We stand with the farmers of India who are protesting the three new laws that were forced through India’s Parliament, They were in violation of democratic norms and the federal scheme of the constitution. These laws will accelerate the corporate takeover of India’s agriculture and food systems, deplete farmer incomes, and increase hunger.
We condemn the government’s attempt to kill off the country’s public agricultural markets (known as mandis). The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Bill, 2020 permits trade outside of mandis, but it does nothing to improve the governance and efficiency of the current markets.
We also fear that the creation of private markets is a precursor to the eventual removal of the Minimum Support Price. The Indian state’s guarantee to farmers to purchase crops at a pre-declared price is essential, both for decent incomes for farmers and for affordable nutrition for India’s poor.
The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Bill, 2020 permits agribusiness firms to enter into contracts for the sale of future farming produce at a pre-agreed price. The de-regulation of contract farming will enable large firms to direct farm practices and investments.
The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Bill, 2020 removes crops that are vital for food security from the list of essential commodities. To supposedly create an enabling environment for agri-tech and logistics businesses, the government has left itself completely powerless to enforce stockholding limits, even to control food price inflation and scarcity.
We challenge the assumption behind these laws – that private investments in agri-food supply chains will lead to gains in efficiency. What we will see instead is the large-scale transfer of wealth from farmers to agricultural corporations. 85% of India’s farmers are small-scale and marginal, with a landholding of fewer than two hectares.
The vast majority of farmers from India’s marginalised communities, including the oppressed castes and the tribal communities, belong in this category. When pitted against large agricultural firms, they have no bargaining power. Instead of providing them access to more and better markets where their produce is purchased at guaranteed prices, these new laws leave them at the mercy of monopsonies.
In spite of its food surpluses, India remains one of the world’s most food-insecure countries with the highest rates of malnourishment, even compared with other South Asian countries. The withdrawal of the state from purchasing agricultural produce, from maintaining public stocks of food, and from controlling private hoarding, is a retreat from any public attempt to reduce hunger.
These laws must be repealed in their entirety. In a continent-sized country with a wide variety of climatic conditions and farming traditions, we also believe that agricultural policy is rightfully in the domain of state legislatures. Any attempt to reform India’s agricultural sector must centre guaranteed living incomes for marginal farmers, fair living wages of agricultural labour, and affordable nutrition for India’s poor.
Berlin Protest: Saturday 9th January. 12 noon, Rathaus Neukölln
Women in Exile is an initiative of refugee women founded in Brandenburg in 2002 by refugee women to fight for their rights. We decided to organize as a refugee women’s group because we have made the experience that refugee women are doubly discriminated against not only by the racist and discriminative general refugee laws but also as women.
Refugees are obligated to live in “collective accommodations“ where they are entitled to a 6sqm² space, in these narrow spaces they share not only the rooms but facilities such as kitchen, toilets and bathrooms. This results in lots of conflicts inside the collective homes, including physical and sexual violence for women. Thus our campaign „No lager for women and children, Abolish all lagers“.
In 2011,Women in Exile and activists in solidarity without flight background, founded Women in Exile and Friends. Our fights are focused on the abolition of all laws discriminatory to asylum seekers and migrants and on the interconnections of racism and sexism. Together we develop strategies to achieve political change and take our protest against the inhuman living conditions of refugee women to the public
Our fundamental political goal is the utopia of a just society without exclusion and discrimination, with equal rights for all, irrespective of where they come from and where they go to. We perceive ourself as a bridge between the refugee and the feminist movement. Our experience is, that women can relate to each other, regardless of all differences like age, origin, religion, status, sexual orientation or other factors, and can make an impact together.
We meet monthly and make regular visits to refugee women in the “collective accommodation” in Brandenburg to exchange experiences . This way we find out about the living conditions in each specific Heim and the women`s immediate needs. Together through workshops and seminars, we educate ourselves to become peers for those who come after us and develop perspectives to improve our already difficult living situation.
Through our peer education, we have managed to encourage and help several refugee women not only to demand for their rights but to organise themselves in their different areas nationalwide to become loud and bring out the problems they are facing during the asly procedure to the public. We develop perspectives to fight for our rights in the asylum procedure and to defend ourselves against sexualised violence, discrimination, and exclusion.
Throughout the years we have built different local and national wide networks and together we plan campaigns and political actions, such as our raft tour in 2014 and several bus national wide bus tours. We demonstrate, give interviews to the media and speeches in meetings to let society know of the problems faced by refugee women and their demands.
Kay Nerstheimer (NPD) has not attracted much attention in the House of Representatives in the past four years. He asked a few crude questions, but otherwise sat quietly in the farthest corner of the parliament with the other factionless members and stared into his laptop. Maybe he was there in order to do online shopping. The NPD MP apparently spends a lot of time doing that. Under his real name “Nerstheimer” he ordered numerous articles and wrote dozens of opinionated product reviews on Amazon. His shop list suggests Nerstheimer might own weapons. Source: taz
Kurdish books seized because of the cover
Customs at Düsseldorf airport have confiscated the complete Arabic-language edition of a scholarly book on Abdullah Ocalan and the Kurdish issue. Since 13 October, 500 copies of the book “Your Freedom and Mine: Abdullah Öcalan and the Kurdish Question in Erdogan’s Turkey” have been confiscated. This happened because of its cover, which features the image of the Kurdish freedom movement’s mastermind Abdullah Öcalan. Criminal proceedings were also initiated against the recipient. However, neither Öcalan’s works nor writings that deal academically with his ideas are banned in Germany. Source: jW
Next attack on the pension
Time and again, representatives of employers’ associations in particular, but also politicians and experts, call for raising the so-called standard retirement age. The age limit has been raised in monthly steps since 2012. This is rejected by trade unions, which have already protested against the pension at 67. DGB executive member Anja Piel called such demands unacceptable and warned against it. “Already today, many workers leave the labour force prematurely due to illness and have to accept considerable pension reductions,” Piel explained. Also, Hans-Jürgen Urban, member of the IG Metall executive board, considers that those who demand longer working lives must also improve working conditions. Source: nd
Real estate industry donates to the CDU
In December, business associations and individuals donated large sums to political parties. The CDU collected the most money this way, a total of 1.1 million euros in 2020 – more than twice as much as in the previous year. Other parties such as the CSU also received large donations. However, transparency in party donations remains poor in Germany. Parties only have to report individual donations over 50,000 euros immediately to the president of the Bundestag, who publishes the details “promptly”. Transparency Deutschland recently called for lower publication thresholds and a cap on party donations, stricter rules on sponsorship, and the timely publication of accountability reports. Source: nd
Ruling Coalition refuses to accept refugees
The German government considers it is doing enough for refugees stuck in Bosnian camps. However, according to the Federal Ministry of the Interior, there are no plans to bring migrants without shelter from there to Germany. About a week ago, the Lipa camp in the border area with Croatia burnt down and a relocation of the people to an old barracks failed. The EU said it would provide another 3.5 million euros to the Balkan state to better house refugees. SPD politicians showed themselves open to taking over protection seekers. Representatives of the CDU/CSU rejected these ideas. Source: nd
AfD parliamentarians regularly disrupt the Bundestag
German lawmakers were disciplined more times in the current parliamentary session than in the previous four combined. Debates in the Bundestag had usually a reputation for being a bit boring, but this has slightly changed with the arrival of the AfD party. According to the Augsburger Allgemeine, most of reprimands in the Bundestag were directed towards members of the populist party. A major cause for disturbance in 2020 has been the failure to wear a mask while coming in the parliamentary hall. However, it was not just the AfD who needed to be reminded about Corona measures, but also members from the SPD and CDU. Source: dw
NEWS FROM BERLIN
Berlin schools massively resist planned partial opening
Berlin school classes are to partially return to face-to-face teaching as early as January – this is meeting widespread resistance. Criticism comes from pupils, parents and the teachers’ union. According to the Senate’s decision, the relevant classes for the final examinations will then be re-taught in schools with half the number of students. One week later, attendance classes will also be held in primary schools on an hourly basis. A complete return to face-to-face teaching is planned for mid-February. But there are general complaints of lack of proper planning. Furthermore, digitalisation in Berlin’s schools must also be tackled as quickly as possible. Source: rbb
The muffling of Steve Bell
The British Guardian newspaper has sacked their long-standing cartoonist. Is this because of antisemitism or part of the paper’s general move to the right? And what does this mean for satire in the UK?
Steve Bell (1951-) is probably one of the best known political cartoonists of the day in the English speaking world. No doubt conservatives, Tories and right wingers detest him for many reasons. But for those of a liberal or leftist bent, catching his cartoons in the paper ‘The Guardian’ was not to be missed.
After working for that paper for forty years, he has been dismissed. Several papers including the right wing paper the ‘Sun’ and ‘The Jewish Chronicle” [1] say this is because of alleged racist and antisemitic views. What are the charges laid at Bell? And how did British satire start? Are Bell’s ‘transgressions’ new to the genre of newspaper cartooning? Finally can distinctions be drawn between ‘acceptable’ and ‘unacceptable’ satire – how does this interact with the hoary question of ‘free speech’.
Are the charges of Antisemitism and racism against Bell justified?
To make it more tangible, let us start with some of the cartoons. First – here is the most recent one we will consider – the sanctimonious Labour Leader Sir Keir Starmer proffering Jeremy Corbyn’s head on a platter – like the bewitching Salome offering up the head of John the Baptist. [2]
It is alleged that this is antisemitic. It has been linked with several previous cartoons by Bell. For example, one showing the Israeli PM Netanyahu as a puppeteer controlling British political leaders William Hague and Tony Blair; but also this one more recently. In a cartoon that was blocked by the Guardian: [3] Netanyahu is shown meeting with Theresa May while in the fireplace is a burning Palestinian – Ms Razan Najjar. She was a 21 year old medic in Gaza who was shot and killed by an Israeli soldier on June 4 – a few days before the meeting.
Let us move to another topic – the alleged ‘racist and anti-Indian’ bias of Steve Bell. So where does this come from? Many a decent British person finds Priti Patel (Secretary of State for the Home Department since 2019) to be a hypocritical, grasping, self-serving and brutal person. Presumably Bell also finds her distasteful and is outraged by her.
He zeroes in on the many charges of bullying she faced – where she was identified as a bully. Boris Johnson rejected the findings of a November 2020, Cabinet Office inquiry which found that sources identified “strong evidence of bullying” and that Patel had breached the ministerial code following allegations of bullying in the three government departments in which she had served. [4] Bell depicts her – and her ‘boss’ – the Prime Minister – who has ‘complete confidence in her’? as a pair of bulls.
The cartoon by Steve Bell in the Guardian, featuring bovine caricatures of the home secretary and the prime minister, was a satirical take on the recent bullying controversy in which Boris Johnson threw his weight behind Patel, saying she was doing “an outstanding job”. The artwork, however, provoked derision and disillusionment among twitteratti.
Bell was immediately attacked by a section of the Indians resident and brought up in Britain who side with the most extreme conservative viewpoints who adore Mrs. Thatcher. The ‘India Weekly’ notes that the former Chancellor Sajid Javid – was quick to label this cartoon below as both anti-Hindu and antisemitic. Javid tweeted: “Reminiscent of anti-Semitic cartoons from the last century. Incredibly offensive. @guardian should know better.” [5]
The India Weekly article goes on to speak of the ‘British Tamil Conservatives who said: “This cartoon is offensive on every level. – It’s anti-Hindu. It portrays the Home Secretary, of Hindu origin as a cow. A sacred symbol for Hindus. – Its racist and – misogynist. It’s plainly unacceptable! It may constitute a hate crime.” [5]
It is worth saying that Bell is known to lambast both Left and Right wing politicians. For example he has also attacked Jeremy Corbyn. [7] But there is a broader question here.
I submit that the boundary between ‘tasteful’ and ‘distasteful’ satire – and whether it should or should not be supported, can be subject to some tests. While we leave the detailing till lower down, one is the matter of ‘how close to truth’ is the cartoon? Is it for example true that Starmer made an example of Corbyn to decapitate left-wingers in the party? Is it true that Mrs. May in meeting Netanyahu ignored and further silenced Palestinians? Is it true that Patel was-is a ‘bull-y’?
By the way although this article is not about Priti Patel, I should say that I was bought up as a pretty devout Hindu. I only see her personal attributes displayed in that article unlike the British Tamil Association. Furthermore, the identity of ‘India’ with ‘Hinduism’ is a deliberate trope that also tends to sideline as unimportant, attacks on the Muslim population of India.
What is satire and political cartooning? What marks out a great cartoonist?
If she or he has a function, the political cartoonist aims to highlight hypocrisy and complacency, and criticize political viewpoints. It should be asked – is Bell’s modus operandi any different from the great inventors of political satire? This started early in the days of print, but perhaps its modern day origin can be found in the cartoons of James Gilray (1756-1810).
Gilray was the brilliant artist and savagely funny printmaker of the 18th century – who was frequently at the fore of commentary on current events. Some of his depictions are at these references. [7] He was not shy of attacking prominent people such as William Pitt the Younger (1759-1806) who was Prime Minister in two ministries from 1783 onward.
Here is Gilray showing Pitt as ‘Midas, Transmuting All into Paper‘, published in 1797. Pitt is shown both vomiting bank notes and shitting money into the Bank of England. [8]
Nowadays, Gilray is venerated as a great political commentator, whose works are in the National Portrait Gallery. I would bet that many of the Guardian’s own leadership, and many of the leaders of the Tory party – have their own personal copies of Gilray and others’ prints on their walls. What is new now therefore? Before I suggest an approach to the issues at heart, a prior example might put this into perspective.
Is there an abstract freedom of speech or an absolute freedom of the press?
No doubt there is at times a jostling at the margins of ‘bad taste’. No doubt some will argue that the Left criticised the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, and here the left is arguing for freedom of speech for Bell. But there is no vacuum in which ‘freedom of speech’ lives. I emphasise that I condemn the individual terrorist attacks on Charlie Hebdo cartoonists and journalists and teachers. Unquestionably.
However I think ‘Charlie Hebdo’ should be located within its own racist space. This is not an article on Charlie Hebdo, but we will only remind readers of excellent prior reports. These show the undoubtedly background context:
“Islamophobia has continued unabated in France. The summer of 2016 witnessed yet another assault on female Muslim dress codes, this time a burkini ban imposed by thirty Mediterranean municipalities, and endorsed by Socialist prime minister Manuel Valls. Shocking images of armed police ordering a Muslim woman to strip on a public beach did not appear to register with Charlie, whose front page response appeared to add insult to injury: Muslims were jokingly urged to “loosen up” and take to the beaches naked.
A further measure of how far Charlie has slipped in its sense of humor, let alone knowing leftist provocation, was seen in September when, following the devastating earthquake in central Italy, victims’ bodies were cast as various forms of twisted pasta covered in tomato sauce. When this tactless caricature was roundly condemned in Italy, artist Coco followed with the brainless chauvinistic riposte that “It wasn’t Charlie Hebdo that built your [ramshackle] houses, it was the mafia.” [9]
I do just want to say, that it was Lenin who was quite explicit about the ‘freedom of the press’ being a myth under capitalism:
“For the bourgeoisie, freedom of the press meant freedom for the rich to publish and for the capitalists to control the newspapers, a practice which in all countries, including even the freest, produced a corrupt press. For the workers’ and peasants’ government, freedom of the press means liberation of the press from capitalist oppression, and public ownership of paper mills and printing presses; equal right for public groups of a certain size (say, numbering 10,000) to a fair share of newsprint stocks and a corresponding quantity of printers’ labour.” [10]
How can we distinguish between warranted satire and un-warranted satrie?
So how in this cacophony of disagreeing voices can all this be resolved? I have already suggested one pointer – an approximation of ‘what is true? Is there a relationship to truth’? On this ground, can a contrast can be made between the overall stance of ‘Charlie Hebdo’ with its closeness to anti-Muslim – and Bell’s depiction of Starmer’s attack on the left wing of the Labour Party?
Are there other criteria – if any can help us?
This is fleshed out by Will Self, a professor of Modern Thought at Brunel University London. In a seminal discussion with Martin Rowson (another Guardian cartoonist) both agree that there is no ‘absolute right of free speech’. But then Self goes on to enumerate the questions to ask when assessing more analytically, ‘what purports to be satire.
“Who is it that the purported satire attacking? Is it attacking those in power? And if so, is it giving comfort in some way to those are assaulted by the people in power?” [11] You always have to ask, with something that purports to be satire, who’s it attacking? Are they people who are in a position of power? And, if it’s attacking people in a position of power, is it giving comfort to people who are powerless and who are assaulted, in some sense, by those powerful people?”
The Charlie Hebdo cartoons did not, he argued in that interview, meet any of these criteria for satire. Self had also written two days after the Paris attack that:
“The memorial issue of Charlie Hebdo will have a print run of 1,000,000 copies, financed by the French government; so now the satirists have been co-opted by the state, precisely the institution you might’ve thought they should never cease from attacking. But the question needs to be asked: Were the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo really satirists, if by satire is meant the deployment of humor, ridicule, sarcasm, and irony in order to achieve moral reform?” [12]
Conclusion
To my eye – Bell is being muffled in synchrony to the warping of debates in Britain. This does not augur well for the real – true free speech – that challenges the status quo. The shrills calling out this is racist – are themselves the pot that calls the kettle black.
We are in the midst of a global shortage of supplies of covid-19 vaccines. We are reliving the saga that happened early in the pandemic around access to PPE, where each country fought for its own patch. Getting the vaccine doses we require for South African health care workers is the most we can hope for in the coming weeks. Obtaining anything more within the next six months will be almost impossible for the majority of countries in the global South that did not, or were unable to, make pre-orders or payment commitments. South Africa might just possibly be the exception.
Understanding why we have got to the place where access to life saving vaccines is out of reach to billions of people bears some scrutiny. But perhaps it would be relevant to start with some comments on the role that vaccines have played in bolstering public health systems. The echo of denialism around their importance is prevalent across society, infecting even some in government and, judging by the recent comments by Professor Barry Schoub in the Daily Maverick, some members of the Medical Advisory Council too. Prof Barry Schoub says that vaccines are not a silver bullet. Nobody is arguing that they are. But herd protection rather than herd immunity for the global population is not only possible but particularly urgent given the emergence of new variant strains that are significantly more transmissible. Whether the South African strain creates more severe disease is still to be determined by our scientists. What we do know is that before the advent of the new variant it was estimated by studies cited by OXFAM that equal access globally to Covid vaccines can save 50% of all anticipated deaths.
We are facing a global threat in the league of the climate crisis, if you like, an early warning system of ecological breakdown. And like with the climate crisis, only solutions that are global can provide the protection needed to save lives. This requires a high degree of international burden sharing, solidarity and cooperation. This I believe is the emerging consensus by leading public health officials around the world. Herd protection without a wide vaccination rollout in South Africa would only be possible if we closed all our borders for the next few years. This is not an option for many reasons, not least the utter lack of humanity involved in shutting out people from bordering nations who are also victims to unequal access to drugs and treatment. In this sense, I would argue we need a regional plan that puts vaccine acquisition and rollout front and centre and brings all those to the table who have the experience and expertise to make this happen, within the shortest possible time frame.
The argument for vaccines
Vaccines of one form or another emerged early on in the development of natural sciences. Only in one instance has a vaccine completely eradicated a disease, Smallpox, which claimed hundreds of millions of lives. That said, they have largely controlled many other diseases worldwide, Rubella ‘German Measles’, Polio, Hepatitis A and B, Influenza. The list is long and the reach of vaccine technology has been global.
Vaccine research and development began to take off in the late 1800 and early 1900s, with major outbreaks of disease wrought by squalid housing conditions in the advent of industrialisation. It then leapfrogged further in the post WW1 period, in the wake of the devastation of the Spanish Flu. In the post WW2 period, the charge was led primarily by the United States, followed closely by Northern Europe. Nation states that had the capacity manufactured vaccines for diseases that presented a global health threat and did so in cooperation with each other.
But by the 1980s things began to change. Neo-liberalism saw the outsourcing of such vaccine research, development and production to big pharmaceutical companies, whose massive profit levels resulted in perhaps the strongest political lobbying power worldwide, a lobby designed primarily to protect the patents they registered. TRIPs, ‘Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits’ is one outcome of this lobby (the proposed Waiver to this can be found here).
Consequently, one and half million people die annually because of lack of access to vaccines, while tens of millions of children still do not have access to immunisation. And yet, as recently as 2017, Low to Middle Income Countries accounted for 79% of the global market vaccine sales volume, and yet only 20% of the actual total value. Effectively, despite the level of need, we simply do not present a profitable enough market to drive the investment and production required. The reasons may seem obvious given the high price demanded for many vaccines, but it is not.
Mike Davis has shown that big pharma largely only enters into vaccines and therapeutic treatment research and development [R&D] for diseases that are either more prevalent in richer countries, and/or require repetitive treatment. These medicines are often very expensive and limited to those with private health care, or to those public sector hospitals where nation states can afford the stock. Davis concludes that big pharma, in this context, has acted to put the brakes on the revolutionary bio-medical technological advances within society’s reach. Into the breach have stepped the universities, the National Health Institutes and Centres for Disease Control. These have pioneered medical R&D, perhaps most prominently within the US. Yet while biomedical R&D at universities has been partially funded by medical corporations, this is not the case for research capacity within the state.
State funding for medical research around infectious disease has been eroded drastically over the past decades, and in terms of pandemic preparedness programmes in the US, have been sliced to the bone by Donald Trump. It’s time to jettison the rhetoric on incentivising innovation when it comes to medicine. Big pharma has largely been relegated to the supply and distribution of vaccines and treatments required globally. Much intellectual property developed for tropical disease, for instance, has been developed on the back of public investment*. This tendency is nowhere more clear than the Covid 19 vaccines which have seen all the major candidates recently approved, de-risked almost entirely by the initial massive investment by the American and European tax payer.
Public Private Partnerships and philanthropy, while they have proven critically important in the battle against HIV, are wholly insufficient to contain global pandemics such as Covid 19. That is not to say that we don’t require all of everyone to roll out plans that have the ability to succeed. This is particularly important in a context such as ours, where the state lacks capacity, and displays pride and arrogance. What we need is humility and an admission that our political leaders do not have the capacity to deal with this crisis. Genuine participation by all those who have something to offer must be built into our state led response immediately.
The public cost of patents
By the end of 2020, the confirmed global Covid-19 death toll sat at over 1.8 million people; while most speculate that sadly, the real number sits far higher. Fortunately given our robust reporting system, in South Africa we have no such need to speculate; many countries, including other members such as BRICS, do not have systems comparative to our own*.
South Africa’s own death toll, from 6 May to 8 December 2020, is estimated to have stood at 60, 000, when one takes into account excess deaths. The emergence of the new variant that is far more transmissible will undoubtedly continue to overwhelm our health service. My own estimate, given the combination of higher infection rates and a collapsing health care service, is that this will likely set to double, possibly treble, the death toll we have experienced in 2020. This is based on the assumption that we do not get a vaccine roll out that covers at least 50% of the population by June or July this year.
This grim situation could very well get worse if our health care workers, and most vulnerable, do not receive any protection in the coming weeks – or certainly within the first quarter of this year.Phase 1 of the government plan to roll out vaccines, designed to protect health care workers, seems possible and likely to happen if the government responds with urgency and vigour. Yet even this limited roll out will require involvement of all those with expertise, direct interest and good will to shape the plan, so we can ensure that the state-led roll out with the huge logistics involved happens as efficiently and rapidly as possible.
The major and more difficult task of protecting essential workers, those over 60, the millions with co-morbidities, demanding tens of millions of doses, is physically near impossible to meet within the current constraints. It is simply out of reach for most of the world at present.
In response to the global health crisis now facing our country, the Treatment Action Campaign, Section 27 and others, relaunched the 20 year old campaign to Fix the Patent Laws in mid 2020. Success would ensure that we would not have to undergo a replay of the long and bitter campaign to get access to ARVs that saw hundreds of thousands of lives unnecessarily lost in the 1990s and 2000s. The ultimate argument of the campaign is that South Africa needs to adjust its patent laws to the South African Constitution, which provides the right to health.
The logical force of the patent campaign has undoubtedly helped to inform South Africa’s joint motion with India that calls for a waiver on the TRIPS agreement to the World Trade Organisation. In short, this would allow for the sharing of IP around Covid 19 vaccines. The motion has the support of 140 countries but is being opposed by a club of nations that continue to rule the world and are accompanied by allies such as Brazil’s Bolsanaro. Resolution seems unlikely.
At present, all that’s been brought to the table from AstraZeneca for Brazil and India are preferential price deals for the manufacture of vaccines. Pfizer’s CEO has also offered to enter into such deals and apparently has, some months ago now, offered discounted prices to South Africa. Curevac, another front runner in vaccine production, is exploring a deal with South African born and raised Elon Musk to establish mini factories around the world to produce their vaccine.
We need to meet global demand in a rational and equitable rollout in early 2021. To do so we require nothing less than manufacturing and supply to be massively expanded to all those countries that have the capacity to undertake such a task. South Africa unfortunately does not have the capacity to manufacture COVID vaccines, despite a public private partnership established over 20 years ago, a story in its own right. Covid will linger for years to come and therefore it would be expedient for us to develop this wasted capacity rapidly.
Resolution of the supply question that is being battled out at the World Trade Organisation in terms of the TRIPS waiver will need to be rapidly assessed. Countries like ours have the moral right as embedded in our Constitution to protect the right to health and life itself. It will become clear in the next few days and weeks whether this requires our country to issue compulsory government licenses to force the sharing of IP.
I am informed that the Johnson and Johnson deal is still on the table and being negotiated, their application has been or but that final local regulatory approval may very well take another month or so. If this is so, then there may be some hope on the near horizon.
We have to start planning for this contingency. A rollout plan that involves key players from across civil society, including distribution logistics from the private sector, needs to begin as of yesterday. It will need to be stress tested and bulletproofed if we are to stand any chance of finishing all three phases of the planned roll out of vaccinations by 2021.
We cannot leave this fight for access and genuine participation in the vaccine rollout to the health NGOs, social justice organisations and the likes of Oxfam or MSF alone. All our trade unions, democratically run civic organisations, churches and political parties have a huge responsibility to stand up now and be counted at this moment of need for our country and indeed the majority of the world’s population. In such a battle, local and international solidarity will be key to any victory.
An extraordinary effort is required on all moral and political fronts, by the South African government working hand in hand with its citizens. Our efforts to ensure IP is shared will require the active support of many millions around the world if we are to achieve some degree of success in 2021. But first we need to get the government and others to actively support the call for vaccines to be seen as a public good – outside of the polite setting of the World Trade Organisation – and this requires nothing less than significant pressure from those quarters of our society that have organised constituencies. Efforts are underway, but there is a long way to go.
Rehad Desai is a Honorary Research Fellow at the University of Johannesburg, a Johannesburg based filmmaker making a documentary at present called the Time of the Pandemics. He is also the convenor for C19 Peoples’ Coalition in Gauteng. This article is written in his personal capacity. This article first appeared in the Daily Maverick in South Africa.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.OkNoPrivacy policy