European COVID-19 vaccination program produces a debacle

Will Morrow

While COVID-19 spreads internationally, increasingly dominated by more contagious variants, the distribution of vaccines in Europe is mired in delays.

The situation is particularly stark in France, where approximately 6 percent of the population have received a single dose, and only half of these the required second doses. In Germany, only 6.6 percent of the population has received a single dose. Three percent or less of the population has been vaccinated in Belgium, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, Italy, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands.

A man wearing a face mask walks past the Corona Center in Duisburg, Germany. (AP Photo/Martin Meissner, File)

In Britain, where vaccination has proceeded significantly further than in Europe as a whole, less than two percent of the population has received the required second dose of their vaccines, while some 23 million people have received a first dose. In comparison, the number of people vaccinated in Israel surpassed 4.9 million this week, more than 50 percent of the population.

The vaccination campaign in Europe has been chaotic from the outset. Governments had no real plan for a coordinated international distribution of a vaccine, while key infrastructure has been undermined by decades of austerity cuts to health systems that financed tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. In Germany, for example, the online portal for booking vaccination appointments for months only allowed users to book a first appointment, for a single dose, providing no means for users to go on a waiting list to be notified when more doses became available.

A major factor in the slow pace of vaccination, at least since the end of January, was the shortage of available doses. After cut-throat negotiations of contracts worth tens of billions of euros with European governments, the giant pharmaceutical corporations failed to supply enough vaccines.

This exposes the bankruptcy of European capitalism. Since last spring, EU and UK authorities have distributed trillions of euros and pounds in bank and corporate bailouts. Stock markets have surged, and individual multi-billionaires like France’s Bernard Arnault have added tens of billions of euros to their personal wealth. Yet there has been no public works program to massively increase vaccine production capacity, produce the infrastructure and equipment needed to distribute them, or increase health budgets. Instead, billions went to the very private corporations reaping profits from the crisis.

There is an urgent need for a global policy of social distancing and mass vaccination. However, it was blocked by corporate profit interests and the national interests of competing capitalist powers. As governments and trade unions herded workers back to work and youth back to school, in a “herd immunity” policy costing hundreds of thousands of lives, the capitalist market produced a debacle.

Last October, the EU, UK and US vetoed requests by India and South Africa to allow the generic manufacturing of a vaccine, which would threaten the interests of European and US corporations and to their ability to use a vaccine monopoly as a diplomatic weapon. For the same reason, they were hostile to international distribution of vaccines manufactured by China and Russia.

In December, Pfizer/BioNTech announced that it would not meet its promised quota of 12.5 million doses to the EU by the end of 2020. It pledged to increase production in Europe, but made clear this would be subject to the outcome of its negotiations with manufacturers in the continent.

In January, Moderna announced supply cuts to both Italy and France of more than 20 percent.

The only other vaccine approved for use by the European Medical Agency, Oxford-AstraZeneca, has announced continual delays and cuts in projected supplies. On February 23, Reuters reported, citing an anonymous EU official, that AstraZeneca will be down on its second-quarter shipments by more than 50 percent, providing 90 million of a pledged 180 million for April to June. On March 6, the Financial Times reported that the EU is seeking access to AstraZeneca vaccines made in the US.

AstraZeneca had been aware of production shortfalls in early January, but only announced at the end of that month that it would deliver 40 million out of 90 million doses for the first quarter. The shortage of available vaccines compelled France to postpone all vaccination appointments in the Île-de-France region for weeks, while Spain also had to push back its campaign.

AstraZeneca’s announcement triggered a bitter nationalist conflict between the EU and the UK. The EU demanded that a portion of the vaccines produced in two UK-based plants be diverted to meet AstraZeneca’s EU commitments, which the British government rejected. For several hours on January 28, the EU announced a ban on vaccine exports to Ireland, stating that they could be used to send vaccines to the UK. It only overturned the decision after Johnson called EU Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen to express “grave concerns” over the action.

The same week, several European countries announced restrictions on the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine, claiming this was motivated by scientific concern over its efficacy. European governments and news publications citing government sources initiated an irresponsible propaganda campaign to undermine trust in the AstraZeneca vaccine.

French President Emmanuel Macron stated on January 29 that “today we think the [AstraZeneca] vaccine is practically inefficient for those aged over 65,” without citing any evidence for this claim. The German daily Handelsblatt cited an unnamed German government source to claim that the “AstraZeneca vaccine apparently has an effectiveness of only 8 percent in the elderly.”

These statements were not based on any scientific fact. The eight percent figure was in fact the portion of participants in the AstraZeneca vaccine trials aged from 56-69. Most participants were aged between 18 and 55, while less than 1,500 were aged over 55, and 450 were aged over 70.

The European Medical Agency had taken note of the relatively low number of elderly trial participants when it approved the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine in January. It stated that because an immune response had been seen in this age group, and based off the experience of other vaccines, a similar effectiveness could be predicted among elderly patients, and that further data should continue to be gathered and analyzed.

The initial analysis of clinical trials of AstraZeneca, based on a regimen of two doses separated by four weeks, estimated it prevented all symptomatic cases with an efficacy of 62 percent. A more recent article published by the Lancet on March 6 claims that this figure rises to approximately 81 percent if the two doses of the vaccine are delivered further apart in time.

Moderna’s and Pfizer’s clinical trials both recorded estimated efficacies of 94 to 95 percent.

Recent English and Scottish studies show that—if a single dose of the vaccines is given, in violation of manufacturers’ protocols but in line with UK government policy—the AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccines are about as efficient at eliminating symptomatic COVID-19 cases (around 60 percent), and at lowering hospitalization rates of elderly patients (by around 80 percent).

After the publication of these studies, the German government approved the AstraZeneca vaccine for individuals aged over 65. The French government announced a similar abrupt turn, declaring that the AstraZeneca vaccine is as efficient as Moderna and Pfizer, except for the oldest age groups. It is advising that it be used for all patients aged under 75, including those aged 65-74 with pre-existing co-morbidities. Older patients are still being administered Moderna and Pfizer vaccines.

Yesterday Denmark, Austria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Luxembourg all suspended use of AstraZeneca vaccines from a 1 million-dose batch sent to Europe. A woman in Denmark and a 49-year-old nurse in Austria died from blood clots after receiving an AstraZeneca vaccine shot. Health authorities in Denmark stressed it was only a pause in the use of the vaccine, and the Spanish government issued a statement that it was not discontinuing use of the AstraZeneca vaccine. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) stated that “there is currently no indication that vaccination has caused these conditions, which are not listed as side effects with this vaccine.”

What is clear is that health policy including the distribution of vaccines must be conducted based on the scientific views of medical professionals, freed from the influence of the corporate profit and state strategic interests that have prevailed up to now. Above all, it is critical to ensure social distancing, including through lockdowns, to limit the spread of the virus, give time for the production of vaccines, and limit the emergence of new variants. This would save millions of lives.

Yet a vaccine program that has barely begun in Europe is being used by governments as a rationale for ending even the most limited measures of social isolation that had been in place. This criminal policy would ensure that the virus can spread unchecked and threatens to lead to countless unnecessary deaths. Moreover, scientists have warned repeatedly that the continued spread and mutation of the virus only raises the possibility that future mutations may be more resistant to current vaccines and the antibodies they stimulate in the human body.

Thus, the French daily Le Monde recently hailed Macron’s refusal to implement a lockdown and supported “the quasi-consensus that now exists to reject this radical solution.” Calling to promote the AstraZeneca vaccine against a lockdown, it concluded: “We must, urgently, change attitudes on vaccines, to consider them our main way to get out of the crisis. From this standpoint, unfortunately, the government’s messaging is far short of what is required.”

In line with its entire “herd immunity” policy on the pandemic of allowing the virus to spread while keeping workers at work in order to boost corporate profits, the European bourgeoisie is using the vaccines as a pretext to push for further cuts to critical social distancing measures.

The key question is the political mobilization of the working class across Europe and the world against the failed policies of the ruling class and for a scientifically-based policy. At the center of this struggle is a fight for social distancing and lock-downs to give time for vaccination. The past year of the pandemic has shown that such a struggle cannot be organized in the grip of the trade unions and the political establishment, which all supported the “herd immunity” policy. Workers need their own rank-and-file organizations to prosecute this struggle.

Mounting job cuts in New Zealand

Tom Peters

The global economic crisis triggered by the coronavirus pandemic is continuing to worsen in New Zealand. Working people are bearing the full burden, through job losses and the soaring cost of living, especially in housing, pushed up by landlords and investor speculation.

In the 12 months to September 2020, New Zealand’s economy shrank by 2.2 percent. While there was a return to growth in the September quarter, some economists believe the country is now in another recession. The tourism, retail and education industries have all been severely affected by the border closure, imposed nearly a year ago.

Victoria University of Wellington (Wikimedia Commons)

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s Labour Party-led administration responded to the crisis, like governments internationally, by protecting the rich, with tens of billions of dollars in subsidies, tax concessions and loans to big businesses. The Reserve Bank in a one-off quantitative easing program is printing up to $100 billion to buy back bonds held by commercial banks.

Officially, unemployment dropped from 5.3 to 4.9 percent in the December quarter, but this is still 25,000 more unemployed people than a year earlier, an increase of about 22 percent. The figures do not reflect the real scale of the crisis. Since March last year, the number of people receiving the main Jobseeker welfare benefit has increased by 63,000. The underutilisation rate, including people not actively looking for work and workers who want more hours, is 11.9 percent.

Stuff reported on March 4 that from September to November 2020, “16,234 businesses closed permanently, compared to 7,154 in the same period in 2019… an increase of 127 percent.” Tourism areas are among the worst affected. Business revenue in the Queenstown Lakes District has collapsed by 23 percent and in the past year 9.1 percent of its jobs, about 2,000 jobs, have vanished.

Other sectors are also being hit with redundancies. On February 23, the Whakatāne Mill, which produces paper and packaging products, announced a plan to close by the end of June, after more than 80 years of operations, destroying 220 jobs. The mill’s parent company, Switzerland-based multinational SIG Combibloc, decided to stop purchasing its products, instead opting for cheaper third-party suppliers.

Whakatane Mill (Source: Facebook)

The closure will devastate the already-struggling district of 35,700 people, which in 2018 had a median income of just $26,300—17.3 percent below the national median. Stuff reported that up to 100 contractors and other businesses are indirectly supported by the mill.

FIRST Union and the E tū union, which have 100 and 40 members at the mill respectively, responded to the announcement by calling on the government to subsidise local forestry businesses and help redundant workers find new jobs. No industrial campaign has been launched to stop the closure and defend every job.

In the retail sector, Australian department store chain David Jones announced last month that its Wellington store, which employs 150 people, will close in 2022. Auckland homeware store Nido is also closing, with 60 redundancies. Consumer spending has declined for five months in a row, with more than half of all retailers reporting a drop in sales in the last month, according to Retail NZ.

Hundreds of bank staff are losing their jobs, even as the banks’ profits are propped up by the state’s money-printing program. The Bank of New Zealand recently announced plans to close 38 branches, mostly in rural areas. Kiwibank, ANZ, ASB and Westpac are likewise closing dozens of regional branches.

The country’s major universities have recently announced around 700 redundancies, in response to the sharp decline in international students, thousands of whom were stranded overseas by the border closure. The total number in the country has halved to around 10,000.

In addition, universities are scrapping many part-time and temporary roles, including tutors, who are usually postgraduate students. A student union spokesperson told RNZ, “dozens if not hundreds of students at some institutions who would be employed in a normal year… now aren’t.” As a result, many undergraduate students are missing out on tutorials.

The Tertiary Education Union (TEU) has accepted the cuts as inevitable and is helping to impose them.

On March 10, Stuff reported that Victoria University of Wellington (VUW) had ruled out “large scale” sackings. The TEU posted the article on Facebook presenting this as a victory, with the comment: “The Vic Uni branch has shown how much is achieved when we stand together.” According to Stuff, branch leader Dougal McNeill, a leading member of the pseudo-left International Socialist Organisation (ISO) “said he welcomed the announcement,” but the union “remained concerned” about staff workloads and called on the government to increase funding.

In fact, as Stuff notes, around 60 staff at VUW are taking “voluntary” redundancies. Vice-chancellor Grant Guildford made clear that further cost cutting is likely, saying: “It will still be necessary to keep a very tight rein on operational costs, including pay levels this year.”

The TEU reportedly advised its members at VUW not to take redundancy. But it provided no alternative way forward. The union has made no attempt to unite staff at all universities and polytechs in a nationwide strike campaign against the cuts.

The University of Auckland has so far signed up 300 permanent staff for redundancy. Massey University aims to sack 74 people, Auckland University of Technology 71, Lincoln University 72, the University of Canterbury 40 and University of Waikato 25.

In the 2017 election, the TEU supported Labour, falsely stating that it offered “a credible and popular alternative” to the former National Party government’s austerity measures. Universities continued cutting jobs in 2018, while Labour froze funding. But the union, and the ISO, again supported Labour and the Greens in the 2020 election.

To defend jobs, as well as conditions for students, requires a political fight against the Ardern government, the unions and their pseudo-left allies. New organisations, rank-and-file committees of students and staff, must be built to oppose the pro-business onslaught. They must link up with workers in factories such as the Whakatāne Mill, and with retail, tourism and workers internationally who are facing the same onslaught of pro-corporate restructuring.

Above all, the fight against austerity requires a socialist political perspective. Why should workers and young people suffer while the government hands over tens of billions of dollars to the banks and big business? This money must be urgently redirected to provide high-paying, secure jobs and well-resourced public services, including free and accessible tertiary education.

A Breakdown of Order: Politico-Military Dynamics in the South China Sea

Vijay Shankar

Geopolitical trends are not ‘pop-up’ events. They represent an evolved aggregation of policies that manifest as direction in a state’s world view. The present politico-military dynamics in the South China Sea (SCS) are no different. They have been shaped by several global and regional disruptions over the past few decades. This commentary focuses on three important long-term trends in the SCS region.

· The disintegration of Cold War alliances and the consequent breakdown of leadership and balance of power that used to provide both context and substance to international relations
· Condition of state sovereignty in the face of altering flows of capital, people, and technology
· The diminishing prospects of ‘order’ as states adopt aggressive military postures and doctrines with a view to change geography and existent political norms.

Structural Changes      

The disintegration of Cold War alliances has led to a breakdown in the balance of power, which was earlier able to strengthen mutual forces such that no one state was able to absolutely dominate and prescribe laws to the rest. Since all were equally interested in this condition, it was held to be the common interest, the right, and the duty of every power to interfere—even by force of arms—when any of this settlement was infringed by any other member of the community. It was premised on two realities of the existent international system. First, the system was anarchic with no hegemon to dominate. Second, that states are principal actors in the international system, as they ‘set the terms of collaboration’ and devise balancing alliances. This theory with all its abstractions and many flaws lay at the heart of the system up to and beyond the Cold War.

The world, from an era of unipolarity and then multipolar uncertainty, which dominated the last three decades between the breakdown of the Soviet Union and Russia’s annexation of Crimea, has moved to what may be termed as ‘penumbric competition’. These are conflicts where lack of definition masks the nature of engagement, which is rivalry between major powers over mercantile domination and the ability to tweak the ‘rule book’. China particularly has made palpably clear that the instruments of influence to further its aspirations are financial involvement, military coercion, and leveraging instabilities.

State Sovereignty

Globalisation of capital, labour, and technology has redefined the very concept of a sovereign state, besides a surge of migrations turning existing socio-economic conditions topsy-turvy. The economic benefits of this ‘new world’ are there for those willing to embrace the change. States that have retreated within are left in a world of denial that fails to recognise what has structurally redefined the modern successor to the overwhelmingly antiquated Westphalian system. But what of states such as China that have selectively endorsed and embraced attributes of the globalised world without the ‘messiness’ of socio-economic changes?

The principal motive force underlying globalisation is the progressive integration of economies and societies. Driven by new technologies, new economic and financial relationships, international policies, and the urge for wealth creation, globalisation provides the ultimate amalgamation that can potentially free societies from the constraints of autocratic control. These exchanges have led to interdependencies at all levels. It has also precipitated a conflict between markets and governments that tends to weaken and tear the very fabric that binds nations together.

But is this a condition that China’s authoritarian system can tolerate? And if it cannot, it runs the risk of unendurable stresses within its society that may eventually challenge the foundations of the regime itself.  

Diminishing Prospects of ‘Order’

It is not simply the rise of China’s comprehensive power that has given notice to status-quoists, but also its determination to re-write the ‘rule book’ on its terms as apparent from its claims in the SCS and its flouting of international norms. The loss of confidence that the US has been confronted with by the stalemate in Iraq, the Levant, and Afghanistan, and past inability to come to grips with the financial crisis of 2008 can hardly have helped to steel its geopolitical poise.

Even if China’s efforts to gain strategic dominance in the region does not achieve the desired results, clearly, their efforts are symptomatic of a defiance of the existing international order. Beijing’s vision of domination leans heavily on its grandiose ‘One Belt One Road’ initiative and the financial clout of the Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank (AIIB) created in 2016 as a counter to the US-dominated World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The growing apprehension is that in the absence of a set of conditionalities, and a consensus that underwrites fiscal discipline, tax reform, deregulation of market dynamics and secure property rights, debt will be increasingly transformed into territorial lease or trade concessions—as the Chinese have done in Sri Lanka, Djibouti, Pakistan or in Kenya. Meanwhile, in the SCS, claims defined by China’s ‘nine-dash line’ line were judicially debunked by an International Tribunal at The Hague in 2016. Yet, Beijing’s decision to unabashedly reject the verdict has raised the anxieties about what China’s rise really entails for the region.

An Improbable Prognosis

These three trends have seemingly opened the SCS to the arrival of a new hegemon. The apparent imbalance caused by the US’ receding influence and the absence of an alternative would appear to throw an invitation to China to fill the vacuum. Yet, there remains a body of distrust. If regional domination remains the aim, then what becomes of the slackening terms of sovereignty? There is discernible movement against such an autocratic regime, its imperial methods, and territorial ambitions—whether in Taiwan, Ladakh, the SCS, or elsewhere.

On the security front, the Australia-India-Japan-US Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) aims to balance China’s revisionist ambitions. The opportunity must be seized lest globalism be held to ransom by Chinese nationalism. While it has not announced itself as a military alliance, it will need to define purpose. The next step would be to enhance military cooperation to signal intent and deter future Chinese attempts to alter the status quo. This would take the form of improvements in interoperability, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities, and access to logistics and infrastructure for power projection. A charter and a fund to define mandates and develop strategic Indo-Pacific infrastructure are subsequent logical steps.

The WTO and the Future of Multilateralism

Daniel Warner

The new head of the World Trade Organization (WTO) has gotten off to a promising start. In her initial public declarations, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, the first woman and first African to lead the WTO, has said that the organization must “deal with people in their everyday lives.” For an organization that has been mired in a deadlock over members of the appellate body and who, after 14 years of negotiation, was unable to finish the Doha Development Round to facilitate global trade in 2015, her election and comments were a breath of fresh air.

The official multilateral system is stagnant. If it hopes to remain relevant, it needs such blunt talk, a complete new mindset and a renewed pushed for transparency and accountability

Admittedly, China’s rise, Russia nihilistic posture and the U.S’s loss of moral standing have brought a new level of complexity and uncertainty to the geopolitical landscape. Yet the fact remains that the UN has done little to ensure peace and security in Yemen, Syria and elsewhere, and was on the sidelines in stopping a war between Azerbaijan and Armenia over Nagorno Kharabak.

The UN has been unable to be the leading voice in the distribution of vaccines, cannot deal with a military coup d’etat in Myanmar, and appears as a band-aid institution when faced with global poverty and inequality. While the UN may still be relevant on technical issues, it has lost its momentum on major issues of war and peace and its moral authority in speaking for and defending the planet’s most vulnerable.

It would be simple to blame the above on the lack of American leadership during the four years of Donald Trump’s “America First” policies. There may be more systemic problems behind the stagnation. For example, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres is up for re-election in 2021. When he was elected in 2016, there was an open, transparent process that included public presentations and debates among all the candidates. Guterres, the former Portuguese Prime Minister and head of the UN’s refugee agency, was far and away the most impressive.

What has he done since? His timidity in denouncing gross violations of human rights and lack of moral leadership may be directly tied to his wish to be re-elected. One of the most promising reforms of the UN system was to be guaranteeing one extended term for the Secretary-General, allowing him or her to be more independent. Many remember how Boutros-Ghali was punished for speaking out by his non re-election in 2001. He had criticized the United States for not paying its dues on time as well as criticizing Israel. Only one permanent member of the Security Council voted against him, the United States. “How can I fight Goliath?” he asked.

The return of the United States to the multilateral system through re-engagement with the Paris Agreement on the climate, the World Health Organization, and the Human Rights Council gives reason for optimism. As the leading force behind the creation of the UN and the multilateral system after World War II, the United States is central to the success of the UN.

But, and this is a big but, the United States cannot have its way now as it has done in the past. Other countries have moved forward during the U.S.’ retreat, especially China. While confrontations between the United States and China within the multilateral system are not as spectacular as confrontations between battleships on the South China Sea, they are worth watching. Negotiations at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) or the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) will never make front pages. They are very technical and are dominated by lawyers and experts. Nonetheless, they have become an integral part of the remaking of global politics.

And, most importantly, they are being conducted in multilateral settings where other actors are involved. Multilateralism is not bilateralism. Trying to win votes in an international organization is not the same as seeking allies to bolster troops on the battlefield. While the language of reporting on votes in these institutions may be similar to sports reporting, they are not the same as just who won or who lost. And we should be thankful for that.

To return to the World Trade Organization and Dr. Okonjo-Iweala. This is important because in many ways she represents the hopes and future of multilateralism. When she speaks of dealing with people “in their everyday lives,” we must remember she has an undergraduate degree in economics from Harvard, a PhD from MIT, was twice finance minister of Nigeria under different governments, and had a managerial post for 25 years at the World Bank. All her academic and professional work has dealt with development, inequality and the so called developing world.

Despite her impressive academic and professional background, Okonjo-Iweala understands that behind complex multilateral meetings are consequences for you and me. The word populism has gotten a bad name. Today, it refers to Donald Trump and his followers in the United States or people like Viktor Orban in Hungary and his Fidesz Party. I would prefer to think of Ms. Okonjo-Iweala as a true populist.

Will it work? Can she make the WTO relevant and inject a breath of fresh air in the multilateral system? The system has been more than stagnant, it has been moribund. It will take a lot of oxygen to get it restarted; something that has been in very short supply during the pandemic and the last decade.

“We have to be more accountable to the people we came here to serve – the ordinary women and men, our children who hope that our work here to support the multilateral trading system will result in meaningful change in their lives…” Okonjo-Iweala declared in her first official speech. That’s not just true for the WTO, but also for the entire multilateral system.

Americans are Suffering: Looking Beyond Covid-19

David Rosen

Nearly one year ago, in April 2020, Dr. Lorna Breen, the ER medical director at New York Presbyterian Allen Hospital, committed suicide. She had earlier contracted Covid-19 while treating patient.  According to her father, “She was — in every way — in the trenches of this war, fighting the effects of this COVID virus that she contracted herself,” he said. “She went home and stayed for a week-and-a-half before she felt obligated to go back to the trenches and help, so that’s what she did.”  She committed suicide shortly thereafter. 

Dr. Breen is but one of the more then half-million — 514,000 as of March 1^st! — people was have died from Covid-19; little data is available about those who have taken their own life.  As with Dr. Breen, the stresses associated being an ER doctor likely contributed to her fateful decision.  Such stresses are shared by many “essential” workers.  As the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports, millions of other Americans are enduring all manner of stresses, including the loss of a jobs; eviction for failing to pay back rent or foreclosure for failing to pay their mortgage; burdened by debt; feeling locked in by stay-at-home requirements, leading to increased domestic violence, including child abuse; and still others.

Understandably, the media and public attention has been focused on the deaths caused by the pandemic and the vaccines that might bring an end to it.  It has extended and deepened the recession, exposing the profound racial and class disparities in society.  The former U.S. Surgeon General, Jerome Adams, admitted, “I and many black Americans are at higher risk for COVID. That’s why we need everyone to do their part to slow the spread.”  He identified a host of factors contributing to this situation including preexisting conditions such as diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease as well as the lack of access to health care.

Sadly, today’s appropriate focus on coronavirus casualties and vaccines has led many to overlook the deepening social crisis the nation has been enduring for more than a decade.  A growing proportion of Americans are enduring the painful decline in their quality of life.  One example of the crisis is startling: During the half-century between 1959 and 2016, Americans’ life expectancies increased by nearly 10 years.  However, the Covid-19 pandemic has contributed to an expected drop of 1.13 years, bringing life expectancy to 77.48 years.

Sadly, in the years before Covid the death rate grew significantly. Between 2010 and 2017, the death rate increased from 328.5 to 348.2 per 100,000 people.  “There has been an increase in death rates among working age Americans,” said Dr. Steven Woolf, director emeritus of the Center on Society and Health at Virginia Commonwealth University. “This is an emergent crisis. And it is a uniquely American problem since it is not seen in other countries. Something about life in America is responsible.”

Woolf notes, “while it’s a little difficult to place the blame on despair directly, the living conditions causing despair are leading to other problems.”  He adds, “for example if you live in an economically distressed community where income is flat and it’s hard to find jobs, that can lead to chronic stress, which is harmful to health.”

Before Covid hit, the principle causes for this increase in the death rate was due to what Woolf and others identify as “diseases of despair.”  They include drug overdoses, suicides, alcohol abuse and a “diverse list of organ system disease.” Three examples illuminate the nature of despair:

+ Between 1999 and 2017, fatal overdoses increased by 386.5 percent; in 2017, more than 70,000 deaths occurred because of drug overdoses and opioids accounted for more than 47,000 of those.

+ During the same period, deaths due to alcohol abuse conditions – e.g., chronic liver disease and cirrhosis of the liver — rose by 40.6 percent.

+ Between 2000 and 2016, death rates among three involving unintentional injuries, Alzheimer’s disease and septicemia increased.

Much of this suffering is rooted in a person’s stagnate or declining wages or earnings. The Hill reported, “The coronavirus has revealed the vulnerability of millions of American workers, leaving them without that much-needed next paycheck, and with no guarantees of a future gig.”

The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) confirmed this assessment in its analysis of the wage crisis in America: “From 1979 to 2018, net productivity rose 108.1 percent, while the hourly pay of typical workers essentially stagnated — increasing only 11.6 percent over 39 years (after adjusting for inflation).” The EPI adds, quite pessimistically: “This means that although Americans are working more productively than ever, the fruits of their labors have primarily accrued to those at the top and to corporate profits, especially in recent years.”

To compensate for flattening of wages and earning, Americans have become addicted to debt.  The New York Federal Reserve estimated that, in mid-2019, consumer debt approached $14 trillion.  The four major categories of debt and their amount are: (i) mortgages at $9.4 trillion; (ii) student Loans at $1.48 trillion; (iii) auto debt at $1.3 trillion; and credit-card loans at $1.08 trillion.  As everyone knows, debt carries more than a monetary burden.

These developments fueled growing inequality, a situation compounded by the unchecked pandemic and its economic and social consequences.  In the pre-pandemic era, inequality was felt most acutely among the poor and working classes, especially children.  Harvard’s Raj Chetty, of the Opportunities Insights group, wrote, “our research shows that children’s chances of earning more than their parents have been declining. 90% of children born in 1940 grew up to earn more than their parents.”  He concluded, pessimistically, “Today, only half of all children earn more than their parents did.”

Their assessment is confirmed by a JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) published study, “Life Expectancy and Mortality Rates in the United States, 1959-2017.”  It warned, “life expectancy at birth, a common measure of a population’s health, has decreased in the United States for 3 consecutive years.”  It adds:

The recent decrease in US life expectancy culminated a period of increasing cause-specific mortality among adults aged 25 to 64 years that began in the 1990s, ultimately producing an increase in all-cause mortality that began in 2010. … By 2014, midlife mortality was increasing across all racial groups, caused by drug overdoses, alcohol abuse, suicides, and a diverse list of organ system diseases.

The study’s data came from the National Center for Health Statistics and the U.S. Mortality Database for 1959 to 2017. Americans are dying at an ever-growing rate and this many one of Trump’s unspoken legacies.

JAMA pessimistic assessment is compounded by the findings of a May 2019 study of the American Journal of Public Health, “The Depths of Despair Among US Adults Entering Midlife,” by Lauren Gaydosh, et. al.  Drawing on a sample of 18,446 “self-identified as non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, or Hispanic” Americans, it assesses “change in indicators of despair from adolescence to adulthood using multilevel regression analysis, testing for differences by race/ethnicity, education, and rurality.”

Most surprising, Gaydosh’s study found a rise in despair among “the young adult cohort now reaching midlife that cuts across racial/ethnic, educational, and geographic groups may presage rising midlife mortality for these subgroups in the next decade.”  It notes, “The factors underlying these patterns remain unknown.”  But adds most provocatively:

However, current explanations point to labor market changes driven by globalization and technological change, leading to deteriorating job opportunities, wage stagnation, and declining rates of upward mobility for low-educated individuals.  These economic factors undermined social support by eroding traditional family structures and religious participation, resulting in despair.

It adds: “Although these trends affected all racial/ethnic groups, scholars suggest that historical advantages lead to greater feelings of relative subordination among low-educated Whites compared with low-educated racial/ethnic minorities and that Blacks may be ‘inured to insults of the market” and insulated by strong support networks of kin and religion.’”

The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) reported that “an estimated 17.3 million adults in the United States had at least one major depressive episode. This number represented 7.1% of all U.S. adults.”  The American Psychological Association claims that “approximately 40 million American adults ages 18 and older, or about 18.1 percent of people in this age group in a given year, have an anxiety disorder.”  It adds, “major depressive disorder affects approximately 14.8 million American adults, or about 6.7 percent of the U.S. population age 18 and older in a given year.”

Depression and despair are often manifest in the growing condition of obesity.  According to the CDC, from 1999–2000 through 2017–2018, the prevalence of obesity increased from 30.5 percent to 42.4 percent of the population; the prevalence of severe obesity increased from 4.7 percent to 9.2 percent.

Among the most extreme symptoms of despair and depression are increases in the murder rate and suicides.  The New York Times reported that “the average murder rate across 20 major cities averaged 37% higher at the end of June than at the end of May” – a 6 percent increase over 2019.  The Times report was based on the finding by Richard Rosenfeld, a criminologist University of Missouri-St. Louis.  In a separate study, Rosenfeld notes, “compared with the previous three-year average, homicide rates decreased during April and May of 2020.”  As the economy “opened” and a version of pre-Covid-19 “normal life” returned, the murder rate rose dramatically.

The CDC reports that suicide “was responsible for more than 47,000 deaths in 2017, resulting in about one death every 11 minutes.”  Going further, it adds, “Every year, many more people think about or attempt suicide than die by suicide. In 2017, 10.6 million American adults seriously thought about suicide, 3.2 million made a plan, and 1.4 million attempted suicide.”

Americans are suffering and this suffering is compounded by a host of determining factors, including Covid-19 and recession.  Together, they’ve contributed to a significant increase in unemployment, debt, homelessness and despair.  They have only compounded the growing inequality between the superrich and the rest of Americans, especially the working classes and the poor.  The deepening socio-economic crises are mediated by age, race, gender and where one lives — and these factors will define what “recovery” means.   Nevertheless, the suffering will continue and, sadly, only get worse.

McKinsey & Company Next Generation Women Leaders Event 2021

Application Deadline: 23rd March 2021

Eligible Countries: Countries in Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA)

To Be Taken At (Country): Online

About the Award: The Next Generation Women Leaders EMEA (Europe, Middle East, and Africa) program kicks off with a three-day virtual event on May 6 – 8 where attendees will explore the importance of women in leadership, develop a sense of connection, and create a long-lasting community. The program will continue with weekly workshops and informative virtual sessions throughout May and June.

Type: Conference

Eligibility: To be considered for NGWL EMEA, you must be currently based in Europe, the Middle East, or Africa (or have strong ties with Europe, the Middle East, or Africa). You must also be:

• a Bachelor’s, Master’s, PhD, or MBA student graduating no later than 2022
  or
• a professional with up to eight years of work experience

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Funding is available for successful candidates

Duration of Program: May 6-8, 2021

How to Apply: To apply, please submit the following by March 23:

• Your resume in English, which should include details of your education and grades, work experience, and extracurricular activities and achievements
• Office location (based on geographic or industry ties) OR business function (based on industry experience)—this is necessary so that our colleagues from those offices or business functions can objectively review your application

Cover letter (maximum of 250 words), where you can tell us about your motivation to join the event, any leadership experience, or simply add anything to support your application, beyond the information included in your CV, e.g., your personal achievements or circumstances to select a specific office Transcripts (only required by some locations – please see details below)

Digital Assessment
As part of your application, you will be asked to complete an online assessment (~60 minutes). This does not require any preparation or prior business knowledge. More details will be shared within a few weeks after submitting your application.

Your office/business function (practice) preference
Our participating offices are listed below. When you apply, you will choose up to three office locations or industry practices to review your application and consider selecting you. We advise you to make your choices based on geographic or industry ties (e.g., you have studied or lived in the country or you have work experience in the industry). You should be fluent in the local language.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

BMZ African German Leadership Academy 2021

Application Deadline: 12th March 2021

About the Award: Between 26 April and 7 May 2021, the German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwick-lungspolitik offers a two weeks innovative digital training and dialogue programme for up to 25 young professionals from Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Ghana, Morocco, Senegal, Togo and Tunisia, who work in the area of sustainable development in government institutions, think tanks and research institutions, civil society and the private sector. The programme especially targets Germany’s reform partner countries in Africa, with which Germany cooperates in depth regarding the structural conditions for economic activity and job creation. The programme aims to provide leadership skills and knowledge needed for sustainable development, in accordance with the objectives of Africa’s Agenda 2063 and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The programme also offers networking opportunities with German and European stakeholders from various sectors and with representatives from African Institutions.

The Spring Academy 2021 takes place as a full-time digital programme. The programme is funded by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ).

With the Spring Academy 2021, we want to lay the foundation for long-term institutional cooperation and partnership, as well as provide opportunity for a personal network of change makers in various fields contributing to sustainable development in their regions.

The Spring Academy 2021 will be the kick-off of the new Leadership Programme. A 3-months version of the BMZ African Leadership Academy
is planned from 2022 onwards.

Type: Training

Eligibility: Participants should

• work for policy relevant institutions, e.g. ministries or government agencies; research institutions or think tanks, business associations, civil society organisations or media outlets
• have a passion for sustainable development and global cooperation
• have a good command of English
• be between 25 and 40 years old
• have at least three years of work experience in a relevant field of sustainable development
• be sensitive to other cultures and open to digital team work
• have access to a laptop/computer and internet
• be available for a full-time schedule between 26 April and 07 May 2021

Eligible Countries: Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Ghana, Morocco, Senegal, Togo and Tunisia

To be Taken at (Country): Online

Number of Awards: 25

Value of Award:

• A high-quality digital programme, combining, academic insights and hands-on training, including insights in the practice of German political, economic and social system
• Innovative training and exchanges on leadership skills crucial for sustainable development in different contexts
• Strengthening digital collaboration skills by working online in highly diverse teams
• Shaping a network of organisations and individuals dedicated to sustainable development from seven African countries and Germany

Duration of Award: 26 April – 7 May 2021

How to Apply: Please send an email with a brief (around 200 words) statement of your motivation, your CV, and the confirmation of your employer (see last page of this text) until 12 March 2021 to Malika Yunussova (malika.yunussova@die-gdi.de). Kindly indicate in your email how/through whom you learnt about the Spring Academy 2021. Selected candidates will be contacted directly via e-mail until latest 31 March
2021.

• It is important to go through all application requirements in the Award Webpage (see Link below) before applying.

Visit Award Webpage for Details

WASCAL Master Scholarships 2021

Application Deadline: 30^th April 2021

About the Award: The 24-months’ programme, to be run in partnership with Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH and RWTH Aachen University, Germany, with funding from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Germany (BMBF) seeks to prepare and train a new generation of interdisciplinary professionals capable of proposing adapted solutions to the ongoing energy crisis in West Africa.

The programme  consists of four specializations  and would be run in  lead universities in Togo, where University of Lomé will run Bioenergy/biofuels and Green Hydrogen Technology; University of Felix Houphouet Boigny, Ivory Coast will host Green Hydrogen Production and Technology/Georesources (Wind/Water) and Hydrogen Technology; University of Abdou Moumouni, Niger will hostPhotovoltaic and System Analysis for Green Hydrogen Technologies, and University of Cheikh Anta Diop, Senegal, will host Economics/policies/Infrastructures and Green Hydrogen Technology.

Eligible Fields: The novel programme is designed for students with background in Physics, Biochemistry, Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Electronic Engineering, Statistics, or related areas.

Type: Master

Eligibility: Students from ALL West African countries with Bsc in Physics, Chemistry and Bio-Chemistry, Engineering, Statistics or related fields.

Eligible Countries: West African countries

To be Taken at (Country): Selected West African countries as well as to Germany.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award:

• The programme will also provide training on state-of-the-art tools used in renewable energy, green hydrogen technology and policy with the view of training adequate human resources to boost the sector of energy technology and guide policy formulation across West Africa with special focus on green hydrogen technology.
• The scholarship package includes full funding, roundtrip tickets and accommodation, allowances, and travel to selected West African countries as well as to Germany.

Duration of Award: 24 months

How to Apply: Click on the field of study for details

• Green Hydrogen Production and Technology / Georesources (Wind/Water) and GREEN Hydrogen Technology – Université Felix Houphouet Boigny, Cote d’Ivoire
• Bioenergy / Biofuels and Green Hydrogen Technology – Université de Lomé, Togo
• Economics / policies/Infrastructures and Green hydrogen technology – Université Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar, Senegal
• Photovoltaic and System Analysis for Green Hydrogen Technologies – Université Abdou Moumouni, Niger

• It is important to go through all application requirements in the Award Webpage (see Link below) before applying.

Visit Award Webpage for Details

Google.org Impact Challenge for Women and Girls 2021

Application Deadline: 9th April 2021 at 23:59 GMT

About the Award: The Google.org Impact Challenge for Women and Girls commits $25 million to fund organizations creating pathways to prosperity for women and girls. This is an open call for applications, and selected charitable initiatives will receive up to $2 million, as well as opportunities for mentorship and additional support from Google.

Type: Grant

Eligibility:

• ImpactHow will the proposed project create pathways to prosperity for women and girls or empower them to reach their full economic potential, and to what extent? Is the application grounded in research and data about the problem and the solution? How many people will be affected if successful and to what extent?
• Innovation: What is the core insight or innovation that differentiates this project from others, in philosophy or execution? What makes the proposed project unique?
• Feasibility: Does your team have a well-developed, realistic plan, along with the right expertise and skills, to execute on the proposal? Has your team identified the right partners and domain experts for implementation? To best understand the needs of those you’re serving, does your team have women in positions of leadership?
• Scalability: If successful, how can this project scale beyond the initial proposal? Can it scale directly, serve as a model for other efforts, or advance the field?

Eligible Countries: International

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Each selected organization will receive between $300,000 and $2 million in funding and other support from Google. The selected organizations will be announced in late 2021.

How to Apply: Apply now

• It is important to go through all application requirements in the Award Webpage (see Link below) before applying.

Visit Award Webpage for Details

Google Women Tech Founders Program in Middle East and North Africa 2021

Application Deadline: 31st March 2021 at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. 

About the Award: This program will provide women tech entrepreneurs from across the Middle East and North Africa region technical skills training from Google’s tech and start up experts, and help build a network of future tech changemakers in the region.

The program will be facilitated in English and will draw applicants mainly from Egypt, Bahrain and the UAE.

In addition, a select number of applicants from the region, outside of Egypt, Bahrain and the UAE, will also be selected as Women Tech Founders ambassadors to participate in the program and serve as tech changemakers in expanding the program to the Middle East and North Africa region.

Type: Training

Eligibility: Women tech entrepreneurs from across the Middle East and North Africa region

Eligible Countries: Egypt, Bahrain, UAE as well as participants from the MENA Region.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award:

• Equity-free support
• Exclusive invitations to technical bootcamps hosted by Google
• Personalized mentorship and technical support from Google experts
• The opportunity to provide feedback to Google product teams

Duration of Award:

• Launch Event: May 17th, 2021 (Open to the public)
• Session 1: May 18th, 2021 (Finalists Only)
• Session 2: May 24th, 2021 (Finalists Only)
• Session 3: June 1st, 2021 (Finalists Only)
• Session 4: June 8th, 2021 (Finalists Only)

How to Apply: APPLY HERE 

• It is important to go through all application requirements in the Award Webpage (see Link below) before applying.

Visit Award Webpage for Details

One World Media Fellowship 2021

Application Deadline: 7th April 2021 (11:59PM)

Eligible Countries: International

About the Award: Working in film, print, audio or multimedia, our Fellows’ projects bring together integrity and creativity to present underreported stories that break down stereotypes and build cross-cultural connections.

We guide filmmakers and journalists on a single project, and provide a supportive network of mentors and peers through the production and completion of their project.

We seek to champion diverse emerging talent, and particularly encourage submissions from BAME applicants as well as from people from and based in developing countries.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility:

• We are open to applications from all around the world.
• One World Media Fellows are aspiring filmmakers and journalists ready to take the next leap in their career reporting from developing countries. Looking for their first director role or solo investigation, our Fellows experiment and learn in a supportive environment.

Number of Awards: We select 12 Fellows each year, and we reserve at least 3 spots for international Fellows from and based in developing countries.

Value of Award:

• £1,000 production grant
• Executive Producer for your project
• Career mentorship
• Workshops and webinars by industry experts
• Fair Reporting and Security Guidance
• Introductions to commissioners
• Network of like-minded Fellows and Alumni

How to Apply: How To Apply

• It is important to go through all application requirements on the Programme Webpage (see link below) before applying

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Elections under Fire: Palestine’s Impossible Democracy Dilemma

Ramzy Baroud

Many Palestinian intellectuals and political analysts find themselves in the unenviable position of having to declare a stance on whether they support or reject upcoming Palestinian elections which are scheduled for May 22 and July 30. But there are no easy answers.

The long-awaited decree by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas last January to hold legislative and presidential elections in the coming months was widely welcomed,  not as a triumph for democracy but as the first tangible positive outcome of dialogue between rival Palestinian factions, mainly Abbas’ Fatah party and Hamas.

As far as inner Palestinian dialogue is concerned, the elections, if held unobstructed, could present a ray of hope that, finally, Palestinians in the Occupied Territories will enjoy a degree of democratic representation, a first step towards a more comprehensive representation that could include millions of Palestinians outside the Occupied Territories.

But even such humble expectations are conditioned on many “ifs”: only if Palestinian factions honor their commitments to the Istanbul Agreement of September 24; only if Israel allows Palestinians, including Jerusalemites, to vote unhindered and refrains from arresting Palestinian candidates; only if the US-led international community accepts the outcome of the democratic elections without punishing victorious parties and candidates; only if the legislative and presidential elections are followed by the more consequential and substantive elections in the Palestinian National Council (PNC) – the Palestinian Parliament in exile – and so on.

If any of these conditions is unsatisfactory, the May elections are likely to serve no practical purpose, aside from giving Abbas and his rivals the veneer of legitimacy, thus allowing them to buy yet more time and acquire yet more funds from their financial benefactors.

All of this compels us to consider the following question: is democracy possible under military occupation?

Almost immediately following the last democratic Palestinian legislative elections in 2006, the outcome of which displeased Israel, 62 Palestinian ministers and members of the new parliament were thrown into prison, with many still imprisoned.

History is repeating itself as Israel has already begun its arrest campaigns of Hamas leaders and members in the West Bank. On February 22, over 20 Palestinian activists, including Hamas officials, were detained as a clear message from the Israeli occupation to Palestinians that Israel does not recognize their dialogue, their unity agreements or their democracy.

Two days later, 67-year-old Hamas leader, Omar Barghouti, was summoned by the Israeli military intelligence in the occupied West Bank and warned against running in the upcoming May elections. “The Israeli officer warned me not to run in the upcoming elections and threatened me with imprisonment if I did,” Barghouti was quoted by Al-Monitor.

The Palestinian Basic Law allows prisoners to run for elections, whether legislative or presidential, simply because the most popular among Palestinian leaders are often behind bars. Marwan Barghouti is one.

Imprisoned since 2002, Barghouti remains Fatah’s most popular leader, though appreciated more by the movement’s young cadre, as opposed to Abbas’ old guard. The latter group has immensely benefited from the corrupt system of political patronage upon which the 85-year-old president has constructed his Authority.

To sustain this corrupt system, Abbas and his clique labored to marginalize Barghouti, leading to the suggestion that Israel’s imprisonment of Fatah’s vibrant leader serves the interests of the current Palestinian President.

This claim has much substance, not only because Abbas has done little to pressure Israel to release Barghouti but also because all credible public opinion polls suggest that Barghouti is far more popular among Fatah’s supporters – in fact all Palestinians – than Abbas.

On February 11, Abbas dispatched Hussein al-Sheikh, the Minister of Civilian Affairs and a member of Fatah’s Central Committee, to dissuade Barghouti from running in the upcoming presidential elections. An ideal scenario for the Palestinian President would be to take advantage of Barghouti’s popularity by having him lead the Fatah list in the contest for the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC). Hence, Abbas could ensure a strong turnout by Fatah supporters, while securing the chair of presidency for himself.

Barghouti vehemently rejected Abbas’ request, thus raising an unexpected challenge to Abbas, who now risks dividing the Fatah vote, losing the PLC elections, again, to Hamas and losing the presidential elections to Barghouti.

Between the nightly raids and crackdowns by the Israeli military and the political intrigues within the divided Fatah movement, one wonders if the elections, if they take place, will finally allow Palestinians to mount a united front in the struggle against Israeli occupation and for Palestinian freedom.

Then, there is the issue of the possible position of the ‘international community’ regarding the outcome of the elections. News reports speak of efforts made by Hamas to seek guarantees from Qatar and Egypt “to ensure Israel will not pursue its representatives and candidates in the upcoming elections,” Al-Monitor also reported.

But what kind of guarantees can Arab countries obtain from Tel Aviv, and what kind of leverage can Doha and Cairo have when Israel continues to disregard the United Nations, international law, the International Criminal Court, and so on?

Nevertheless, can Palestinian democracy afford to subsist in its state of inertia? Abbas’ mandate as president expired in 2009, the PLC’s mandate expired in 2010 and, in fact, the Palestinian Authority was set up as an interim political body, whose function should have ceased in 1999. Since then, the ‘Palestinian leadership’ has not enjoyed legitimacy among Palestinians, deriving its relevance, instead, from the support of its benefactors, who are rarely interested in supporting democracy in Palestine.

The only silver lining in the story is that Fatah and Hamas have also agreed on the restructuring of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which is now largely monopolized by Abbas’ Fatah movement. Whether the democratic revamping of the PLO takes place or not, largely depends on the outcome of the May and July elections.

Palestine, like other Middle Eastern countries, including Israel, does have a crisis of political legitimacy. Since Palestine is an occupied land with little or no freedom, one is justified to argue that true democracy under these horrific conditions cannot possibly be achieved.