccines and help lower-income countries negotiate with existing manufacturers.

    Wealthy nations have procured nearly 7 billion vaccines while low-income countries have access to about 300 million, according to the Duke Global Health Innovation Center.

    Currently, South African and Indian vaccine makers operate under strict licensing agreements with pharmaceutical companies from wealthy nations that invested heavily in development. In some cases, these agreements forced both countries to export doses to wealthier countries instead of serving their own populations.

    President Joe Biden said on Friday that he supports a waiver for vaccine patents at the WTO. However, critics note the U.S. has not backed India and South Africa’s proposal specifically, and say intellectual property protections for COVID tests and treatments must also be waived. Biden has repeatedly said that the U.S. has donated more jabs globally than any other nation, but Democrats in Congress have criticized the White House for not doing more to promote the TRIPS waiver during talks with Germany and the EU.

    Facing criticism from activists and health groups across the globe, the EU has responded by emphasizing existing flexibilities in the WTO’s international patent rules such as compulsory licensing, which allows a country to issue licenses for making vaccines without permission from patent holders. However, health experts say the EU’s COVID proposals at the WTO do not go far enough, and a blanket waiver is needed for countries to move quickly in making generic vaccines and other supplies without facing legal and regulatory roadblocks in acquiring technology and know-how along the way.

    Moderna, for example, has said it won’t prosecute intellectual property violations during the pandemic, but critics say that pledge still falls short of openly sharing the vaccine recipe and other trade secrets with generic competitors. Earlier this year, Moderna projected up to $18 billion in sales for 2021 of its mRNA vaccine as billions of people continue to wait for access, according to Doctors Without Borders. Moderna’s vaccine also benefited from a nearly $10 billion investment from the U.S. government and the company is currently haggling with government scientists over who can take credit for the vaccine.

    Opponents of the waiver say intellectual property rules are needed to protect investments in research and development and streamline vaccine production, but supporters say much of the world now agrees that patent monopolies are driving the disparities in vaccine access that allow variants like Omicron to emerge and spread.

    “It’s like everybody against [a few] WTO members — EU, Switzerland, Norway and the U.K. — representing the interests of billionaires to become multibillionaires, and so that billionaires can become multibillionaires, millions of people are going to die,” James said in an interview.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Like Canada, South Africa is a former British colony and settler state. But the divide between these two countries regarding the world’s most aggressive ongoing European colonialism is stark. While Pretoria assists Palestinians by advocating the boycott of a cultural event, Canadians subsidize huge private donations to a wealthy apartheid state.

    On November 13 the Azrieli Foundation and Weizmann Canada published a full-page ad in the Globe and Mail about a US $50 (C$64 million) million Azrieli donation to the Israel based Weizmann Institute of Science. The ad boasted that the Azrieli Foundation had previously donated US$80 million to the Weizmann Institute.

    The Weizmann Institute is located in Rehovot, which was established partly on the remnants of Zarnuqa, a Palestinian village de-populated by Zionist forces in 1948. The Weizmann Institute has also worked with the Israeli military.

    At the same time as Globe and Mail readers were learning about the largest charitable foundation in Canada donating to Israel, the South African government withdrew its support for the Miss South Africa pageant due to its planned participation in the upcoming Miss Universe contest to be held in Israel. Reigning Miss South Africa, Lalela Mswane, is under significant pressure to boycott a country that imposes a system of apartheid worse than Blacks faced in South Africa. Decrying Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, Miss Greece recently pulled out, as have Miss Malaysia, Barbados, Morocco, Laos and Indonesia (it’s unclear if their decisions were driven by the pandemic).

    But one doesn’t have to support Palestinian civil society’s call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions to question the Azrieli Foundation donation and advertisement. About half of the Azrieli foundation’s costs are likely covered by taxpayers. Why are taxpayers subsidizing donations by a billionaire family to a country with a per capita GDP equal to Canada’s? Does the Israeli state subsidize donations to Canadian institutes?

    Taxpayers would also be on the hook for a share of the cost of the Saturday Globe and Mail ad, which probably cost upwards of $50,000. What is “charitable” about promoting a wealthy foundation’s donation to an institute in a colonial outpost in the Middle East?

    Israel-focused registered charities spend significant sums on advertising. On September 4, Canadian Shaare Zedek Hospital Foundation published a full-page ad in the National Post while the Jewish National Fund has advertised in the Ottawa Citizen. A significant amount of advertising in the Canadian Jewish News came from registered charities.

    Since 1989 the Azrieli Foundation, which has $2 billion in assets, has given hundreds of millions of dollars to Israeli initiatives. In October Canada’s largest foundation donated $15.6 million to the National Autism Research Centre of Israel and in 2015 it gave Bar-Ilan University $50 million. The Azrieli Foundation has financed projects that benefit the Israeli military, such as Beit Halochem Canada (Aid to Disabled Veterans of Israel), and the racist Jewish National Fund, which set up an Azrieli Park in Sderot. In 2011 the Azrielis made a controversial donation to Im Tirtzu, a hardline Israeli-nationalist organization that an Israeli court said had “fascist” features.

    Canadian charities send a quarter billion dollars a year to Israel. They’ve channeled over $5 billion to Israel since the federal government introduced deductions for charities in 1967. Taxpayers would likely have covered over $1.5 billion of that sum. As Israel becomes wealthier Canadian government subsidized donations continue unabated. Will the Canada Revenue Agency re-evaluate the charitable status of two hundred organizations focused on funnelling money to Israel if that country’s GDP per capita surpasses Canada’s?

    In April Human Rights Watch concluded that Israeli authorities were “committing the crimes against humanity of apartheid”. In January B’Tselem published “A regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea: This is apartheid”. 2021 is the 54th year of what Canada, and most every government, officially consider Israel’s illegal occupation of the West Bank.

    Registered charities represent Canada’s most significant contribution to Palestinian dispossession. While the Canada Revenue Agency subsidizes large sums of donations to Israel, the South African government is calling for its beauty pageant to boycott Israel. One country seems to have learned that all forms of colonialism should be opposed.

    Which is on the right side of history?

    The post South Africa puts Canada to shame regarding Palestine first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • In the 1950’s and 1960’s, it became a juxtaposition of highly educated workers for the most advanced productive forces on the planet, but developed within the unresolved, deeply violent, four hundred year-long colonial and racist architecture of the US. It was externally influenced by the period of the explosion of national liberation socialism that began with the Chinese revolution and was punctuated by the defeat of the US empire by the Korean and Chinese revolutions and at great costs to their peoples. The 1950s were capped off by the historic 1959 victory in Cuba, whose significance reverberates to this day in all of our lives.

    Many of the most significant and radical intellectual and revolutionary formations of the US were born between the years 1959 to 1967.

    The post Black Radical Internationalist Traditions appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • The global community must provide real support to African countries by sharing COVID-19 vaccine information.

    There is global concern and widespread alarm at the discovery of SARS-CoV-2 variant B.1.1.529, which the World Health Organization (WHO) has called Omicron.

    The WHO classified Omicron as a “variant of concern” because it has a wide range of mutations. This suggests vaccines and treatments could be less effective.

    Although early days, Omicron appears to be able to reinfect people more easily than other strains.

    Australia has followed other countries and regions — including the United States, Canada, United Kingdom and the European Union — and banned travellers from nine southern African countries.

    Australians seeking to return home from southern Africa will still be able to do so. But they will enter hotel quarantine and be tested. Those who have returned from the nine countries — South Africa, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Lesotho, Eswatini, the Seychelles, Malawi and Mozambique — in the past 14 days will have to isolate.

    But Omicron has already been detected in other regions, including the UK, Germany, Israel, Hong Kong and Belgium. So while a travel ban on southern African countries may slow the spread and buy limited time, it’s unlikely to stop it.

    As the Australian government and others act to protect their own citizens, this should be accompanied by additional resources to support countries in southern Africa and elsewhere that take prompt action.

    When Was Omicron Detected?

    The variant was identified on November 22 in South Africa, from a sample collected from a patient on November 9.

    South African virologists took prompt action, conferred with colleagues through the Network of Genomic Surveillance in South Africa, liaised with government, and notified the World Health Organization on November 24.

    This is in keeping with the International Health Regulations that guide how countries should respond.

    The behaviour of this new variant is still unclear. Some have claimed the rate of growth of Omicron infections, which reflects its transmissibility, may be even higher than those of the Delta variant. This “growth advantage” is yet to be proven but is concerning.

    “Kneejerk” Response vs. WHO Recommendations

    African scientists and politicians have been disappointed in what they see as a “kneejerk” response from countries imposing travel bans. They argue the bans will have significant negative effects for the South African economy, which traditionally welcomes global tourists over the summer year-end period.

    They note it is still unclear whether the new variant originated in South Africa, even if it was first identified there. As Omicron has already been detected in several other countries, it may already be circulating in regions not included in the travel bans.

    Travel bans on countries detecting new variants, and the subsequent economic costs, may also act as a disincentive for countries to reveal variants of concern in future.

    The WHO does not generally recommend flight bans or other forms of travel embargoes. Instead, it argues interventions of proven value should be prioritised: vaccination, hand hygiene, physical distancing, well-fitted masks, and good ventilation.

    In response to variants of concern, the WHO calls on all countries to enhance surveillance and sequencing, report initial cases or clusters, and undertake investigations to improve understanding of the variant’s behaviour.

    Omicron must be taken seriously. Its features are worrying, but there are large gaps in our current knowledge. While further analyses are undertaken, the variant should be controlled with testing, tracing, isolation, applying known public health measures, and ongoing surveillance.

    What Can Wealthier Countries Do to Help?

    Wealthy countries such as Australia should support African nations and others to share early alerts of potentially serious communicable disease threats, and help mitigate these threats.

    As the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response noted in May:

    […] public health actors only see downsides from drawing attention to an outbreak that has the potential to spread.

    The panel recommended creating incentives to reward early response action. This could include support to:

    • establish research and educational partnerships
    • strengthen health systems and communicable disease surveillance
    • greatly improve vaccine availability, distribution, and equity
    • consider financial compensation, through some form of solidarity fund against pandemic risk.

    Boosting Vaccine Coverage Is Key

    Vaccines remain the mainstay of protection against the most severe effects of COVID-19.

    It’s unclear how effective vaccines will be against Omicron, but some degree of protection is presumed likely. Pfizer has also indicated it could develop an effective vaccine against a new variant such as Omicron within 100 days or so.

    COVID’s persistence is partly attributable to patchy immunisation coverage across many parts of the world, notably those least developed. South Africa itself is better off than most countries on the continent, yet only 24% of the adult population are currently fully vaccinated. For the whole of Africa, this drops to only 7.2%.

    Greater global support is urgently needed to boost these vaccination rates.

    African institutions and leaders, supported by global health and vaccine experts, have argued for mRNA vaccine manufacturing facilities on the African continent. These would prioritise regional populations, overcome supply-chain problems, and respond in real time to emerging disease threats.

    Yet developing nations face significant barriers to obtaining intellectual property around COVID-19 vaccine development and production.

    While there is still much to learn about the behaviour and impact of Omicron, the global community must demonstrate and commit real support to countries that do the right thing by promptly and transparently sharing information.The Conversation

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Rarely is the pragmatist admired.  Be it in policy or politics, such a figure induces suspicion, a concern that principles will have to be subordinated to broader goals.  True dreamers and visionaries, for all their glaring faults, can take the accolades; the pragmatists can be given lower pegging.

    These differences have proven stark with the late FW de Klerk, South Africa’s last apartheid president.  “De Klerk,” suggested Mac Maharaj, formerly official spokesperson for President Jacob Zuma, “was a man of the moment and [Nelson] Mandela was a man of history.”  The late Colin Eglin went one better in his observation of the two men.  “A relatively conservative Afrikaner leader decided to negotiate before he had lost, and an imprisoned leader of a liberation movement decided to negotiate before he had won.”

    It was De Klerk who began to take the screws out of the edifice of apartheid and open the pathway to negotiations with other parties.  Serving in the governing white National Party, which had introduced apartheid in 1948, De Klerk held ministerial positions till becoming party head in February 1989.  Between 1984 and 1989, he served as education minister, overseeing the notorious Bantu education program.  On replacing PW Botha, De Klerk downgraded the State Security Council, primarily staffed by military and police, and restored civilian rule by cabinet.

    De Klerk’s famous announcement to parliament on February 2, 1990 was critical in setting things in train.  But he had little by way of choice.  By the late 1980s, Apartheid South Africa was already unravelling, its furious racial disturbances tearing away at a white supremacist structure increasingly teetering on the edge of oblivion.

    He also had encouragement from various sources.  Externally, the Cold War was coming to a close, with Western backers seeing less need to keep an anti-communist proxy in Africa.  The loss of Soviet influence, marked by the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989, also meant a diminishing of support for such communist organisations as the African National Congress.

    Then came three sets of talks and discussions between Mandela and Justice Minister Kobie Coetsee, between ANC figures and South Africa’s National Intelligence Service, and discussions between Afrikaner intellectuals and the ANC conducted in the UK.  South Africa’s last apartheid leader had been inspired, in no small part, by the propitiatory Harare Declaration, adopted by the ANC as a promise to pursue a democratic transition to transform South Africa “into a non-racial democracy”.  Such organisations as the ANC, Pan-Africanist Congress (PAC) and the South African Communist Party were unbanned.  A moratorium on the death penalty was implemented.  Within nine days, Mandela walked free.

    Difficulties quickly manifested.  The Convention for a Democratic South Africa, presided over by both De Klerk and Mandela, imploded before a background of police, militia and factional violence.  There was mistrust between racial groups and within them.  The Inkatha Freedom Party left early, claiming that Mangosuthu Buthelezi was not granted full scope to negotiate.  ANC revolutionaries still giddy with insurrectionary fervour were not entirely content with the moderating calls of Mandela, Oliver Tambo and Thabo Mbeki.  Mandela, for his part, had called De Klerk the “head of an illegitimate, discredited minority regime … incapable of upholding moral standards”.

    The political visions were divergent in vastness.  The ANC wished to pursue a single, centralised state based on one person, one vote; the National Party preferred a looser federal structure with devolved powers that would still preserve a measure of control over the potential excesses of black majoritarianism.  Certain Afrikaners demanded a separate volkstaat.  There was no agreement on what any interim government would comprise, nor what form the new constitution would take.

    In April 1993 at Kempton Park, Mandela’s ANC and De Klerk’s ruling white National Party commenced what was called the Multi-Party Negotiation Process (MPNP).  There were representatives from 24 other parties, all steaming with different agendas and suspicions.   The 1994 electoral victory for the ANC did much to affirm their standing, leading to the eventual December 1996 constitution.

    De Klerk was left to wrestle with his role, and that of apartheid, which he preferred to call “separate development”.  He remained a creature of his racial and political background, an ideologue of apartheid who found it impossible to intellectually abandon with any degree of confidence.  To have done so would have been to negate genealogy and a social experiment he had not regarded as a total failure.  His uncle, JG Strijdom, was the country’s second apartheid prime minister; his father, Jan de Klerk, was in the cabinet of three apartheid prime ministers.

    His memoirs were filled with exculpatory efforts pointing to himself and his fellow NP politicians as “products of our time and circumstances”.  In administering the race classification rules, De Klerk claimed to have done so “in the most humane manner possible.”

    De Klerk’s statement to the Truth and Reconciliation Committee was testy, taking issue with the commission’s alleged bias while deeming efforts to brand apartheid a crime against humanity as “little more than a mobilisation exercise by the ANC and its totalitarian and Third World supporters in the UN General Assembly.”  Victims of “crimes against humanity”, he dismissively asserted “do not generally achieve sustained population growth rates of more than 3% and their social and socio-economic statistics do not improve across the board.”

    In 2020, it took irate remarks from the Desmond and Leah Tutu Foundation to remind De Klerk that the law had caught up, with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court declaring the racial policy to be such a crime.  It had been, he stated, “unacceptable” to “quibble about the degrees of unacceptability of apartheid”.  With such attitudes, it is unsurprising that figures such as the human rights lawyer Howard Varney had little time for this “apologist for apartheid”.

    A posthumous video from De Klerk did little to elevate him.  It is contrition in search of purpose and acceptance.  “I, without qualification, apologise for the pain and the hurt and the indignity and the damage that apartheid has done to black, brown and Indians in South Africa,” he is found stating.  As he exited the world of the living, he was worried about what was happening to his country.  “I’m deeply concerned about the undermining of many aspects of the constitution, which we perceive almost day to day.”

    In one fundamental way, his own navigation of apartheid’s train into oblivion was a regretful concession to defeat – that a racial minority could no longer hold on, however vicious, however determined it might be.  By 1996, De Klerk was forced off the train, acknowledging, in part, that he was part of the very legacy he was trying to exorcise.  On receiving the Nobel Peace Prize with Mandela, it was clear where he stood.  He had aided in creating the conditions; it was Mandela who would have to make the world anew.

    The post FW de Klerk: A Negotiator Before Defeat first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Original article: https://businesstech.co.za/news/finance/536516/unions-push-for-r1500-basic-income-grant-in-south-africa/

    South African Federation of Trade Unions (Saftu) general secretary Zwelinzima Vavi has called for the introduction of a R1,500 monthly grant aimed at South Africans over the age of 18 without work.

    Vavi was speaking at an event ahead of the Medium Term Budget Policy Statement (MTBPS) on Thursday (11 November). Saftu is the second largest trade federation in South Africa, representing more than 21 affiliated unions and over 800,000 workers across the country.

    “People are starving and without food. To end this, the state should look to progressively introduce an unconditional universal basic income grant. We need a basic income grant now for those between the age of 18-59 for those who are without a stable income.”

    “A basic income grant will boost the economy, creating demand for products and services, and thus creating many jobs. Government must focus on attracting the people back into the economy instead of just foreign investors,” he said. “We demand a basic income grant of R1,500 and further reject the privatisation and commoditization that is creeping into every aspect of our lives.”

    Finance minister Enoch Godongwana is expected to provide clarity around the R350 social relief of distress (SRD) grant and the introduction of a basic income grant in his maiden budget speech on Thursday.

    The SRD grant was initially introduced to assist South Africans impacted by the Covid-19 lockdown, but the government has faced increased calls to make the grant a permanent fixture.

    An estimated nine million South Africans currently collect the grant, which the president recently extended until March 2022.

    Data published by the World Bank in September shows that a third of South Africans are beneficiaries of a social grant directly, which rises to close to two-thirds when those who benefit indirectly are included.

    The World Bank recommends the basic income grant take the form of a “jobseekers’ grant, targeted at the unemployed. It said that a job-seekers grant, set at R350 a month, could cost R16.2 billion a year.

    “The dilemma of the future of South Africa’s social assistance system rests in the opposing pull of these two forces: The limited political appetite for cost-saving reforms and the need to consolidate expenditures,” the World Bank said. “Feasible options for broader reform hence need to balance political will and the need to contain costs.”

    The post South African Federation of Trade Unions general secretary says government must focus on making basic income grants permanent for 18 to 59-year-olds appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Only around a quarter of people eligible to vote chose to cast their votes for the ANC in the recent election. The mass stay away from the polls is a mass rejection of the ANC, along with the DA and the EFF which could not attract the support of significant numbers of former ANC voters. When you do not respect the dignity of the people and you undermine their power you always pay the price.

    We have always said that the day is coming where South Africans will no longer have the loyalty to the ANC and will vote them out of power. This election shows that that day is coming.

    We must never forget that this country was liberated from apartheid by ordinary people, by the long history of popular organisation at a mass scale running from the ICU to the UDF. We must not forget the Durban strikes of 1973, the Soweto Uprising of 1976 and the uprising in cities and towns across the country that began in 1984. We must always remember the price that ordinary people paid for our liberation from apartheid.

    However, we do also remember the great men and women who led the ANC, people like OR Tambo, Chris Hani, Dorothy Nyembe and many others who gave their lives to the fight against the evils of apartheid. We must also acknowledge that when the mass struggles on the factory floors and in communities brought apartheid to the brink of collapse the majority of the people accepted the ANC as their leaders.

    But now, twenty-seven years after the end of apartheid, we are ruled by political gangsters in some parts of the country. When we organise and march against corruption we are organising against the day to day theft of our own futures. When houses are actually built they are sold by corrupt councillors. We have seen this in Cato Crest, KwaNdengezi, Lindelani, Cornubia, Mount Moriah and in many places around the eThekwini Municipality.

    When there is development it is imposed on the people. Grassroots planning is taken as criminal, as a political threat to be crushed. We have seen this in In Tembisa outside Johannesburg where the ANC undermined people’s democracy by imposing reblocking. This is a process that needs to take place through democratic engagement with the communities. However the ward councillors ignored the views of the people.

    Evictions take place with impunity and at gunpoint through private security companies or the Anti Land Invasion Unit. They are carried out in brazen violation of the law, and sometimes court orders too. The politicians continue to assume that they are above the law and that we are beneath the law.

    As a result of austerity and corruption we are left in the mud without water, electricity and sanitation and violently attacked when we organise land reform, urban planning , service provision and food sovereignty from below. We cannot continue to live without land and work, to have our dignity vandalised and to live in the mud like pigs year after year while a few political elites live in luxury at the expense of the poor. Many families continue to go to sleep without any bread on the table. The same system that makes the rich to be rich makes the poor to be poor.

    We are beaten, arrested, tortured, jailed and murdered when we stand up for our dignity. ‘Land or death’ has become a common saying because people know that to struggle for land is to risk death. ‘Phansi nge ANC!’ has become a common slogan in rallies and big meetings.

    The ANC has become the enemy of the people. It is just as Frantz Fanon warned us.

    We have always said that the anger of the people may go in many directions. Some of those who took their votes away from the ANC took them to right-wing and xenophobic parties. This is a dangerous development. Nobody is poor because their neighbour was born in another country. We were made poor by colonialism and kept poor by the ANC.

    Prior to these elections we have called on our members, of which there are more than 100 000 in good standing,  as well as those who support our struggle, to refuse to vote for their grave, to refuse to vote for the ANC. Our members, many of our supporters headed this call and huge numbers of other people also refused to vote for the ANC. For the first time the ANC could not win a majority in Durban and the municipality is now a hung municipality. The ANC will have to depend on other parties in order to run the municipality again.

    The outcome in these elections are not about the factions in the ANC, they are a result of years of the abandonment and repression of the poor. They are about years of gangsters continuingly looting the state while we continue to live in shacks of indignity. But there are consequences for undermining the poor.

    Now the poor have shown their power.

    The ANC, DA and EFF will all leave the poor to continue to be poor. There is no hope from these parties. The only hope that we have is ourselves. We will continue to mobilise and organise the power of the impoverished from below to build our power from below to ensure that all of us in the shack settlements, the townships and rural areas find solutions to move forward, abolish poverty and build a real democracy.

    The post The Majority Have Rejected the ANC first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Abahlali baseMjondolo.

  • Health workers conduct swabs during intensified testing and screening on Freedom Day on April 27, 2020, in Alexandra, Gauteng, in South Africa.

    The World Health Organization’s (WHO) recently released Global Tuberculosis Report for 2021 paints a dismal picture of the impact that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on the fight against TB across the globe.

    Progress against TB has long been inadequate to reach the target of elimination by 2030. But before the pandemic the world was making steady progress in diagnosing and treating TB, and deaths from TB had steadily decreased every year since 2005.

    The report is based on annual responses to the WHO from 197 countries. It represents around 99% of the world’s population and TB cases and provides annual feedback to the national and international public health community.

    This year it contains very worrying news about the COVID-19 pandemic’s wide-ranging and longer term effects on TB services.

    For the first time since 2005, the number of deaths due to TB increased from one year to the next. In 2020 there were 1.3 million deaths among HIV-negative people and 214,000 among HIV-positive people. In 2019 the death numbers were 1.2 million among HIV-negative and 209,000 among HIV-positive people.

    Mathematical modelling projections for the 16 worst affected countries, including South Africa, suggest the knock-on effect will be worse in 2021 and beyond. These countries are likely to suffer even greater increases in the number of new cases and deaths from TB.

    The most urgent priority, according to the report, is to restore access to and provision of TB services to enable levels of TB case detection and treatment to recover to pre-pandemic levels. In the longer term, countries must invest in research and innovation to address the priority needs. These are: TB vaccines to reduce the risk of infection and the risk of disease in those already infected; rapid diagnostics for use at the point of care; and simpler, shorter treatments for TB disease.

    Why Gains in TB Control Have Been Reversed

    COVID-19 has had a large negative effect on all health services. The effect on TB services has been profound. This is especially the case with regard to TB diagnosis — the essential first step to treating TB and preventing death.

    The number of people newly diagnosed with TB had increased annually between 2017 and 2019. But there was a startling drop of nearly 20% between 2019 and 2020 from 7.1 million to 5.8 million. In contrast, the number of TB deaths increased by about 10%, taking us back to 2017 levels.

    In the 2021 report, 16 countries accounted for 93% of the total global drop in new TB diagnoses of 1.3 million. The worst affected were India, Indonesia and the Philippines. These three countries are among a group of 10, including South Africa, considered high-burden countries for drug sensitive, drug resistant and HIV-associated TB.

    The new data shows that the gap between reality and targets in high burden countries has widened dramatically.

    The COVID-19 epidemic has had many consequences for TB services.

    The report notes these three:

    • patients have delayed seeking care due to restrictions on movement,
    • reduced likelihood of diagnosis because of resource constraints,
    • reduced treatment initiation because of medicine supply interruptions and stockouts.

    Model estimates of future impact may also be underestimates, as they do not account for the negative effects of COVID-19 on the social determinants of TB. For example, low income and malnutrition increase the chances of developing TB disease in people who are already infected with Mycobacterium tuberculosis, the infectious agent that causes TB disease.

    Trend Will Continue Unless the World Acts Now

    The increased number of undiagnosed and untreated TB cases will lead to more TB transmission and a further increase in TB disease and death in the years to come unless action is taken now.

    TB preventive treatment is given to people who are at high risk of developing TB disease after being infected with Mycobacterium tuberculosis. The WHO recommends that TB preventive therapy be given to people living with HIV, household contacts of individuals diagnosed with TB of the lungs, and certain people with co-morbidities such as those receiving dialysis or diabetics.

    Unfortunately, services for TB preventive treatment have also suffered setbacks in the past 18 months. Globally the number of people who received TB preventive treatment had increased by over 250% from 2015 to 2019. But this trend reversed in 2020 with a 21% reduction from 3.6 million to 2.8 million. Substantial action and resources must be directed towards the provision of TB prevention treatment to people who meet the criteria.

    The standard of care for drug sensitive TB disease is a six-month course of treatment. On a positive note, the report shows that more countries (36, up from 21) are using newly recommended, shorter treatment regimens for drug susceptible TB.

    TB is a leading cause of death in people with HIV. The absolute number of people diagnosed with TB who knew their HIV status fell by 15% in 2020. But the global coverage of HIV testing among people diagnosed with TB remained high in 2020. Treating TB and providing ARVs to HIV-positive people diagnosed with TB is estimated to have averted 66 million deaths between 2000 and 2020.

    Catching Up

    The first South African National Prevalence survey and other emerging research has shown that only about half of people with active TB disease report having one of the classic symptoms of TB disease: cough, fever, weight loss and night sweats.

    This implies that people in the early stages of active TB disease, without any recognisable symptoms, may be contributing to TB transmission without knowing it. It is vitally important that attempts to recover from COVID-19 setbacks, such as catch-up campaigns for case-finding and treatment, involve methods to find people with TB who do not have symptoms as well as those who do.

    It is sobering to reflect that, during the 18 months of the COVID-19 pandemic, about 90,500 South Africans have died of TB – more than the 88,754 reported to have died of COVID-19 during the same period. The COVID pandemic has proved that health systems are capable of making drastic changes when the need arises. It is time to apply the same determination to fighting TB.The Conversation

    Indira Govender receives funding from Economic and Social Research Council (UK) and the National Institutes of Health (USA).

    Alison Grant receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council (UK), National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (USA), Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust. She is affiliated with the South African TB and HIV Think Tanks.

    Al Leslie receives funding from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (USA), the Wellcome Trust and the South African Medical Research Council.

    Emily B. Wong receives funding from the National Institutes of Health (USA), the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust. Members of her lab are funded by the African Academy of Science and the South African Medical Research Council.

    Yumna Moosa receives funding from the South African Medical Research Council and the Sub-Saharan African Network for TB/HIV Research Excellence (SANTHE).

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • 4 Mins Read More than 66% of South Africans are “highly interested” in alternative protein such as plant-based and cell-based meat, a survey shows.

    The post 66% of South Africans ‘Highly Interested’ In Vegan Protein and Cultivated Meat: Study appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • Demonstrators rally at the U.S. Embassy in South Africa on October 12, 2021.

    Public health campaigners rallied outside the U.S. Embassy in South Africa on Tuesday to criticize the Biden administration’s passivity in ongoing negotiations over a patent waiver for coronavirus vaccines, a proposal that remains deadlocked at the World Trade Organization more than five months after the White House endorsed it.

    “The U.S. made a big, bold decision to support this groundbreaking TRIPS waiver, but is now largely absent from the global effort to make it a reality,” said Avril Benoît, executive director of Doctors Without Borders USA, which took part in Tuesday’s demonstration. “This is a historic opportunity, and the U.S. must play a leadership role.”

    “While the U.S. now has plenty of tools to tackle Covid-19, people in many low- and middle-income countries are still suffering and dying without vaccines, tests, or treatments,” Benoît added. “We don’t have time to waste. The U.S. must deliver on its promise and ensure that the TRIPS waiver is adopted.”

    Demonstrators also rallied outside the embassies of Belgium and the Netherlands in Tshwane, South Africa to demand that the two wealthy European nations stop obstructing the patent waiver.

    “Even though France, Greece, Italy, and Spain have already come out to support the waiver, another handful of governments in the E.U. with strong pharmaceutical corporation ties is choosing to put shareholder interests over the lives of people across the globe,” Candice Sehoma, South Africa advocacy officer for Doctors Without Borders’ Access Campaign, said in a statement Tuesday. “We are calling on supportive E.U. countries to show real leadership and convince their neighbors to do the right thing.”

    First proposed by India and South Africa last October, the patent waiver has since been stuck in largely fruitless negotiations at the WTO despite the measure’s broad support from member nations, the head of the World Health Organization, civil society groups, intellectual property (IP) experts, and others. The waiver, which aims to temporarily suspend IP rules that are preventing manufacturers across the globe from producing generic vaccines, has drawn opposition from rich European countries and the pharmaceutical industry.

    The WTO operates by consensus, meaning a single objecting nation can tank a proposal that supporters say is crucial to ramp up vaccine production and end the pandemic.

    In the year that has passed since India and South Africa unveiled their waiver proposal, more than 3.5 million people worldwide have died of Covid-19 and poor nations — forced to rely on trickles of charity from rich countries — have been denied adequate access to vaccines. Just 2.5% of people in low-income countries have received at least one coronavirus vaccine dose, according to Our World in Data.

    “It is crystal clear that unless legal tools like the TRIPS waiver are adopted, many countries will continue to be at the mercy of patent-holding corporations that have the say over who gets to produce, who gets to buy, and at what price, while health ministries are already reeling from the rising costs of tackling Covid-19,” said Felipe Carvalho, Doctors Without Borders’ Access Campaign coordinator in Brazil. “We say to the remaining blocking governments: the eyes of the world are really just on you now — so you should think about what side of history you want to be on when the books on this pandemic are written.”

    While the Biden administration expressed support for the patent waiver in May, activists have accused the White House of taking a backseat during recent negotiations over the waiver — allowing U.S. allies to stonewall the proposal. In These Times reported last month that documents from a recent WTO TRIPS council meeting, which was closed to the press, show that the Biden administration is “dragging its feet” at the talks.

    Following the latest TRIPS Council gathering earlier this month, the India-based business publication MoneyControl reported that “there remains almost no hope of the global vaccine waiver getting clearance till December, if at all.”

    One unnamed senior trade negotiator told the outlet that the European nations opposed to the waiver “have been emboldened by a noncommittal United States, despite the support of almost all WTO member nations.”

    The WTO TRIPS Council is set to convene again on Wednesday ahead of a key ministerial meeting at the end of November, a gathering that advocates view as a pivotal opportunity for world leaders to approve the patent waiver.

    In the absence of a temporary international waiver, public health advocates are calling on the Biden administration to use the U.S. government’s ownership of a crucial patent to force Moderna and other pharmaceutical giants to share their vaccine recipes with the rest of the world. Thus far, profit-seeking drug companies have refused to voluntarily participate in technology-transfer initiatives and other steps aimed at empowering manufacturers in poor nations to produce their own vaccines.

    On Monday, as Common Dreams reported, Moderna co-founder and chairman Noubar Afeyan reiterated that the U.S.-based corporation has no intention of making its vaccine recipe available to qualified manufacturers around the world, even after the company received billions of dollars in public funding to develop its vaccine. Moderna’s vaccine profits helped make Afeyan a billionaire and landed him on the new Forbes 400 list of the richest people in the U.S.

    “It’s not news that a pharmaceutical company puts profits first. That is what companies do,” tweeted Nature reporter Amy Maxmen. “The onus is on the U.S. government to put lives over profits, particularly when they give companies massive handouts.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • 4 Mins Read South African startup Mogale Meat is building out its BioBank of antelope and cattle cells to grow healthy, sustainable meat for the region.

    The post Mogale Meat Is Building An Antelope Cell BioBank To Bring Cultivated Meat To South Africa appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • On October 5, the South African National Union of Metalworkers (NUMSA) called for an indefinite strike (a strike without a set end date) to demand an 8-percent increase in wages — and 160,000 workers in the steel and engineering sector answered the call. The union, South Africa’s largest, represents 400,000 workers in total.

    The post 160,000 Metalworkers in South Africa are On Strike appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • The first day of the indefinite strike in South Africa’s engineering sector on Tuesday, October 5, saw workers in red T-shirts hit the streets in thousands demanding a wage hike. Marches and rallies were witnessed in Kaserne, Northern Cape, Eastern Cape and Western Cape. 

    In Johannesburg, thousands marched to the office of the Metals Engineering and Industries Bargaining Council (MEIBC), where the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) delivered a memorandum to all the employer associations in the sector. Representing 155,000 of the estimated total 300,000 workers in the sector, NUMSA is leading the strike, which is also supported by other unions.

    The post Indefinite Strike Hits South Africa’s Engineering Sector appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • by Lee Herridge – Consumer Researcher at KLA

    The Basic Income Gant (BIG) is on everybody’s lips at the moment. The South African government has been debating the pros and cons of the grant for as long as we have been a democracy. In August this year, the government implemented a Covid relief grant of R350, which some see as a precursor to the BIG.

    There is still a long way to go before the BIG is implemented, with many aspects still to be ironed out. One of the many questions being asked is how much recipients will receive? The answer depends largely on the objectives of the grant. 

    A recent green paper (Green Paper on Comprehensive Social Security and Retirement Reform (2021)),  compiled by the Department of Social Development (DSD) outlined the monthly amounts required to achieve the following:

    • Reduce hunger – R585
    • Elevate people above the poverty line – R850
    • Improve the standard of living – R1268

    The BIG will impact all South Africans, both employed and unemployed. You’ll either be on the side that receives the grant, or the side that is funding it through increased taxes (assuming that’s the solution to the funding quandary).

    If the introduction of the BIG means that recipients will start thinking more long-term, what does this mean for brands and business?

    This amount is more than just financial assistance to unemployed South Africans, it could also be their doorway to a world of products, brands, services and aspirations they had never considered before. A person who earns R20 to R50 a day, doing odd jobs, is only thinking of their day-to-day struggles. Do I have enough money to feed myself and my family? Can I afford some kerosene to keep the house warm? Do I have enough for the taxi ride home? They are thinking short-term, in the ‘now’. Tomorrow takes a backseat because today is not guaranteed. 

    But if they had enough to ensure today is taken care of, and some leftover to plan for tomorrow, what might be different? 

    We wanted to find out, so we surveyed potential BIG recipients to ask them what they would do with a monthly grant of R1268. Our poll included unemployed consumers aged 18 to 64. We gave them an extensive list of options, from buying a new cell phone, contributing to a stokvel, renovating their home, opening a savings account, to eating out at restaurants. 

    While basic needs like groceries or toiletries were considered important, with 71% and 52% saying they would spend more on these items respectively, there was a clear indication that consumers want to be responsible with their money, demonstrating a future-focused mindset. They are thinking of ways to save and grow their money to create financial stability through various means.

    Saving or investing for the future

    More than half the sample (51%) would open a savings account to save their money, 20% would join and contribute money to a stokvel, while another 34% would opt to invest money in investment vehicles such as unit trusts, endowments or even shares and bonds.

    The desire to save and invest was strongest amongst younger consumers, with 18 to 34-year-olds showing the most interest.

    Will invest in UT, endowments, shares or stocks etc.

    Clear out the financial closet

    A quarter (25%) of the sample would look to pay off debt and unshackle themselves from past financial obligations. This was particularly important to 25–34-year-olds, with this age group making up 53% of those who would use the money for this purpose.

    Insure for the Future

    Interestingly, 44% chose some form of insurance for themselves, either funeral cover, life cover or medical aid. Of these insurance options, most (20%) opted for funeral cover, with 13% choosing life cover and 11% selecting medical aid.

    A path to progression

    There is a real need for progression and to improve quality of life. This is clear when we see that a significant number (42%) would like to start a business, something that is especially important for 25-34 year-olds. 31% would use the money to study further, an option that was particularly enticing for younger consumers, 18-34 year-olds.

    Entrepreneurship and education for many is a path to financial advancement and independence. Both are highly aspirational goals, and a small business can be an asset to pass down to the next generation. 

    Education empowers individuals to secure permanent employment, a potential promotion or even a better job, which all translate to a financial step up.

    Will study further/ sign up for a course

    Will start their own business

    Opportunities for the financial sector: Improve access through simplicity, ease-of-use and convenience

    Consumers are looking for greater financial stability and a way to stretch their money as much as possible. 

    It is clear there is interest in financial products that either ‘protect me and my family’ or ‘grow my money’. The financial services sector needs to meet this interest with accessible, user-friendly information and affordable options.

    Investing and saving products need to be demystified for this consumer and explained in a language that is consumer-friendly, on a platform that is accessible and convenient. There is a need for investment or savings products that are affordable but also offer tangible benefits. So, while long-term goals are achieved, day-to-day needs are also met through relevant value-adds and rewards.

    Advise and educate to empower

    The need for support and advice on starting a business or courses to study is important, and this could come from any brand in any sector, provided it’s accessible. For a brand to position itself as a partner on the journey to success is highly compelling and can build real brand loyalty as long as this is done with authenticity.

    While the BIG has potential to change recipients’ lives, brands have the potential to play a critical role in getting this money to go even further by partnering with consumers in a supportive and accessible way. In turn, brands would access a new cohort of consumers who previously might have not been able to consider their products. For more information, visit www.kla.co.za

    Original article: https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2021-09-29-the-basic-income-grant-research-reveals-where-opportunities-for-brands-lie/amp/

    The post The Basic Income Grant – research reveals where opportunities for brands lie appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Burger King South Africa Vegan Meat

    3 Mins Read Meatless fast-food menu options have arrived at Burger King South Africa in a bid to help South Africans prioritize health and the planet.

    The post Burger King Brings Vegan Options to South Africa: ‘Same Great Taste, Just No Meat’ appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • Opponents of the Xolobeni titanium mining project on South Africa’s Wild Coast have frequently been victims of intimidation and assault, reports Hali Healy. But most incidents go unreported out of fear of retribution.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • Appropriately funded and managed, with no wiggle room for state incompetency or corruption, a Basic Income Grant could finally lay the foundation for sustainable healing and justice in post-apartheid South Africa. To those who say such a grant is unaffordable, the obvious answer is that South Africa can no longer afford not to.

    A few days ago, Statistics SA announced that South Africa’s unemployment rate had reached a record high of 34.4%, or a staggering 44% if we use the expanded definition of unemployment, which includes those who have given up looking for work.  

    More than 46% of young people under the age of 34 – and a staggering 63% of under-24s – are unemployed.

    The simple fact is that our economy is unable to generate enough jobs to reduce and eliminate unemployment, which leaves millions of South Africans without any access to an income. It is physically impossible for any adult of employable age to live day to day, month to month and year to year without income.

    Prioritising the implementation of a Basic Income Grant – or Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) – is a social, moral and historical imperative crucial to the sustainability of South Africa’s constitutional democracy. 

    Appropriately funded and managed, with no wiggle-room for state incompetency or corruption, the BIG could finally lay the foundation for sustainable healing and justice in post-apartheid South Africa. 

    To those who say such a grant is unaffordable, the obvious answer is that South Africa can no longer afford not to.  

    Inequality was the overarching policy of apartheid and its colonial predecessors. The fact that inequality has deepened in post-apartheid South Africa is a shameful slur on the state, the governing parties, the business sector and all South Africans of social conscience and integrity.

    Among the funding mechanisms that the state is duty-bound to consider are redistributive measures recommended by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) 22 years ago. 

    Among the commission’s key recommendations were that those to whom it did not give amnesty for apartheid-era human rights violations should be prosecuted (all being equal before the law), and that the state should implement a reparations policy.  

    Recognising that funding reparations were expensive – but nonetheless imperative in contributing to narrowing the “intolerable” inequality gap – the commission proposed a number of redistributive measures.  

    None of the recommendations was implemented.  

    Commission chairperson Archbishop Desmond Tutu said later that the mood in the country created by its first democratically elected president, Nelson Mandela, was such that many businesses and individuals would have been happy to contribute to the reconstruction of the country. In a sense, it could also be a cathartic mechanism to pay something back in acknowledgement of the privilege they accrued under apartheid.  

    The archbishop referred to the unimplemented recommendations as the TRC’s unfinished business.

    Despite government’s efforts to provide houses, security and comfort to citizens – the millions of fully subsidised homes that have been built and connections made to the water, sewerage and electricity grids – 22 years after the TRC published its recommendations, levels of poverty, joblessness and inequality have increased. Unsustainably so. 

    On top of deeply entrenched structural barriers to economic inclusion, the impact of the global Covid-19 pandemic has been devastating. According to the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, social scientists from five South African universities recently estimated Covid-related job losses at three million, of which two million jobs were lost by women.

    Nearly half the South African population is living in poverty, a burden that is disproportionately carried by women, with 74% of women-headed households living below the poverty level. 

    Dismantling the deeply entrenched structures that created economic, social, spatial and environmental injustice will require all of our efforts.  South Africa has a well-established social assistance programme – of cash transfers – but the programme makes no provision for able-bodied adults between 18 and 59 years, the assumed age of economic activity. 

    Their exclusion condemns many to live in intolerable conditions. 

    Section 27 of the South African Constitution guarantees every person the right to sufficient food and water and to “social security, including, if they are unable to support themselves and their dependants, appropriate social assistance”. 

    It is in this context that the debate about the BIG must be understood.  When an economy is unable to provide enough jobs for people to earn an income and take care of themselves financially, then the state has a duty to provide relief.

    It is not a gift or a handout; it is a right. 

    In response to the economic turmoil occasioned by the Covid-19 pandemic, the state introduced a temporary Covid-19 Social Relief of Distress Grant of R350 per month. Payment of this grant has been extended to March 2022. It’s far from perfect, and hardly sufficient to keep the wolf from the door, but it is helping nearly seven million beneficiaries. 

    The first step on the road to a BIG is to continue to provide the social relief grant of R350 per person per month and expand access to whoever applies for it.  

    But we must recognise this grant for what it is: A commendable state response in an economic emergency wrought by a health pandemic – a Band-Aid to stem the flow of blood from a gaping wound. 

    The next step must be finding the means to address legitimate concerns about universality, quantum and affordability. 

    The benefit of the grant being universal – that is, available to every adult regardless of their personal financial circumstances – is that it reduces the barriers to access for those who need it most by reducing systemic errors. But extending the grant to all, including those who don’t need it, will add to the financial burden on the state. 

    The International Growth Center proposes that “transfers should be made universal or accessible on an opt-in basis (i.e. beneficiaries self-evaluate their eligibility), where feasible to try to reach as many in need as possible”.

    It makes obvious sense to reduce unnecessary spend while securing ease of access. As a start, an opt-in system for all who are not registered for income tax, for example, could be a sensible balancing condition that would be relatively easy to manage. 

    The question of quantum is equally challenging.   

    The most recent data published by Stats SA shows the Food Poverty Line at R585 per person per month. This is the amount of money a South African needs to afford the minimum daily food required. The same report places the Lower Bound Poverty Line at R840 per person per month and the Upper Bound Poverty Level at R1,268 per person per month. These levels are a combination of the minimum daily food requirements plus non-food essentials. 

    In the ideal circumstances, we should be able to provide social security that meets, at the very least, the upper-bound poverty level of R1,268 per month. This could eliminate poverty in as little as three years. But it would cost the fiscus about R415-billion per year.   

    If we lower our initial expectations and set the quantum at the Food Poverty Line of R585 per month, the amount of money required drops to R197-billion. This number could be further reduced to R157-billion by restricting payments to unemployed people only. Reaching 60%-80% of this group, which is likely in the initial period, would further reduce annual costs to around R95-billion.

    How does the country afford it? 

    If the new minister of finance follows through on the plan to introduce zero-based budgeting – a budgeting process aimed at reducing wastefulness and identifying absolute spending priorities – then this would free up significant cash. Correctly implemented, it would place the BIG into the budget as a non-negotiable expense and build the rest of the budget around it.

    Secure access to sufficient food and water is the most basic of needs of every human being. It should be budgeted for before anything else. 

    According to the Institute for Economic Justice, eliminating government waste would save about R20-billion. This is a very conservative figure when you consider that State Capture is said to have cost the South African people about R500-billion. 

    If properly prioritising the budget falls short of the BIG funding need, tax mechanisms must be considered. It is here that the TRC’s recommendations come into focus. The Institute for Economic Justice estimates that a wealth tax of 1% on the top 1% of earners in South Africa would bring an additional R63-billion in revenue. 

    South Africa has the resources to fund this. It is a question of priorities.   

    Finally, it should go without saying that economic growth that creates jobs is the pathway we are all looking for. Championing and supporting a BIG does not equate to giving up on an economy that grows inclusively and gives every adult, of employment age, the opportunity to earn a decent wage and experience a life which is fulfilled by meaningful employment. 

    The money spent on the BIG will not be lost to the economy. It will be spent by the recipients in the economy and contribute back to our revenue through VAT and taxes.

    The post South Africa’s shocking jobless figures make a Basic Income Grant a social, moral and historical imperative appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • A pulse oximeter is seen on the big toe of an infant

    As we enter a new school year with students actually in the building, as autumn looms a few scant weeks away, and as the Delta variant of COVID-19 leaves us guessing as to what comes next in this long, lethal slog, “uncertainty” is the watchword of the day. A number of positive indicators are running into the teeth of a seemingly ceaseless tide of bad news, and as ever, the acolytes of Trump continue to kill their supporters through disinformation.

    When discussing the climate crisis, we speak often of the dangers of “feedback loops” — factors feeding into factors that accelerate the process. The spread of COVID has been no different: A segment of the population either refuses to take the threat seriously or has limited access to the vaccine, the virus ravages that segment, and out of that sickened segment emerge variants like Delta. As a segment of the population continues to dismiss the threat or fails to have vaccine access, the variant hits harder than before, and the increased number of infected people become incubators for an even more dangerous variant. This fits the definition of a feedback loop.

    Underscoring this is the emergence from South Africa of a new COVID variant, this one designated as C.1.2. As yet officially unnamed, this new variant has been found in China, New Zealand, Switzerland, Portugal, Mauritius, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DAR) and England. As we have learned, COVID gives not a damn about borders, and the fact of its existence overseas means it could very easily be here in the U.S. already. Delta came from India, remember.

    The South African scientists studying C.1.2 noted that it has “concerning constellations of mutations.” They went on to warn, “While these mutations are not characteristic of current VOCs/VOIs, they have been associated with escape from certain class 3 neutralizing antibodies. The combination of these mutations presents a potentially novel antigenic landscape for C.1.2 variant specific antibodies.”

    The science-to-English translation of this is stark: C.1.2 may be capable of evading to one degree or another the protections provided by our vaccines. Delta has caused more “breakthrough” infections of vaccinated people because its viral load is approximately 1,200 times that of the original virus, and because the vaccines do not provide 100 percent protection from infection.

    How exactly are variants created? “According to the scientists,” reports Joseph Choi of The Hill, “these mutations likely occurred in a single individual who had a prolonged case of COVID-19, resulting in an accelerated evolution.”

    This is vital: The vaccines may not be bulletproof, but they are almost completely effective at preventing people from becoming severely ill from COVID. If a person avoids becoming severely ill from COVID for a protracted amount of time, they deprive the virus of what is necessary for them to evolve into a new variant.

    Of all the reasons to get vaccinated, even if a booster is required later, this is one of the best I’ve heard. Though we remain in a terrifying fog regarding what is to come, and even as tens of thousands of new infections are happening daily due to vaccine resistance, there can be no denying that we have made huge strides since last winter. This is almost entirely due to an increasingly vaccinated public.

    All of this can be undone by a variant with the ability to evade vaccination. And the way to stop this is by way of vaccination; people who worry about being a petri dish for Big Pharma should worry more about becoming an unvaccinated petri dish for COVID. The longer you are sick, the more likely a new variant emergence becomes. I don’t imagine even the most stalwart pro-Trump MAGA shouter aspires to wake up as Typhoid Mary one day. Skip the shots, and that’s what you’re gambling with.

    It appears the issue is trending in a positive direction. The latest surveys reveal a steep decline in the number of people refusing to get the vaccine. A number of factors appear to be causing this: The FDA approval of the Pfizer vaccine, workplace vaccination mandates and the beginning of the school year. (Children under 12 now make up the largest group of unvaccinated people in the country, and unfortunately, the solution to that remains months away.)

    My favorite part of this survey, according to Axios: “The share of Americans who say they feel hopeful right now has plummeted to 34 percent, from 48 percent in March — but those saying they feel motivated, energized, inspired or resilient has risen by at least as much. That suggests that, rather than giving up, these Americans are reassessing their expectations about how quick a fix the first generation of vaccines alone can be — and resolving to do what it takes over the long haul.”

    In other words: Stout hearts. May it be so. Get the shots if you can, please, and break the feedback loop.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Since 2004, Amazon has been building a foothold on the African continent.  In Cape Town, it already employs thousands in a global call centre and a range of data hubs.  Its South African career portal is a busy place, with the vast majority of advertised jobs located in Cape Town.  In April, as part of its aggrandising drive into the continent, the company announced that it would be opening its African headquarters as part of a new, multipurpose development.

    The Cape Town development, worth R4 billion (US$284 million), is part of a broader enterprise spanning 15 hectares along a riverside area that promises a range of uses: a hotel, offices, shops, a gym, a number of restaurants, a conference space and affordable housing.  Amazon is intended as the main tenant, with its headquarters covering 70,000 square metres (17.3 acres).

    The project is not going ahead unopposed.   The site had previously been given a two-year interim heritage designation, which expired in April 2020.  It is distinguished by riverside, verdant space and the confluence of the Black and Liesbeek Rivers, considered of cultural significance to some descendants of the Khoi and San.  To them historical parallels of this enterprise appear with ominous significance.  The Khoi did valiant battle with cattle-raiding Portuguese in a famous encounter half a millennium ago, leaving Francis de Almeida, the first viceroy of the Portuguese Indies, dead.

    In 1659, the Dutch followed, though on this occasion, the tribes were unable to prevail.  The colonial administrator Jan Van Riebeeck had little time for a culture with no written title deeds for land or written records.  An all too familiar pattern of conduct by a European power followed: appropriation, dispossession, a spate of armed uprisings.  “You can trace the origins of our identity here, it is the footprint of our resistance against colonialism,” suggests Tauriq Jenkins of the Goringhaicona Khoi Khoin Indigenous Traditional Council (GKKITC).  The development showed “a lack of sensitivity to our heritage”.

    The Observatory Civic Association, a body representing residents from a nearby community, claims that upwards of 50,000 objections to the development have been lodged with city and provincial authorities.

    This month, the GKKITC and the Observatory Civic Association filed an interdict in the Western Cape High Court seeking to halt the development upon the River Club site. The broader object of the campaign is to ultimately have the riverside area listed as a World Heritage Site.

    A petition opposing the development has also attracted, to date, almost 57,000 names.  Comprising “unique heritage and environmentally sensitive riverine area”, the development would negate “the history of resistance by indigenous Khoi peoples in the area and the deep cultural and spiritual links that they hold with the valley.”  The petitioners also claim that flooding risks will be aggravated and destroy the means by which the aquifer on the site can be recharged, an essential part of Cape Town’s resilience before the effects of climate change.

    Amazon, for its part, has left the task of answering any searching questions on the development to Zenprop, the main developer.  Zenprop, in turn, has referred those queries to the Liesbeek Leisure Properties Trust, who claim, predictably, that milk honey will flow: jobs will follow (6,000 direct, 19,000 indirect), as will foreign investment and an improvement in Cape Town’s quality of life.  It is also hoping that local support for the project will remain sufficiently strong.

    LLTP’s blinkered Jody Aufrichtig finds little in the way of dissatisfaction.  The appropriate approvals process was pursued, and the public consulted.  “There is no groundswell of unhappiness,” she asserts. “The handful of vocal objectors who remain, who were given fair opportunity to participate, simply do not like the outcome.”  As for cultural sensitivities, Aufrichtig outlined a few proposed measures, including designs for a heritage centre, an Indigenous medicinal garden, and a hiking trail.  Descendants of the Khoi and San would also be involved in the project as educators and operators.

    One of the groups cheering Amazon and the impending development is the First Nations Collective, which is also drawn from members of the Khoi and San.  Its spokesperson, Zenzile Khoisan, felt that their various cultural needs had been addressed.  “We have secured a place to memorialise and celebrate our cultural agency and belonging, where we can articulate our narrative in our own voice to the world.”  He also approved of plans that “put First Nations at the centre of the project, right across the street from that building everyone is talking about, the Amazon building.”

    Cape Town Mayer Dan Plato has also given his nod of approval.  “We are acutely aware of the need to balance investment and job creation, along with heritage and planning considerations.”  On this occasion, the balance overwhelmingly favoured tourism and jobs.  The application, he claimed in a May statement skimpy on environmental impacts, “does not adversely affect the rights of surrounding properties and appropriate design mitigation will be required in the conditions of approval.”

    Such an accommodating tone to Amazon should come as a worry, not only to those in South Africa, but farther afield on the continent.  The company’s ruthlessness is a grand rebuke for all who think certain markets, as a rule, encourage diversity and healthy competition.  The Amazon effect, as it is termed, has seen the company firmly, if not brutally, assert its kingly role in the e-commerce marketplace.  The Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR) has drawn attention to a tendency the company has made famous over the years: eliminating competition, absorbing industries and killing innovation.

    In June 2021, the ILSR released a factsheet documenting the various sins of the company.  The list is ugly and extensive including, among many things, the company’s policy of impairing the means small businesses have “to operate independently and blocking them from having direct relationships with their customers.”  Amazon has also made a habit of pinching the “best ideas and innovations” from independent businesses. It blocks independent businesses from offering lower prices available on other sites.  It shuns due process in eliminating small businesses and sells goods and services below cost “to harm rivals and take market share.”

    Lawmakers in the United States have also shown interest in the company’s predatory practices.  The US House Judiciary Committee, after a 15-month investigation, found that Amazon “has monopoly power over many small- and medium size businesses that do not have a viable alternative to Amazon for reaching online consumers.”  Amazon, for its part, insists through lobbying and public relations efforts that its presence is a tonic for small businesses in what it calls “a mutually beneficial relationship”.  The company, the claim goes, provides a valuable platform to enable them to thrive.  “As many independent businesses across the country have struggled and even shuttered, smaller companies have continued to grow with Amazon.”

    Small business owners in South Africa and beyond, including independent retailers, small consumer product manufacturers, and publishers, have been warned.  As the great plundering founder Jeff Bezos himself observed, “When you are small, someone else that is bigger can always come along and take away what you have.”  The door to a continent is being opened, and, with fitting darkness, it is taking place upon historically dispossessed land.

    The post Amazon’s Drive Into Africa first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The decision by the African Union Commission, on July 22, to grant Israel observer status membership in the AU was the culmination of years of relentless Israeli efforts aimed at co-opting Africa’s largest political institution. Why is Israel so keen on penetrating Africa? What made African countries finally succumb to Israeli pressure and lobbying?

    To answer the above questions, one has to appreciate the new Great Game under way in many parts of the world, especially in Africa, which has always been significant to Israel’s geopolitical designs. Starting in the early 1950s to the mid-70s, Israel’s Africa network was in constant expansion. The 1973 war, however, brought that affinity to an abrupt end.

    What Changed Africa

    Ghana, in West Africa, officially recognized Israel in 1956, just eight years after Israel was established atop the ruins of historic Palestine. What seemed like an odd decision at the time – considering Africa’s history of western colonialism and anti-colonial struggles – ushered in a new era of African-Israeli relations. By the early 1970s, Israel had established a strong position for itself on the continent. On the eve of the 1973 Israeli-Arab war, Israel had full diplomatic ties with 33 African countries.

    “The October War”, however, presented many African countries with a stark choice: siding with Israel – a country born out of Western colonial intrigues – or the Arabs, who are connected to Africa through historical, political, economic, cultural and religious bonds. Most African countries opted for the latter choice. One after the other, African countries began severing their ties with Israel. Soon enough, no African state, other than Malawi, Lesotho and Swaziland, had official diplomatic relations with Israel.

    Then, the continent’s solidarity with Palestine went even further. The Organization of African Unity – the precursor to the African Union – in its 12th ordinary session held in Kampala in 1975, became the first international body to recognize, on a large scale, the inherent racism in Israel’s Zionist ideology by adopting Resolution 77 (XII). This very Resolution was cited in the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, adopted in November of that same year, which determined that “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination”. Resolution 3379 remained in effect until it was revoked by the Assembly under intense American pressure in 1991.

    Since Israel remained committed to that same Zionist, racist ideology of yesteryears, the only rational conclusion is that it was Africa, not Israel, that changed. But why?

    First, the collapse of the Soviet Union. That seismic event resulted in the subsequent isolation of pro-Soviet African countries which, for years, stood as the vanguard against American, Western and, by extension, Israeli expansionism and interests on the continent.

    Second, the collapse of the unified Arab front on Palestine. That front has historically served as the moral and political frame of reference for the pro-Palestine, anti-Israel sentiments in Africa. This started with the Egyptian government’s signing of the Camp David Agreement, in 1978-79 and, later, the Oslo Accords between the Palestinian leadership and Israel, in 1993.

    Covert and overt normalization between Arab countries and Israel continued unabated over the last three decades, resulting in the extension of diplomatic ties between Israel and several Arab countries, including African-Arab countries, like Sudan and Morocco. Other Muslim-majority African countries also joined the normalization efforts. They include Chad, Mali and others.

    Third, the ‘scramble for Africa’ was renewed with a vengeance. The neocolonial return to Africa brought back many of the same usual suspects – Western countries, which are, once more, realizing the untapped potential of Africa in terms of markets, cheap labor and resources. A driving force for Western re-involvement in Africa is the rise of China as a global superpower with keen interests in investing in Africa’s dilapidated infrastructure. Whenever economic competition is found, military hardware is sure to follow. Now several Western militaries are openly operating in Africa under various guises – France in Mali and the Sahel region, the US’ many operations through US Africa Command (AFRICOM), and others.

    Tellingly, Washington does not only serve as Israel’s benefactor in Palestine and the Middle East, but worldwide as well, and Israel is willing to go to any length to exploit the massive leverage it holds over the US government. This stifling paradigm, which has been at work in the Middle East region for decades, is also at work throughout Africa. For example, last year the US administration agreed to remove Sudan from the state-sponsored terror list in exchange for Khartoum’s normalization with Israel. In truth, Sudan is not the only country that understands – and is willing to engage in – this kind of ‘pragmatic’ – read under-handed – political barter. Others also have learned to play the game well. Indeed, by voting to admit Israel to the AU, some African governments expect a return on their political investment, a return that will be exacted from Washington, not from Tel Aviv.

    Unfortunately, albeit expectedly, as Africa’s normalization with Israel grew, Palestine became increasingly a marginal issue on the agendas of many African governments, who are far more invested in realpolitik – or simply remaining on Washington’s good side – than honoring the anti-colonial legacies of their nations.

    Netanyahu the Conqueror

    However, there was another driving force behind Israel’s decision to ‘return’ to Africa than just political opportunism and economic exploitation. Successive events have made it clear that Washington is retreating from the Middle East and that the region was no longer a top priority for the dwindling American empire. For the US, China’s decisive moves to assert its power and influence in Asia are largely responsible for the American rethink. The 2012 US withdrawal from Iraq, its ‘leadership from behind’ in Libya, its non-committal policy in Syria, among others, were all indicators pointing to the inescapable fact that Israel could no longer count on the blind and unconditional American support alone. Thus, the constant search for new allies began.

    For the first time in decades, Israel began confronting its prolonged isolation at the UNGA. America’s vetoes at the UN Security Council may have shielded Israel from accountability to its military occupation and war crimes; but US vetoes were hardly enough to give Israel the legitimacy that it has long coveted. In a recent conversation with former UN human rights envoy, Richard Falk, the Princeton Professor Emeritus explained to me that, despite Israel’s ability to escape punishment, it is rapidly losing what he refers to as the ‘legitimacy war’.

    Palestine, according to Falk, continues to win that war, one that can only be achieved through real, grassroots global solidarity. It is precisely this factor that explains Israel’s keen interest in transferring the battlefield to Africa and other parts of the Global South.

    On July 5, 2016, then Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, kick-started Israel’s own ‘scramble for Africa’ with a visit to Kenya, which was described as historic by the Israeli media. Indeed, it was the first visit by an Israeli prime minister in the last 50 years. After spending some time in Nairobi, where he attended the Israel-Kenya Economic Forum alongside hundreds of Israeli and Kenyan business leaders, he moved on to Uganda, where he met leaders from other African countries including South Sudan, Rwanda, Ethiopia and Tanzania. Within the same month, Israel announced the renewal of diplomatic ties between Israel and Guinea.

    The new Israeli strategy flowed from there. More high-level visits to Africa and triumphant announcements about new joint economic ventures and investments followed. In June 2017, Netanyahu took part in the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), held in the Liberian capital, Monrovia. There, he went as far as rewriting history.

    “Africa and Israel share a natural affinity,” Netanyahu claimed in his speech. “We have, in many ways, similar histories. Your nations toiled under foreign rule. You experienced horrific wars and slaughters. This is very much our history.” With these words, Netanyahu attempted, not only to hide Israel’s colonial intentions, but also rob Palestinians of their own history.

    Moreover, the Israeli leader had hoped to crown his political and economic achievements with the Israel-Africa Summit, an event that was meant to officially welcome Israel, not to a specific African regional alliance, but to the whole of Africa. However, in September 2017, the organizers of the event decided to indefinitely postpone it, after it was confirmed to be taking place in Lome, capital of Togo, on October 23-27 of that same year. What was seen by Israeli leaders as a temporary setback was the result of intense, behind-the-scenes lobbying of several African and Arab countries, including South Africa and Algeria.

    Premature ‘Victory’

    Ultimately, it was a mere temporary setback. The admission of Israel into the 55-member African bloc in July is considered by Israeli officials and media pundits as a major political victory, especially as Tel Aviv has been laboring to achieve this status since 2002. At the time, many obstacles stood in the way, like the strong objection raised by Libya under the leadership of Muammar Ghaddafi and the insistence of Algeria that Africa must remain committed to its anti-Zionist ideals, and so on. However, one after the other, these obstacles were removed or marginalized.

    In a recent statement, Israel’s new Foreign Minister, Yair Lapid, celebrated Israel’s Africa membership as an “important part of strengthening the fabric of Israel’s foreign relations”. According to Lapid, the exclusion of Israel from the AU was an “anomaly that existed for almost two decades”. Of course, not all African countries agree with Lapid’s convenient logic.

    According to TRT news, citing Algerian media, 17 African countries, including Zimbabwe, Algeria and Liberia, have objected to Israel’s admission to the Union. In a separate statement, South Africa expressed outrage at the decision, describing the “unjust and unwarranted decision of the AU Commission to grant Israel observer status in the African Union” as “appalling”. For his part, Algerian Foreign Minister, Ramtane Lamamra, said that his country will “not stand idly by in front of this step taken by Israel and the African Union without consulting the member states.”

    Despite Israel’s sense of triumphalism, it seems that the fight for Africa is still raging, a battle of politics, ideology and economic interests that is likely to continue unabated for years to come. However, for Palestinians and their supporters to have a chance at winning this battle, they must understand the nature of the Israeli strategy through which Israel depicts itself to various African countries as the savior, bestowing favors and introducing new technologies to combat real, tangible problems. Being more technologically advanced as compared to many African countries, Israel is able to offer its superior ‘security’, IT and irrigation technologies to African states in exchange for diplomatic ties, support at the UNGA and lucrative investments.

    Consequently, Palestine’s Africa dichotomy rests partly on the fact that African solidarity with Palestine has historically been placed within the larger political framework of mutual African-Arab solidarity. Yet, with official Arab solidarity with Palestine now weakening, Palestinians are forced to think outside this traditional box, so that they may build direct solidarity with African nations as Palestinians, without necessarily merging their national aspirations with the larger, now fragmented, Arab body politic.

    While such a task is daunting, it is also promising, as Palestinians now have the opportunity to build bridges of support and mutual solidarity in Africa through direct contacts, where they serve as their own ambassadors. Obviously, Palestine has much to gain, but also much to offer Africa. Palestinian doctors, engineers, civil defense and frontline workers, educationists, intellectuals and artists are some of the most highly qualified and accomplished in the Middle East. True, they have much to learn from their African peers, but also have much to give.

    Unlike persisting stereotypes, many African universities, organizations and cultural centers serve as vibrant intellectual hubs. African thinkers, philosophers, writers, journalists, artists and athletes are some of the most articulate, empowered and accomplished in the world. Any pro-Palestine strategy in Africa should keep these African treasures in mind as a way of engaging, not only with individuals but with whole societies.

    Israeli media reported extensively and proudly about Israel’s admission to the AU. The celebrations, however, might also be premature, for Africa is not a group of self-seeking leaders bestowing political favors in exchange for meager returns. Africa is also the heart of the most powerful anti-colonial trends the world has ever known. A continent of this size, complexity, and proud history cannot be written off as if a mere ‘prize’ to be won or lost by Israel and its neocolonial friends.

    The post Palestine’s Africa Dichotomy: Is Israel Really ‘Winning’ Africa?   first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Millions of vaccines manufactured in South Africa are being sent to Europe despite concerns about global vaccine inequality.

    32m doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine have been exported for distribution around Europe, while promises to vaccinate a third of Africans remain unfulfilled.

    South Africa ordered 31m doses of the single shot Johnson & Johnson vaccine, but according to the New York Times, has only administered about 2m.

    With the percentage of Africans fully vaccinated at just 1.7%, the exports to Europe have prompted renewed concern about vaccines not reaching where they’re most needed.

    Out of South Africa

    There was a condition in the contract between Johnson & Johnson and South Africa that the country would not be able to stop exports. This contrasts the US and the EU, which have imposed restrictions on exports of domestic vaccines.

    The South African health ministry said they’d had to sign, or they wouldn’t have received any vaccines.

    South African scientist Glenda Gray told the New York Times: 

    It’s like a country is making food for the world and sees its food being shipped off to high-resource settings while its citizens starve.

    Vaccination in Africa

    Much of the continent remains unvaccinated. In the Congo, for example, just 0.1% of the population have received at least one dose.

    Meanwhile, Africa is fighting a vicious wave caused by the Delta variant. The WHO has said that coronavirus (Covid-19) deaths increased by 89% in July compared to June.

    Johnson & Johnson announced in March 2021 that it had made a deal with the African Union to supply the continent with up to 400m doses. This built on its and other suppliers’ commitments to supply vaccines to the Covax programme for lower-income countries.

    Covax inhibited

    The programme currently aims to supply 520m doses to Africa before the end of 2021. But experts say it is likely the majority of people in the lowest-income countries will be left waiting until 2023 for their vaccine.

    Wealthier countries began buying up vaccine doses before they were produced, which the WHO warned could affect or delay Covax’s effectiveness.

    The WHO is currently recommending that instead of focusing on booster shots, rich countries should send their vaccines to poorer countries.

    Vaccine apartheid

    Many countries have ignored this – including the UK – which has announced plans to start its booster programme in the autumn and is on track to keep 210m spare vaccine doses. Nick Dearden, director of Global Justice Now, stated:

    The UK is offering third doses and vaccinating teenagers while low-and middle-income countries are left fighting for scraps.

    It’s an insult to the thousands dying each day from Covid-19.

    Worse still, this is happening while our government obstructs efforts to enable these countries to manufacture their own vaccines by waiving intellectual property.

    We’re keeping the global south dependent on donations while hoarding limited vaccine supplies for ourselves.

    That the UK’s unused doses alone could cover the ten least-vaccinated countries on the planet shows the obscene injustice of our approach to global vaccination.

    With the buying of booster shots, vaccine manufacturer Pfizer is projecting a revenue of $33.5bn by the end of the year. The sale of booster vaccines will only add to the huge profits vaccine companies have already made; profits that have already created nine new billionaires.

    The hoarding of vaccine doses by rich countries and profiteering by companies has been described as a “vaccine apartheid“.

    Writing for the BMJ, Health Justice Initiative founder Fatima Hassan, global health professor Gavin Yamey, and BMJ editor Kamran Abbasi said:

    Covid-19 global vaccine allocation is based on power, first mover advantage, and the ability to pay. This moral scandal, enabled by corporate and political permission of mass death, is tantamount to a crime against humanity.

    Featured image via Pexels/RF._.studio

    By Jasmine Norden

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • On Thursday last week (29 July), Zamekile Shangase, a 33-year-old woman from Asiyindawo in Lamontville, was shot and killed outside her home by the police. Zamekile was the mother of two children aged 6 and 11. She was elected to a position on the local Abahlali council in 2018 and served on the council for a year.

    Zamekile was shot while the police were raiding the settlement as part of Operation Show Your Receipt.

    Another life has been lost. Another family is in mourning. Two young children must now live without a mother.

    If you are poor and black your humanity is not recognised. You are shown to the world as a person who can’t think, and as a criminal. You do not count to society. People will speak about you without seeing any reason to speak to you. You can be brutalised and your dignity can be vandalised without any consequences. You can be killed by the state and if there is no movement (imbutho yabampofu) to insist that your life must be counted as a human life your death will count for nothing. In this system we are left to die like dogs.

    This is the second time that the police had come to raid the settlements in this area, and take people’s food. On Thursday they were going door to door, breaking locks, threatening and abusing people, and taking food from people. People got angry and started shouting. Some people started throwing stones at the police and banging on the police van. The police then got angry and started shooting.

    A police officer was standing on the road and shooting up the hill into Asiyindawo at random. After Zamekile was shot the police carried on with their operation of seizing people’s food at gunpoint while her body was still lying on the ground.

    Colonel Khumalo was at the scene after the murder but refused to engage the leaders in discussion.

    We were very concerned to read an article in a major news publication in which it was reported that the police were fired on from all directions by criminals armed with bullets stolen in the riots, that they were forced to return fire and that “a 33-year-old woman was killed”. Another article by the same journalist reported that Zamekile was “caught in the crossfire”. This article saw no need to even mention Zamekile’s name.

    The police lied to try and cover up the fact that they killed an unarmed person for no reason. There is no doubt that no one fired on the police. If the journalist had not just taken what the police said as the truth and had spoken to the residents of Asiyindawo, residents elsewhere in the nearby Sisonke settlement (formerly Madlala), and residents in the township (Lamontville) who live near the Asiyindawo he would have found that they all agree that only the police were shooting.

    As usual we are spoken about and not spoken too. As usual we are criminalised. As usual our lives count for nothing.

    There is a long history of the police lying to cover up their actions, and the media taking their lies as if they were facts without bothering to talk to eyewitnesses.

    In the early years of our movement (around 2005 to 2007), when Mike Sutcliffe was the city manager and Obed Mlaba was the mayor, the City always tried to prevent us from marching. When we would march, peacefully and unarmed, in defiance of their illegal bans we would be attacked with rubber bullets, stun grenades, dogs and sometimes water cannons and live ammunition. The police would always tell the media that they had attacked us because they had come under fire. Every time that was a complete lie but the media would report it as if it was the truth and not see any need to ask any of the people who had been on the march what they had seen. It was like they thought that we are just born liars and the police always tell the truth.

    Even when someone has been killed the police have often been allowed to lie with impunity. In 30 September 2013 Nqobile Nzuza, a 17-year-old, was killed by the police during a protest in Cato Crest. The police said that they had come under attack from an armed mob and that they would have been killed if they had not fired live ammunition. This was a complete lie but most of the media reported the police statement as if it was true. They saw no need to speak to eye witnesses. When the autopsy was done it showed that Nqobile had been shot in the back of the head. In 2018 a police officer was convicted for the murder of Nqobile and sent to prison. In the trial it became clear that the whole story told by the police, and often repeated as fact by the media, was untrue.

    As Operation Show Your Receipt continues, and people continue to be abused, insulted, threatened and have their food stolen by the police, more people will get hurt.

    Why is there so much hatred for the poor? When will the time come for our dignity to be recognised?

    We have been asking these questions for more than fifteen years. We have not received any answers to these questions, instead we are receiving bullets from the state.

    Our humanity is denied. Our dignity is vandalised. Our lives are criminalised. Our existence is criminalised.

    When the leadership of Abahlali arrived in Asiyindawo shortly after the shooting, while Zamekile’s body was still lying on the ground, one of the residents asked a very important question to the heavily armed police: “Why must we be killed for food, why must we die for food?”

    They did not answer. Others said “Yes, why must we die for a tin of fish?”

    In this press statement we are taking this question and putting it to the whole of society.

    Why must we be killed for food?

  • Image credit: Restless Stories
  • The post We are Dying for Food first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • By Aliya Chikte and Gilad Isaacs

    Political will and strategic taxation channels could help bridge the yawning divide between the haves and the have nots in South Africa.

    The reinstatement by President Cyril Ramaphosa of the Covid-19 social relief of distress grant and its extension to caregivers take us one step closer to a universal basic income guarantee.

    The Covid-19 pandemic has placed the idea of a Universal Basic Income Guarantee (UBIG) back on the agenda, as can be seen from the numerous demands from civil society groups and community organisers. This recognises, in the context of a long-standing structural unemployment crisis, that poverty and inequality cannot be addressed only through expanding employment.

    However, the SRD grant of R350 per month can, at best, cover only 60% of a person’s minimum required food intake. In the short term, the SRD grant should be increased to at least R585, which is the food poverty line. This would cost an additional R17-billion until March 2022. The inadequate amount and the delays in implementing this are reflective of a government whose social policies have become reactive and crisis-driven.

    A permanent UBIG is a chance to close the gaps in South Africa’s social security net. The question is then not about whether a UBIG should be implemented, but rather how it should be designed and financed.

    To answer part of this question, the Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) has put forward a financing policy brief for a UBIG, outlining 19 recommendations that will allow South Africa to raise funds to tackle poverty. The policy brief serves as a supplement to an earlier one on UBIG published by the IEJ in March 2021 and a summary of further research produced for the IEJ by DNA Economics. The proposals include adjustments to income taxes, consumption taxes, and wealth and property taxes; removal of corporate tax breaks; the reduction of wasteful and irregular expenditure; and the recoupment of expenditure on UBIG through existing value-added tax (VAT).

    How much and for whom?

    There are numerous suggestions for the amount at which a UBIG should be set. We present a set of options, ranging from the food poverty line of R585 per month to the initial starting level of the national minimum wage of R3,500 per month. These amounts are not, on their own, sufficient to provide a dignified standard of living, but rather seek to address the depth and severity of poverty by meeting people’s most basic needs.

    The preferred approach is one of universality, allowing all people between the age of 18 to 59, currently excluded from permanent social security benefits, to be eligible for the UBIG. In tandem, if South Africa is to reach the National Development Plan’s objective of reducing poverty to 0% by 2030, then the child support grant should also be increased to at least the level of the food poverty line.

    The universality ensures that lower-income taxpayers will benefit more from the income guarantee than they contribute in new taxes. The net benefit varies according to income brackets. For example, if a UBIG of R585 per month is provided, 84% of taxpayers will be net beneficiaries.

    How to finance this?

    The IEJ puts forward 19 tax proposals. These are options, and are not necessarily proposed as a package to be implemented simultaneously.

    Adjustments to income taxes include:

    • The implementation of a ring-fenced Social Security Tax on income, operating similarly to Unemployment Insurance Fund (UIF) contributions. This will generate R67-billion annually. It would be progressively levied upon all income earners — ranging between 1.5 to 3% of taxable personal income;
    • A resource rent tax levied on excess profits earned by extractive industries, estimated to bring in R39-billion annually. This would redistribute the gains from commodity booms while preserving incentives for investors;
    • The removal of tax breaks for high-income earners — in the form of medical aid tax credits and the pension fund contribution deduction — could contribute a total of R26-billion annually; and
    • A halt to the National Treasury’s proposed reduction in the corporate income tax rate. In the context of pressing social needs, this reduction would be deeply irresponsible

    Proposed changes to taxes on products consumed include the introduction of a VAT rate of 25% on luxury goods; a temporary increase in excise duties; and an increase in carbon taxes to one-quarter of the European Union standard. We estimate that changes to such consumption taxes will result in an additional R13-billion that can be used to finance a UBIG.

    These provide good revenue-raising options but do not tax accumulated wealth. For this reason, we propose a wealth tax. Though South Africa has one of the highest levels of wealth inequality, a wealth tax has historically been excluded from the tax framework. Using the wealth tax simulator from the World Inequality Database, we show that a 1% wealth tax for the top 1%, and a 3% wealth tax for the top 0.1% would generate R59-billion in revenue in the medium to long term. While a wealth tax is not an immediate source of financing, it is an important proposal to ensure the sustainability of a UBIG.

    It is also possible to tax the income that derives from wealth, which is also highly unequally distributed. A currency transaction tax (CTT) of 0.005%; raising the Securities Transfer Tax from 0.25 to 0.3%; and a financial transaction tax of 0.1%, would raise R3.68 billion, R1.37 billion, and R41 billion respectively. These tax the buying and selling of different financial assets and have the benefit of reducing stock market speculation.

    An increase in the estate duty tax would mean higher taxes when wealth is passed on after someone’s death. The proposal would align the tax to personal income tax rates, ensuring greater equity across the tax system. Given the skewed nature of accumulated wealth under apartheid, this seems necessary.

    This combination of taxes on wealth and income that derives from wealth would add R48-billion to government revenue.

    In addition, we propose scrapping ineffective corporate tax breaks — such as the employment tax incentive — and redoubling efforts to tackle tax evasion. The IEJ tax proposals target a 25% reduction in profit shifting of multinational corporations. Combined, this would free up a total of R18-billion in additional revenue. We also target a 30% reduction of irregular expenditure reported by the Auditor-General, freeing up R36.4-billion. A further reduction of wasteful expenditure in Cabinet and government departments would provide an additional R1.85-billion.

    Spill-over effects

    A UBIG would spur a host of positive spill-over effects in the economy, including shifting unspent funds from the wealthy and corporates to poor households, thus injecting spending into the economy that favours locally produced goods. This would also increase tax revenue as the economy grows. These all need to be investigated. One easy element to calculate is that around 12% of any expenditure on a UBIG would be recouped back by the state via VAT.

    This array of financing proposals shows that implementing a UBIG progressively and sustainably is feasible in the short term. Furthermore, some funds could be raised through additional debt, or other avenues.

    A UBIG is an important component of a broader package of social support that a capable state should ensure for all. The urgency of the moment, in addition to the longstanding persisting patterns of poverty and inequality, needs to be recognised and reflected in the debate around the implementation of a UBIG. Addressing extreme poverty is therefore not simply about financing constraints, but rather about willingness to take the immediate measures that this moment demands.

    _______________________________

    About the Authors: Aliya Chikte is a Research Associate at the Institute for Economic Justice, where Gilad Isaacs is the Director.

    The post Opinion: Yes, we can afford Universal Basic Income in South Africa appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • By: Theresa EdlmannEngenas SenonaErin Torkelson and Wanga Zembe

    On Sunday 25 July 2021 President Cyril Ramaphosa announced that the R350 Covid-19 Social Relief of Distress (SRD) Grant will be reinstated until March 2022.

    The grant’s eligibility criteria have also been expanded to include unemployed Caregivers who receive the Child Support Grant (CSG) on behalf of children. About 95% of CSG recipients are women and were excluded in the application criteria for the initial round of the Covid-19 SRD grant.

    The Black Sash has compiled a report into the implementation and impact of the Covid-19 SRD Grant. The report will be publicly launched on Tuesday, 27 July 2021.

    The report, Social Protection in a Time of Covid: Lessons for Basic Income Support, outlines some of the challenges faced by those who did (and did not receive) the R350 grant. It also illustrates the impact the small monthly grant makes in many households across South Africa.

    The report strongly recommends that the Covid-19 SRD Grant becomes a permanent form of Basic Income Support (BIS) for those aged between 18 and 59 who have little to no income – and that this support is linked to the food poverty line.

    It recommends ways for SASSA to improve the grant’s application system, the appeals and payment processes, and to develop a more effective communication strategy with applicants and beneficiaries.

    At its inception, the Covid-19 SRD Grant was an unprecedented moment in the history of social assistance in South Africa. From May 2020, South Africans between 18 and 59 who had previously been excluded from receiving social grants were eligible to receive R350 per month. The grant was extended to the end of January 2021 and again to the end of April 2021.

    By July 2020 about 5.6 million people had been approved for the grant, at a cost of R4.8 billion per month. Additionally, about 7 million people who received Child Support Grants on behalf of children were given a fixed amount of R500 per month between June and October 2020 – the Caregiver grant. Through the addition of these two programmes, social assistance in South Africa covered 71% of all households at its peak.

    However, there were critical eligibility exclusions as well. The R350 grant excluded any 18- to 59-year-olds already registered on a national database (SARS, UIF, NSFAS even if the registration was out of date) or who received any money at all into their bank account (even R50). Refugees and special permit holders only became eligible for the grant in September 2020 after litigation. The R500 Caregiver grant ended in October 2020 and was not renewed.

    The application process

    Many people, particularly the elderly and those in rural areas, did not have access to mobile phones, airtime and data to apply for their grants online. Approval was managed centrally by a GovChat team housed within the SASSA national office. People whose applications were rejected could appeal. At no stage was there a fixed time period for the processing of either applications or appeals.

    The next hurdle was accessing the money once the grant was approved.

    The payment system was not very efficient and recipients often waited months for their first payment or skipped months. People who did not have bank accounts or the capacity to access their SRD grant via an e-wallet system, were forced to wait in very long queues at South African Post Offices (SAPO) in the hope of being paid their grant.

    These people, amongst the poorest in the country, often faced significant challenges getting to a SAPO branch that paid out this type of grant — only to find that the office had run out of cash or that the queues were so long they never even made it into the building.

    When grantees received their money, most found R350 was too little to meet their monthly needs. During this period, most people we interviewed experienced dramatic changes to their diets, skipping meals, going to bed hungry, or eating only tea and bread. While the grant might have prevented starvation, it did not adequately address the levels of hunger experienced by the poorest families in the country.

    It was particularly challenging that SASSA required all grant claimants to have zero money coming into their bank accounts. If a family member put even R50 into the SRD grant recipient’s bank account, that would exclude them from being eligible for the Covid-19 SRD grant the following month.

    Lockdown also disrupted and weakened people’s reciprocity networks. Many lost jobs and livelihoods, others faced job insecurity. The family members, neighbours and friends who previously were able to help were no longer available to, because they too were faced with precarity.

    Creating a platform for a Basic Income Grant

    In rural areas, the highly technical application system for the Covid-19 SRD grant was hard and unfamiliar for many people, who could only get help from civil society organisations because many government offices were largely closed during this time. The grant payments at SAPO branches were often out of the way and far from where people live.

    The inequity between rural and urban areas has been a longstanding problem inherited from colonialism and apartheid. It was perpetuated by the assumption that everyone could be accommodated equally by a single system. South Africa is a highly differentiated society; any “universal” system exacerbates the challenges that many families and communities face.

    Despite these many challenges and hardships, the introduction of the Covid-19 SRD grant drew people who had previously been excluded from state assistance grants into the social protection network, creating a platform for a Basic Income Grant in the future.

    The findings of our research show the urgent need to introduce permanent Basic Income Support. The application and distribution systems must be accessible and administered in a way that people are not met with unnecessary, time-consuming, and expensive bureaucratic hurdles with no rural and urban differentiation. Hurdles such as disqualification upon receiving income in bank accounts or exclusion due to outdated databases need to be urgently addressed.

    At the barest minimum, the grant should meet the food poverty line, currently at R585, so all people living in South Africa can afford to eat.

    Theresa Edlmann works at the Black Sash. Engenas Senona is a Social Protection Expert. Dr Erin Torkelson is with Durham University. Dr Wanga Zemba-Mkabile is with the South African Medical Research Council.

    Views expressed are not necessarily those of GroundUp.

    The post South Africa: Black Sash launches a report into the implementation and impact of the Covid-19 SRD Grant appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Alex Salmon reviews a new book by anti-Apartheid activists about how sport both uphold the racist status quo and became a crucial site of resistance.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • Asia Pacific Report newsdesk

    After his release from prison in South Africa and he became inaugural president of the majority rule government with the abolition of apartheid, Nelson Mandela declared in a speech in 1997: “We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.”

    Founding Halt All Racist Tours (HART) leader John Minto invoked these words again several times in Hamilton on Sunday as veterans and supporters of the 1981 Springbok Rugby Tour anti-apartheid protests gathered to mark the 40th anniversary of the historic events.

    Starting at the “1981” tour retrospective exhibition at the Hamilton Museum – Te Whare Taonga o Waikato, the protesters gathered for a luncheon at Anglican Action and then staged a ceremonial march to FMG Stadium – known back then as Rugby Park – where they had famously breached the perimeter fence and invaded the pitch.

    The exhibition features photographs by Geoffrey Short, Kees Sprengers and John Mercer of that day on 25 July 1981 when about 2000 protesters halted the second match of the tour.

    “The Kirikiriroa protests were the outcome of months of planning, counter-planning and public discontent,” said curator Nadia Gush.

    “1981 documents a period of unrest, with New Zealanders of all ages expressing their solidarity with marginalised black South Africans.”

    Hamilton Springbok protest march 2021
    The 1981 anti-apartheid protest march reenactment from Hamilton’s Garden Place to Rugby Park (FMG Stadium Waikato) on 25 July 2021. Image: David Robie/APR

    Their courage and determination led to a tense stand-off in the middle of the park with about 500 protesters huddled together with linked arms and defiantly facing both police squads and a 30,000 crowd baying for their blood.

    Match called off
    The match was called off by the authorities – interrupting the first ever live broadcast of a South African rugby match from New Zealand. And this triggered unprecedented violent scenes when rugby enthusiasts attacked protesters.

    “Amandla Ngawethu!” – “power to the people!” (the cry of the African National Congress) – chanted John Minto, who has lost none of his powerful protest voice, amplified by a megaphone, as the crowd left Garden Place 40 years on.

    “Remember racism… Remember Soweto… Remember Mandela,” came other cries from march marshals.

    And a fresh addition this time was “Remember Palestine … Remember Gaza. … Freedom for Palestine” in recognition of the new struggle over Israeli apartheid in the Palestinian Occupied Territories and Gaza under military siege.

    John Minto and Nelson Mandela
    “Remember Mandela” … John Minto talking about apartheid at the FMG Stadium Waikato, formerly Hamilton’s Rugby Park. Image: David Robie

    Marchers were decidedly much slower than in the original protest four decades ago and a cloudburst dampened the straggling ex-protesters. However, they were revived by the sight of a Tristram Street mural at the stadium devoted to the Springbok tour and the cancellation of the game.

    Among the stragglers was Invercargill mayor Sir Tim Shadbolt who described the protests against 1981 Springbok Tour as an important historical event for Aotearoa New Zealand.

    “I’ll remember those days for the rest of my life,” Shadbolt told Stuff reporter Aaron Leaman.

    ‘Victory for better NZ’
    “It was a victory in a way and changed New Zealand for the better.”

    John Miller and Nelson Mandela
    Protest photographer John Miller with tour images of his, including a photo of President Nelson Mandela when he visited New Zealand in 1995. Image: David Robie/APR

    Stuff also quoted Angeline Greensill, who along with her mother, the late Eva Rickard, was among the group of anti-tour protesters who made their way onto the pitch at Rugby Park.

    Standing up to the “icon of rugby” took courage, Greensill said.

    The group passed around three sides of the stadium in the rain as Minto pointed out the “safe house” across the road – “opened up by a courageous man, Dr Anthony Rogers” – where he, Mike Law, Dick Cuthbert and many others were bashed by rugby supporters. A makeshift ambulance driving injured people to hospital was also attacked.

    Twenty three people were treated for injuries in Waikato Hospital and police arrested 73 people.

    1981 Hamilton Springbok tour protest Patu!
    Then, 1981 … the protester huddle in the middle of Hamilton’s Rugby Park. Image: Screenshot from Merata Mita’s documentary Patu!
    Police at Hamilton's Rugby Park
    Then, 1981 … police position themselves for the baton charge order against protesters that never came at Hamilton’s Rugby Park. Image: David Robie of stadium historical display/APR

    Minto praised the Waikato Rugby Union for recognising this vital event in New Zealand history.

    Then the entourage moved into the stadium’s Bronze Room for speeches and sharing of memories of that fateful day.

    Cheered loudly
    They cheered loudly as they marked 3.10pm – the exact time that the match between the touring Boks and Waikato had been called off.

    Speakers, including Minto, spoke about both apartheid and the 1981 Springbok tour and 70 years of apartheid and Israeli oppression in Palestinian.

    FMG Stadium
    Now, 2021 … FMG Stadium Waikato … renamed from Rugby Park. Image: David Robie/APR

    Speakers, including Minto, spoke about both apartheid and the 1981 Springbok tour and 70 years of apartheid and Israeli oppression in Palestinian.

    “Both Nelson Mandela and Bishop Desmond Tutu said, ‘Our freedom in South Africa will not be complete without the freedom of the Palestinians’,” declared Minto.

    “It’s unfinished business.”

    “This is the new anti-apartheid struggle,” added Minto, who is also national chair of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSN). He challenged participants to join him in this ongoing campaign.


    PSNA’s John Minto talks about the ongoing apartheid struggle over Palestine. Video: David Robie/APR

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • As rioters target supermarkets, activists call on the government to help those who cannot survive amid rising prices and mass unemployment.

    By: Anna Majavu

    The government must immediately institute a basic income grant as an emergency measure if it wants to stop food riots from taking hold permanently, say activists.

    With the expanded unemployment rate at 43.2%, its highest level ever, it would be foolish to label everyone who participated in the “Free Zuma” protests and took food from major supermarkets as “irrational and criminal”, says Mervyn Abrahams, programme director of the Pietermaritzburg Economic Justice and Dignity group.

    “These protests are driven by economic issues, not so much the political issue of freeing Jacob Zuma. What was required was a flame and the Free Zuma campaign was that. These protests are not even isolated to food but have provided a cover for people who feel excluded economically to just come and take over,” Abrahams says.

    “People cannot wait any longer. They are in the midst of absolute poverty. People are hungry and we have to meet the hunger needs now. It calls for an immediate emergency intervention and then long-term systemic change.”

    The government discussed a basic income grant in 2002 but put it on hold. It is seen by the unions, social movements and public-interest law centres in the #PayTheGrants coalition as one of the best available tools to reduce poverty quickly.

    The Pietermaritzburg Economic Justice and Dignity group said it could be fixed at the food poverty line of R585 an adult a month or at the upper-bound poverty line, which is currently R1 268 an adult a month.

    Devastating levels of hunger

    The group also predicted last month that high food prices and low levels of jobs could lead to social disorder with protesters losing restraint and potentially curbing the movement of goods and public services on highways.

    Ten days later, protesters set fire to dozens of trucks in KwaZulu-Natal and closed both the N2 and N3 highway in places.

    “In this situation, the right of a hungry child and her hungrier mother to exist, to survive and to eat will become far more important than any right to private property,” Abrahams says.

    Protests surged and took on the radically new dimension of riots, however, on July 11 and 12. The government announced on July 12 that it would deploy the army to stop the riots.

    With 11.4 million people of working age currently unemployed, the minimum wage rising by only 4.5% in April 2021, and food, transport and electricity prices increasing by between seven and 15%, millions of people can no longer survive, says Abrahams.

    He says containing dissent is not a long-term solution.

    To negotiate an end to the food riots, the government could also immediately reinstate and increase the Covid-19 social relief of distress (SRD) grant of R350 a month, which it terminated in April 2021, and top up the child support and old age grants as it did during the first wave, says Abrahams.

    “We must not do what we always do and that is go ‘back to normal’, because it is the abnormality of our situation that gave rise to this. After an emergency intervention, we need to set up an economy that will allow everyone to feel they are included, and a basic income guarantee would be one of the instruments of this.”

    Speaking at a “Pay the Grants” mass assembly held to call for a basic income grant on 11 July, Wanga Zembe-Mkabile, specialist scientist at the Medical Research Council, said the grant was urgently needed to minimise the high levels of poverty and inequality now causing devastating levels of “hunger, hopelessness, depression and despondency”.

    “Child hunger has remained high despite the child support grant and we know this is partly explained by the fact that the child support grant itself is not pegged to any objective measure of need, so the amount … is still small,” she said, adding that the child support grant is also diluted because it is often the only source of income in a home.

    “The SRD grant represented hope. It made people feel seen and recognised by the state, and addressed some of the psychological impacts that crop up when there is no provision for an entire segment of the population, such as the unemployed,” Zembe-Mkabile said. “The discontinuation of the grant, small and inadequate as it was, means a return to that hopelessness and invisibility. There’s a full expectation that if this continues, the levels of food insecurity and hunger we are seeing will only get much worse than they already are.”

    Pushed past their limits

    Socialist activist Alfred Moyo, the Gauteng coordinator for the Fight Inequality Alliance and a resident of Makause shack settlement in Primrose, says the latest lockdown pushed impoverished people past their limits.

    “Millions of poor communities cannot afford to be pushed back into further lockdowns, which are imposed by [those] above, without consideration of realities on the ground. We cannot eat any further lockdowns. People are hungry now. People are angry now,” Moyo says.

    Unemployed Peoples’ Movement spokesperson Ayanda Kota says his organisation also backs the basic income grant. But he points out that it is not feasible for social movements “who are struggling for emancipatory politics to support struggles that are organised on tribalist, male chauvinist and ethnic bases, everything that we are opposed to as people that are struggling for emancipatory politics”.

    “The reality of the matter is that people are hungry and are using this opportunity [the Free Zuma protests] to demonstrate the level of hunger in this country.

    Our call should be to intensify the demand for the government to implement the basic income grant because the Radical Economic Transformations, the Edward Zumas, don’t stand with the people on a principled basis. Their aim is only to dethrone the current regime so they can take over to do the same – loot,” Kota says.

    In the wake of the riots, affected provinces such as KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng could face a week-long bottleneck in which food will not be as readily available in supermarkets. But street traders have mainly not been harmed by protesters, who focused on major supermarkets, so they will likely see an increase in the number of customers coming to them to buy food, Abrahams says.

    The post South Africa: Food Riots Show the Need for a Basic Income appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Barry Healy reviews The Last Horns of Africa, a documentary about preventing the poaching of wild rhinoceros.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.