The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Category: Uncategorised

MAGA Insurrectionists

Trump rioters overtake the US Capitol building and there are many more questions than answers. Here are three.


10/01/2021

We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.

Donald Trump at “Save America” rally, January 6th 2021

As you probably know by now, a large group of militant Trump supporters and Qanon enthusiasts stalked Capitol Hill January 6th following a pre-announced Trump rally calling for election results to be overturned. Following the speech, the MAGA insurrectionists then occupied Congress, doing various activities. These included livestreaming from the office of the Speaker of the House, wrecking government property, smoking weed and fighting with police with lead pipes and pepper spray – one was bludgeoned by rioters and died in the hospital. Some brought zip-tie handcuffs and pepper spray, others erected a gallows. Protesters wandered the Capitol chanting “Hang Mike Pence!” One woman died after being shot by police, three others died from medical problems. By evening, police forces had regained control of the building and Congress reconvened to confirm the outcome of the election.

Those are the basics. There is still a huge amount of information we do not know, but I want to zero in on the three things that stuck out to me on the day of as especially odd, in a day of considerable weirdness. These are the questions I will be following up on and I think they are, as self-help guru Maria Forleo says, “figureoutable”.

What was going on with the police?

The world watched in disbelief January 6th as largely unarmed protesters overtook one of the most important (and heavily guarded) buildings in the country with seemingly little resistance from law enforcement. The number one question that must be answered is why security forces were so ill-prepared for an event that was announced as a violent revolution weeks in advance on both the anonymous web as well as openly on facebook and twitter. There are some things we know and a few we don’t.

The first thing to know is that Washington, DC is not a state. It is a federal district, with no senators but with a Mayor (Muriel Bowser) whose power is unusually limited because of the city’s special status. For instance, she cannot call on District of Columbia National Guard troops without executive branch approval, an issue that became highly relevent yesterday.

The Mayor has even less authority over the Capitol Complex containing the White House, Congress and other federal buildings. This is a special federal zone with its own police force, the U.S. Capitol Police, which has exclusive jurisdiction over the area and operates totally separately from the DC Police (The Metropolitan Police Department or MPD). Both rally and insurrection both took place on Capitol Police territory, and the Capitol Police reportedly did not ask for backup, from Mayor Bowser and the MPD until the Capitol building had already been breached.

According to anonymous sources, the U.S. Capitol Police deliberately pre-planned a small presence for the day of Trump’s rally in order to avoid the criticism they faced over the summer for their reactions to BLM protests. But its plainly ludicrous to think the police were worried about criticism from anti-racists given their tactics in the last years, and moreover that their response to that worry would be to allow racist protesters to flood the Capitol waving confederate flags. The Department of Defense (a part of the Executive branch under President Trump) also declined to offer federal protection for DC, according to officials, “to avoid the optics of having any U.S. military personnel on the steps of the U.S. Capitol.”

It’s safe to venture that the “optics” ended up slightly worse without them.

Thus, we see that there were security complications in advance of the 6th, mainly related to two issues:

  • The overlapping complexities of law enforcement in the District of Colombia related to its non-state status
  • The fact that the president was the only person who could protect the district from the actions of his own supporters.

We would not expect both of these issues to typically overlap. It’s hard to think of a time when the Capitol Police would be tasked with protecting presidential supporters at his rally in the morning and then protecting DC from the exact same people in the afternoon.

But even taking into consideration the possibility that some failures were caused by the unusual and awkward situation, images and video have emerged documenting the actions of the police. These raise serious questions. While in some cases videos show protesters violently breaching barricades, in others the police appear to open gates to allow them through. A video from Insider shows protesters flooding as police stand aside, but tell a member of the press that she’s not allowed in.

Other documentation, like above from Timothy Burke, shows officers taking selfies with rioters after having entered the congressional building. On exiting the Capitol, one of the rioters told CNN that cops had wished him a good night on his way out, adding, “you could see some of them were on our side.”

And although Bowser instituted a district-wide curfew for 6pm, footage from multiple news stations showed protesters milling around unperturbed on Capitol Hill well into the evening, as police stood by watching. At a press conference today with Bowser, it was announced that a total of 13 arrests had been made for unlawful entry into the Capitol- not one of which was made prior to 6pm, well after all rioters had left the building.

There is clearly something strange going on with the actions of at least some of the Capitol Police, and an investigation is imminent, despite the resignation of the Chief. We have already learned that multiple rioters were former or current military or police, including one current police chief. But we don’t know whether the people guarding the Capitol against the rioters in some cases had right-wing ties. Given what we know about right-wing infiltration of law enforcement, and what we saw unfolding yesterday before our eyes, we must unfortunately ask the same question haunting police forces in other countries threatened by the far-right – was yesterday’s failure gross negligence or in some cases, complicity?

Why did Trump record his “we love you” video on the lawn?

The second thing I would like to figure out is why the president recorded a video on the lawn of the White House and posted it to twitter.

Immediately following a press conference by Joe Biden in which he called on the president to go on national TV and denounce the violence unfolding at the Capitol, Trump released a short pre-recorded video on twitter (it has since been removed from twitter and facebook but is, for now, still on Youtube.)

https://youtu.be/2AeI6Mv0ALg

Obviously, this is a deeply weird video. The president reassures protesters that their grievances are valid, saying “there’s never been a thing like this, where they could take it away from all of us, from me, from you, from our country”, telling them, “we love you, you’re very special,” (words Don Jr. has been waiting to hear his whole life).

But the bizarreness of this now-banned video is compounded by the circumstances. As President, obviously, Trump would be entitled to call a press conference to address events of national significance. He could have broken into coverage on every primetime network with a presidential adresss from the Oval Office. He could have at least arranged a podium or something. Instead, we get this strange informal video, like a former Bachelor contestant announcing her divorce on Instagram stories.

It may seem like a small detail from the day’s events, but it speaks to the chaotic atmosphere in the White House that this seemingly spontaneous video was not coordinated by a team; nor was it orchestrated with any of the trappings or visual reminders of presidential power during such an unprecedented day. Did Trump even tell the White House press team of his intentions or did he just grab an intern and head out to the lawn before pressing send? Was there even anyone else around to try to dissuade him?

The next day we saw him issue a video of a completely different tone, in which condemned the violence while reading from a teleprompter at a podium surrounded by flags. Very shortly thereafter, he once again tweeted incendiary comments to his supporters that led him to be permanently banned by twitter.

Whether – and at what points – Trump has anyone left to restrain his worst impulses is important, given his proven power to rouse a segment of his base to violent extremism. Finding out the situation surrounding the decision to post these video should offer some insight into just what is going on in the White House.

Why did Pence have the authority to call on the national guard?

As events unfolded on the 6th and images of MAGA insurrectionists in fur frolicking through the Capitol were freaking out the world, the lack of support by the National Guard became increasingly questionable. Eventually they were approved, not by the commander-in-chief, but by Vice President Pence. CNN reported that Trump hadn’t even been in contact with the loyalist Defense Secretary he installed less than a month ago:

As the chaos unfolded, doubts were raised about whether Trump would order the DC National Guard to respond due to the slowness of the response. Public statements by acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller and other top officials suggested it was Pence who ultimately approved the decision. Miller’s statement Wednesday seems to indicate he did not even speak with Trump, discussing the matter with his deputy instead.

The fact that various government officials apparently decided ad hoc to just skip over the chain of command in order to rally federal backup for Capitol Police raises additional questions about what was going on behind the scenes that day with Trump. Was there a conflict, with Trump denying federal troops a chance to intervene? Or was he just unreachable and raving? If there were to be (another) national security threat, who would be making decisions right now – Trump or Pence? And if Pence is acting commander-in-chief because of something going on with Trump, why isn’t anyone saying so?

It seems in all likelihood that officials fudged their chain-of-command obligations out of frustration and disgust with the President, who not only failed to act but appeared to encourage his “very special” protesters – which is understandable. But if key government officials no longer consider the president worth consulting as commander-in-chief, it seems like something the rest of us should know, as Congress mulls impeaching or removing the president under the 25th amendment. As it stands, we’ve heard nothing from the White House in several days.

At this point, although it’s a relief to not see the President tweeting out praise to an insurrectionist mob, the silence is also unsettling.

This is an updated excerpt from Tina’s occasional free newsletter on the far-right, Opportunists, Charlatans, and…. To sign up, visit tina.substack.com.

Resist Corporate takeover of Indian Agriculture!

On Saturday, 9th January at 12 noon, Berlin for India will be demonstrating in solidarity with protesting farmers. This is their call to action


08/01/2021

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

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?


07/01/2021

Why are we talking about Steve Bell today?

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.

 

Footnotes

1 Lee Harpin, Controversial cartoonist Steve Bell to leave the Guardian, Jewish Chronicle London, July 17, 2020

2 Mathilde Frot, Steve Bell cartoon of Starmer and Corbyn draws claims of ‘antisemitism’. Jewish Chronicle’London October 30, 2020

3 Rosa Doherty, Guardian cartoonist Steve Bell denies rejected cartoon was antisemitic Jewish chronicle London June 7, 2018

4 Rajeev Syal and Heather Stewart, Bullying Inquiry ‘found evidence Priti Patel broke ministerial code The Guardian London; 19 November 2020;

5 Guardian cartoon by Steven Bell of March 8, 2020. ‘India Weekly, March 9, 2020

6 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2020/nov/23/steve-bells-if-jeremy-corbyn-begs-keir-starmer-to-give-him-the-whip

7 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfVUQ1E1V_c or https://www.npg.org.uk/index.php?id=3160

8 Midas, transmuting all, into paper by James Gillray, 1797, National Portarit Gallery, at
Reference Collection; NPG D12603

9 Manus Mcgrogan Charlie Hebdo: The Poverty of Satire Jacobin, 7 January 2015.

10 Lenin, Draft Resolution On Freedom Of The Press November 7, 1932; Lenin’s Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, Volume 26, 1972

11 Interview with Rowson and Self on Channel 4 TV in 2015; at minute 3’15”.

12 Self, Will, 2015, ,The Charlie Hebdo Attack and the Awkward Truths About Our Fetish for ‘Free Speech’ Vice (9 January),

How can we get the Covid vaccine and rollout plan we require?

The urgent need for national organising and international solidarity in the fight against vaccine patent laws. A view from South Africa.


06/01/2021

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.

Time to condemn the men

Jacinta Nandi and Nadia Shehadeh in conversation about mums, marriage and men. About how housework would be ok if it weren’t for the lazy man in the background. And why cleaning the house is a bit like sex work


03/01/2021

JN: Nadia, I was so happy when you told me you loved my book, “Die Schlechteste Hausfrau der Welt”, – and a little bit surprised, too, if I’m honest. Like, of course, I thought EVERYONE would enjoy my book – I wouldn’t have written it otherwise! But I thought it would appeal more to mums than childless women. So, go on, at the risk of sounding like I’m fishing for compliments – what did you like about it?

NS: Well, I think there’s two reasons I loved your book, basically. First of all, I have younger siblings I had to take care of a lot. My youngest sister is nine years younger than me and I practically raised her together with my mum. And the second reason is because I’ve lived together with men! And I often had the feeling that living with cis-males is a bit like having a child.

You know, I moved in with my first boyfriend when I was just 20 years old. Almost 10 years of being exhausted followed. I think this experience was the reason that I decided not to have kids to be honest!

JN: You know, I think it is so weird. We make out like married women are so happy. Like all their dreams came true? At the end of every romantic film, romantic novel, is the woman achieves everything she can possibly dream of: marriage to a rich, Nice Guy. But I just don’t see it. I think the happiest, luckiest, married woman in the world is actually slightly less happy than the unhappiest single mama in the world? Okay, I’m exaggerating a little bit! But the main reasons single mums are unhappy are poverty and stigmatization. When you factor that in, I think single mums are a lot happier than most married women.

NS: It is totally weird, isn`t it? When it comes to mental load and care-work, I’d still say it’s a lot easier when you are single. Even when you divide all the work in the household, there is still one person who has to have a plan. And from a sociological view, I would say most of the work is done by the person with the most competence. And when it comes to reality, it is so often the women who have more skills.

JN: But women have more skills at all this stuff – the mental load, remembering doctors’ appointments, ironing sheets, buying Christmas presents – because they have to. Right? Because men just check out, emotionally speaking. You know, it’s totally true what you say about cis-men. They’re just like an extra kid at the best of times – and at the worst of times, they’re really fucking shitty to you.

You know, I really piss my friends off, my single girlfriends, who are, like nearing the end of their fertility days. Because I’m just like – in non-corona times, obviously – I’m just like: go to some club, pretend you’re on the pill, get the best-looking guy there to come inside you and have a fucking baby on your own. And they’re all like: Oh, I couldn’t do it on my own! But I genuinely think, a woman who isn’t prepared to be a single mother shouldn’t imagine she’s prepared to be a mum at all. Because those supportive partners? They become a lot less supportive once the babies are born!

NS: I can totally imagine that. I mean, even in Germany, I see so many progressive feminist women praising their partners for basic human behaviour.

JN:To be honest, I think progressive German men are even more lazy than slightly sexist British men. They’ve done a really good Milchmädchenrechnung – rubbish Maths – which is that men and women are equal now – which they are not – so they should be earning the same – which they are not – so the lazy German men just go, oh, you earn less than me, I contribute, say, 40% more of the rent. But we are equal so you need to do 40% more housework. It’s perverse, to be honest.

NS: I’d agree with that 100%! And, you know, I think in heterosexual relationships, the women always work more. And when it’s said that there’s 50:50 in the relationship, that is certainly not true. Maybe they feel like they have the 50:50-stuff, but I am sure that it is just not true.

JN: Single mothers are just so invisible in our society. Everyone acts like they don’t exist. Like all the left-wing child hating stuff. All those left-wing Germans who act like they hate children because the family is so bourgeois, right? What about single mothers? They assume every time they tut when a kid is being loud in the U-Bahn, there’s a dad at home, but there really fucking isn’t, half the time.

NS: Yeah, well, I think there is a lot of Kinderhass [hatred of children] in general, and also linker Kinderhass. And especially, actually, when it comes to the women who are single parents. Maybe it is a mixture of neoliberal and misogynist tendencies.

JN: But the cool lefties who hate kids are not thinking of single mothers, huh? They think, when they see kids on the train or whatever, or at the beach, that those kids are a symbol or of bourgeois conformity.

NS: Well, I think, whether you’re a leftist or not, hating children is an important part of neoliberal society. Right? Children are a reminder, an unwanted reminder, that there’s still this necessity to be responsible for someone, to care for someone.

And I mean, in this pandemic we have seen, that in all the discourses there was so much emphasis of “individual choices”…

JN: Personal responsibility, Eigenverantwortung.

NS: Yes, absolutely. Like: stay at home, don’t do this or that, beware of too many contacts, and so on.And I think it’s somehow comparable with this Kinderhass. Kinderhass is something that goes hand in hand with white and neoliberal thoughts. I think people are afraid that if you have children, you stop being an individual. A kind of Muttertier.

JN: You know, something? I really think women in general, and mothers especially, get attacked for anything and everything they do. If they’re good mothers, they’ve lost themselves, they are too selfless, they’re to blame for their own oppression. They love their kids too much. Helicopter mums! If they enjoy housework, they are stupid, dumb, boring, unliberated. But if they hate motherhood, or hate housework, or just struggle with housework, that’s not okay either, then they are dirty, disgusting… gross. Grotesque, even!

NS: I totally love doing housework. I would be a 100% housewife for myself! I would love it! But I think that it is absolutely miserable to do the work for someone who is not thankful, or, who has no idea of how much work it is.

JN: Yeah, I sometimes think I actually quite enjoy housework, too. I am bad at it. I’m unskilled at it, no good at it. I’m untalented. But I actually enjoy it. I enjoy peeling potatoes, I even enjoy washing up. The bit I don’t like is the lazy man in the background, not helping, or even attacking you, for the work you are doing, which he should be helping you with.

NS: To cook for me, to clean for me, to plan everything for myself: I have no problem with that. I am somehow addicted to a certain bubble of Korean and Japanese Vlogs on YouTube. Single women living alone, and all they film is like how they structure their days with cooking, eating, shopping.

No male partners around, but some have cute pets. This is paradise to me!

And basically, they just film themselves doing the grocery shopping, preparing food, the cleaning of the kitchen. It is in no way spectacular… but so peaceful. And in my opinion also an act of self care. But the self care would of course end with a judging partner on the couch who always has Extrawünsche like a trotziges Kind [spoiled child]!

JN: I’m not sure I even believe in self care to be honest. You get these tired mums writing in Facebook groups, like, “Hello, I have seven kids, am studying full-time, my kids are all home-schooled, I am running three businesses and a home daycare and in my spare time I am redecorating the garage. My partner really needs to relax on the weekends and lie in and enjoy his hobbies. His favourite hobby is his x-box. He just explained to me that he needs more x-box time. I don’t understand why I feel like I hate my children? I look at them and wish they would die. What is wrong with me?”

And the other mums, instead of going, put your lazy arse of a husband in the fucking bin, they go “how’s your self care? Do you get enough self care? What about waking up earlier to meditate? Self care isn’t selfish!” And I just think for fuck’s sake, can’t women be selfish? Why can’t women be selfish? What is wrong with being selfish?

NS: Oh God! Sadly, I am going to have to admit something here: I actually have a morning self care routine which has a cleaning component. I get up, I open the windows, I make the bed, I clean the floor. I CLEAN THE FLOOR. So sad. Isn’t that strange? But I do wonder about this whole self care as duty thing: is it a legacy of our Protestant work ethic? Like almost as if some Victorian daily structure mysteriously survived in German homes?

JN: But it’s the same for American mums, British mums. Mind you, we all had a bit of Protestant work ethic, right?

NS: And the way self care is presented, especially on social media, also belongs in that category for me. It always has to be something that is presentable, beautiful aesthetically. Maybe the best self care is just being home alone, farting on the sofa, having a nap while watching senseless stuff on YouTube?

Or playing June`s Journey on the mobile. I really loved the moments in your book when you wrote about those days when you hang around on the couch and play this quiz on Facebook.

JN: A friend of mine wrote to me recently, she read the bit in the book where I say maybe Netflix is self care, and she said when you watch trashy TV, it releases dopamine in your brain, and it’s relaxing for your brain but not self care. But if you read a book, especially a difficult one, it releases some other hormone – I forget which one now – and it is self care.

Like can that possibly be true? And how does your brain know how hard a book is and when to start releasing which hormone? Like you’re reading Rosamunde Pilcher and it’s letting all the dopamine out but then you switch to Thomas Hardy and your brain is like oh, this is hard, now this is self care, now I release the good hormones?

NS: I don`t know! I have to say, I love Rosamunde. I’ve read quite a few of her books! I learned a lot about cleaning! For example, don`t be afraid to give the wooden table a good scrub! And I think people judge Rosamunde Pilcher`s books for 3 reasons. Number One: the German movies – they kinda killed her legacy, I’m sure! Number Two – she wrote a lot about elderly women.

JN: Yeah, people hate older women, don’t they? Like, they’ll so quickly go from slagging terfs off for being transphobic to slagging them off for being middle-aged?

NS: Yeah. People hate older women. But actually, the third reason people hate her books is that she wrote a lot about household tasks. As if housework is the least important thing in the world.

JN: I just wonder why people hate older women so much?

NS: I don’t know, but it totally seems like they do. I think elderly women sometimes have something witchy about them, and I have the feeling it scares people. The elderly women in Rosamunde Pilcher books have this kind of freedom, they don’t exist for the male sexual desire, and they already did all the women`s work, like raising kids, you know? Most of them are widows, so they have the joy of a clean kitchen table all day.

They exist mainly for themselves, and I have the feeling, a lot of people think this is suspicious.

JN: I mean, I even think that some of the criticism of Fifty Shades of Grey got was actually just people being pissed off that older women, older housewives were getting horny. Like, okay, Christian Grey is rapey. But a lot of books that don’t get slagged off even half as much just use rape as a selling point, right?

NS: I think books are hated when the recipients are not a majority of cis-male readers. My favourite example of this double standard is Frank McCourt’s “Angela’s Ashes” versus and Nuala O`Faolain’s “Are you somebody”. Both are Irish memoirs and they were published more or less in the same time, I think maybe sogar in the same year.

Both sold millions of copies. But just a few people will remember Nuala today, while everybody knows who Frank McCourt is.

JN: There are so many books written by men that would be chicklit if a woman had written them? What’s that stupid one set on the same day each year? It’s super boring.

NS: Absolutely!

JN: Before we go, let’s talk about one of our favourite topics. I could talk about this forever! Can you be a socialist and hire a cleaning lady? Can you be a feminist and hire a cleaning lady? Why or why not?

NS: I mean, first up, being a professional cleaner is a job that requires a lot of skills. I think here in Germany, maybe in most European countries, people have this problem when it comes to having a cleaner in your private home. Most people are totally okay with the fact that offices, factories, etc, need a staff of professional cleaners. But when it comes to the private home, there’s always the idea, that cleaning is so basic that you MUST do it yourself?

JN: I don’t think it’s that people think the cleaning is easy or basic is it? But that the dirt is disgusting.

NS: Yes, exactly!

JN: And there’s this weird idea that the home is sacred? Private and sacred.

NS: Yes. And also that the dirt is sacred! I mean, most people I know have no problem with a cleaner coming for the stairwell when they are living in a house with more than one party.

JN: Why do we say that about washing your dirty linen in public? We say it in German and English, too. If a woman talks about a man having hit her, or raped her, especially if a woman talks about her husband or male partner having raped her, we say: don’t wash your dirty linen in public.

NS: It’s interesting, isn’t it? The cleaners can come to clean the stairwell. But when it comes to the very private rooms, doors stay shut. People have this personal connection to their own dirt, they find it very shameful. I mean, one thing I find interesting, is that people can stand a certain amount of mess, chaos. They would even present it on Social Media. A certain amount of chaos. Like: here, after the holidays, the living room is filled with toys? Maybe a dirty window, maybe the dishes? That might be acceptable!

But not the hairs on the ground or the pee on the toilet seat. And I also have the feeling, that presenting a little bit of charming chaos is a very bourgeois thing. Like, as if it is special when you have a little bit of chaos between your expensive furniture. As if it is edgy. I think if people see chaos between a collection of cheap Möbelboss-furniture, it wouldn`t feel charming to them.

JN: When I am being paranoid, I think it is to do with men’s rights to rape their wives and beat their kids. This obsession with the home as sacred, with dirt as secret. Even this idea that if a woman posts a picture of her kid on social media, she is using her kid as an accessory. Like that’s her life. That’s what women’s lives are. And who benefits from it being taboo to let strangers in to see the dirt? To see the real mess? Abusive men, that’s who.

NS: I can’t say anything to that, really, because I have no kids. But I understand the feeling to show just the beautiful stuff, I think that is the basics of Social Media, and that makes it somehow harder. And what I often see is that women tend to show the family-life, the warmth, all the stuff that they achieved in a “relationshipped” way. In a way most men would never do!

JN: Yeah, you’re right, huh? I mean, I definitely overshare my kids on social media. The older one has even complained. Even made me delete stuff, to be honest. But women present the family, present their families on social media, as if they own them, as if they own their kids. That’s why people accuse them of using the babies as accessories.

But the thing that really pisses people off, is that they think – without ever admitting to themselves that they think this – that men should own their wives, and own their children.

NS: Well, I would not judge mothers for oversharing. Because, I think it’s time to condemn the men!

JN: For not sharing?

NS: Yes, for not sharing. For not showing appreciation. For cold, distanced behaviour in general.

JN: Yeah, mothers wouldn’t have to share so much online – or, like, even in parenting groups – if men were doing their fair share?

NS: Totally asking myself the same question! To be honest, I have learned so many good things from those cleaning and family videos on YouTube, I get so much inspiration! And so often, much, much more than from videos where men stage themselves as political commentators. And I don’t have kids!

JN: What annoys me about people saying a mum taking a photo of a kid climbing a tree or whatever is using the kid as decoration, as an accessory, is that they just don’t get it. Like that IS her life. That kid IS her life. How can we leave mothers and children so alone and then expect them to just, like, be silent?

Like that’s what people want, really. They want women to just silently, and invisibly, do all the work of housework and childrearing. That’s why they say if you are interested in housework, you must be dumb – you should do it without talking about it. If you take a photo of your kid in a tree you are exploiting your kid for likes – you should just sit there at the fucking Spielplatz, empty and still like a fucking robot!

NS: And I think that’s why it was and is always comforting to me to read about housework or to see it in Vlogs. Like: There is someone who does it. Who invests time. Who makes an effort.

I so often felt like: Am I wrong doing so much housework? Am I dirtier than others? Is something wrong with my flat?

Even when I was living alone!

And I so often had a bad conscience when I spent a Saturday with cleaning. Like: Should this flat not be automatically and magically clean and nice all the time?

And when Marie Kondo came, I was so relieved. There was it, visible in a very popcultural moment: To show that it is actually work and you have to invest time and thoughts.

People cannot live with the thought of women being in the internet showing beautiful things, or practical things, or DIY or children! They don`t want to be confronted with that kind of work. And I want to say one last thing about the professional cleaner thing. I find the whole discussion quite similar to the sex work discussion. Sex workers get stigmatized in a totally different way to cleaners, of course, but at the core of the argument, I think there is this thought that women should do certain things for free and for this reason certain professions, certain jobs, can never be proper jobs at all.

Jacinta Nandi’s book Die Schlechteste Hausfrau der Welt is published by Nautilus and available in most German book shops. Nadia Shehadeh can be found on the Shehadistan blog