15 May 2021

Report documents Ontario government’s ruinous role in pandemic’s ravaging of long-term care homes

Alexandra Greene


Ontario’s Long-Term Care COVID-19 Commission submitted its final report to the province’s hard-right Progressive Conservative government at the end of last month. Its findings constitute a cogent condemnation of the failure of the Doug Ford-led Tory government to protect the province’s tens of thousands of elderly care home residents during the COVID-19 pandemic. In both Canada’s first and second waves of the pandemic Ontario’s chronically underfunded and profit-driven long-term care sector became the scene of mass infections and death.

A member of the Canadian Armed Forces working at a Quebec nursing home (Canadian Dept. of Defence)

The government established the commission, which was chaired by Associate Chief Justice Frank N. Marrocco, last summer due to the public outcry over the devastation the pandemic had wrought in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities during the first wave. By the end of May 2020, that is, just three months into the pandemic, 1,587 residents of long-term care facilities in Ontario had died after contracting the virus, about 75 percent of all the province’s pandemic fatalities to date.

A year on, close to 4,000 residents of long-term care homes in Ontario have died from the virus, as well as 11 staff members. Across Canada, nearly 15,000 residents of long-term care and retirement homes have succumbed to COVID-19. According to a report released in March by the Canadian Institute for Health Information, Canada’s long-term care homes have the worst record for COVID-19 deaths among wealthy nations.

The independent commission was tasked with investigating how and why COVID-19 spread in care homes so aggressively, if the actions taken by the Ford government were adequate, and if the roots of the devastation lay in the conditions of the facilities prior to the pandemic’s onset. Over the course of nine months, the commissioners interviewed more than 700 family members, residents and workers from the long-term care facilities. Chillingly, the report acknowledges that those interviewed “provided a first-hand oral history of the loneliness, anguish, and fear that, for them, forever marked this time in Ontario’s history.” It adds, “The Commissioners were indelibly marked by what we heard.”

Following the deadly impact of the first wave, Ontario Premier Doug Ford vowed that the province would build an “iron ring” around long-term care homes to protect residents and staff from further disaster. The commission’s findings demonstrate that the premier’s vow was a hollow, farcical sham, and that government inaction meant that the second wave had an even deadlier impact on long-term care residents than the first.

As the pandemic surged in the spring of 2020, low-paid, poorly trained and precariously employed staff were largely left to fend for themselves in facilities that lacked even the most basic provisions of personal protective and infection prevention equipment due to decades of austerity and privatization. The cost-cutting drive of LTC providers and the poverty wages they pay forced staff to continue working at multiple sites, spreading the virus throughout the system. The situation was so catastrophic during late April and May 2020 that the Canadian military was called in to provide emergency support in several LTCs, where they uncovered horrendous living conditions.

The report concludes that the province not only forgot the lessons learned from the 2003 SARS outbreak—which exposed almost two decades ago how ill-prepared the country’s emergency and health systems were, at both the national and provincial levels, to cope with the spread of a deadly virus. The Ford government failed even to implement changes after Canada’s first COVID-19 wave had caused so much tragedy in the long-term care sector.

As early as April 2020, a group of physicians had warned the Ontario government that infection prevention and control (IPAC) measures needed to be immediately implemented in long-term care homes. Calls were made for IPAC specialists to be hired for the facilities at a ratio of one full-time specialist per 200 beds, and one per 250 beds in retirement homes. This is what is known as a “hub and spoke model,” and the workers at the facilities in which it was executed would have been trained and overseen by specialized doctors at local hospitals.

The infectious disease experts who implored the government to instigate these measures estimated the proposal to cost a mere $5.5 million to $7.2 million per year. Yet despite the urgent calls for rapid action, virtually nothing was done. Funding letters only began to arrive for these measures in January 2021, nine months after the proposal was made. It wasn’t until November 2020 that the Ministry of Long-Term Care began outlining recommendations for care homes akin to the hub and spoke model.

The commissioners also concluded that problems that had “festered” in the sector for decades undoubtedly contributed to the loss of thousands of lives of Ontario’s most vulnerable citizens. Chronic underfunding, severe staffing shortages, outdated infrastructure and poor oversight were all existent within the sector long before the pandemic began. Indeed, the assault on long-term care that led to the COVID-19 catastrophe began thirty years ago, when the New Democratic Party government of Bob Rae began privatizing homes as part of its assault on public services. This drive was massively accelerated by the right-wing Tory government of Mike Harris, and continued under the trade union-backed Liberal governments of Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne. In other words, the entire political establishment has blood on its hands.

The commissioners criticized Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer Dr. David Williams for initially ignoring myriad warnings by scientists and health officials that asymptomatic carriers could spread the virus and community transmission was occurring, and discouraging mask use.

The commission’s findings are all the more damning given that the Ford government hand-picked its members. In addition to Justice Marrocco, they included such establishment figures as Angela Coke, a former senior executive in the Ontario Public Service, and Dr. Jack Kitts, former president and CEO of the Ottawa Hospital.

Ontario Long-term Care Minister Merrilee Fullerton, whose ruinous response to the pandemic is detailed in the report, tried to shift blame on to previous governments and the deadly character of the virus when questioned about the commission’s findings at a May 3 press conference. When asked if the provincial government would issue an apology for the thousands of deaths and immeasurable suffering, Fullerton said, “I think collectively, as a society, we need to do some soul-searching.”

Underscoring where the Tories’ interests lie and whom they are concerned with protecting, the Ontario government late last year passed legislation (Bill 218) that protects long-term care homes, including those owned by giant for-profit corporations, from civil lawsuits arising from their gross mismanagement of the pandemic.

The results of the commission echoed similar conclusions drawn in a report on pandemic readiness and response in long-term care that was issued by Ontario’s Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk on April 28. Lysyk’s report highlighted key issues within the long-term care sector, namely residents living in rooms with three or four occupants, care-home staff lacking adequate training to provide appropriate care, inconsistent practice of infection prevention and control even before the pandemic, and a “problematic enforcement practice.”

A key reason for the lack of enforcement was the Ford government’s outrageous fall 2018 decision to discontinue proactive, comprehensive inspections of long-term care homes. An anonymous former provincial inspector of Ontario’s care homes recently spoke to Global News about the lack of enforcement. The inspector described a severe shortage of inspectors and an inability for them to impose fines, meaning that when care homes fail to meet standards, they have no financial or other compulsion to correct their non-compliance issues.

A prime example of this was the case of a Scarborough, Ontario, nursing home in which 81 residents died due to an outbreak in December. Two inspectors had visited the 254-bed nursing home ten times between January 7 and January 20, 2020, and had issued 13 written notices. The inspectors had been called to the home following numerous complaints ranging from nutrition and hydration concerns and understaffing to unexplained injuries.

A months-long Global News investigation has also brought to light documents that reveal that the Ford government was repeatedly warned about the risks in long-term care homes but ignored the appeals of scientists, doctors and seniors’ advocates for steps to prevent a second wave ravaging their residents. The documents include a letter from infection prevention and control leaders at Toronto-area hospitals, dated April 20, 2020, warning of the urgent need to train and hire more infection prevention experts, and a “lessons learned” list from the Ministry of Long-Term Care dated July 15, 2020, that stated the province knew it needed “thousands” of additional personal support workers.

Another document, dated July 24, 2020, was an Ontario Health review titled “Insights and Recommendations for Long-Term Care,” which warned that “[Long-term care] and public health are significantly under-resourced to meet IPAC standards to protect the basic needs of residents.”

Despite the overwhelming amount of evidence suggesting that major changes need to be immediately put in place in the long-term care sector to prevent further deaths, Ontario Health Minister Christine Elliot announced on April 28 that a new emergency order would allow the province to begin transferring patients from hospitals to long-term care homes in order to free up beds for the massive influx of COVID-19 patients entering hospitals due to the third wave of the pandemic. More infectious variants, including the B.1.1.7 British variant, have produced soaring infection rates among younger people, driving the number of intensive care patients to more than two times the upper limit set by the government for the maintenance of regular levels of care.

Even prior to this announcement, Ontario hospitals had begun discharging elderly patients. By April 22, over a thousand patients had been rapidly discharged and transferred to long-term care homes despite still requiring medical aid.

The new measures allow for patients to be transferred to any nursing home and without giving consent. The Ford government has made a feeble attempt to draw attention away from this concerning fact by emphasizing that those transferred will not be subject to the usual co-payment that homes normally charge upon receiving new patients, as if to infer that they are somehow the recipients of generosity.

Ukrainian government accuses pro-Russian oligarch and opposition leader of “high treason”

Jason Melanovski


The right-wing Ukrainian government of President Volodymyr Zelensky has indicted the country’s main opposition party leader, the oligarch Viktor Medvedchuk, on charges of high treason and embezzlement.

Viktor Medvedchuk (Wikimedia Commons)

Specifically, state authorities are accusing both Medvedchuk and his business partner, Taras Kozak, of transferring oil and gas production licenses located in the Sea of Azov to Russia following Crimea’s annexation by Russia in 2014, which at the time was overwhelmingly supported by the peninsula’s population.

In addition, Medvedchuk has been accused of disclosing classified information on Ukrainian troop movements.

According to Ukraine’s Prosecutor-General Irina Venediktova, the charges against Medvedchuk carry sentences of up to fifteen years in prison.

“Medvedchuk, as the organizer of illegal activities, and having strong ties with the top leadership of the Russian Federation, began subversive activities against Ukraine, including in the economic sphere,” Venediktova said while outlining the charges against Medvedchuk in a briefing.

While the Ukrainian media initially speculated that Medvedchuk would flee to Russia upon hearing of the charges, Medvedchuk appeared at the Prosecutor General’s office later that day in Kiev. He denounced the charges as “fabricated” and a case of clear political repression.

Ukrainian prosecutors had requested a jail sentence and recommended that bail be set at $10.8 million. The presiding judge denied the government’s request and instead placed Medvedchuk on house arrest and confiscated his passport.

Upon leaving the Prosecutor General’s office Medvedchuk was accosted by right-wing nationalists who accused him of being a lackey of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The indictment of Medvedchuk is the latest step in a carefully staged political crackdown against the pro-Kremlin Opposition Platform-For Life party which Medvedchuk leads. The party is currently the second largest in the Ukrainian parliament holding 44 of 450 seats behind Zelensky’s own Servant of the People party.

As Zelensky’s approval ratings have fallen over the past year due to his inability to solve the over seven-year long civil war in eastern Ukraine and the medical and economic crisis caused by COVID-19, support for Medvedchuk’s party has risen. Several polls have even shown the Opposition Platform-For Life party winning a hypothetical parliamentary election, raising the prospect of the return of a Moscow-friendly government to Kiev.

Such a scenario would be anathema to both the United States and the EU which backed the far-right coup that toppled elected President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014. They have sent billions in aid to Kiev since, and are playing a central role in the development of Ukraine’s military which is engaged in an ongoing civil war with Russian-backed separatists in East Ukraine. The civil war has claimed the lives of over 14,000 people and displaced millions.

With the support of the new Biden administration in the United States, Zelensky has moved quickly to head off the threat from a Russia-friendly political opposition within Ukraine.

In February, Zelensky undemocratically shut down three popular predominantly Russian-speaking television stations—ZiK, 112 Ukraine and NewsOne—all of which are owned by Medvedchuk and his business partner Taras Kozak. Medvedchuk’s financial assets were also frozen for three years and both he and Kozak were sanctioned by the Ukrainian government.

Following the crackdown, several other journalists were accused of “treason” including the popular pro-Russian blogger Anatoly Shariy who, like Medvedchuk, leads a political opposition party that favors a negotiated settlement to the war in the eastern Donbass region.

Later in April, Zelensky moved even further to shut down opposition media and limit free speech by asking YouTube to ban all Medvedchuk-affiliated channels within Ukraine’s borders.

The California-based company dutifully fulfilled the request and was later thanked by Ukraine’s embassy in Washington.

In addition to leading the main opposition party and a constant figure in post-Soviet Ukrainian politics, Medvedchuk is also an extremely wealthy oligarch, worth an estimated $1 billion. In 2015, amidst the ongoing civil war in Donbass, he purchased a yacht worth $214 million.

A former Stalinist bureaucrat and lawyer, Medvedchuk quickly transitioned into a full-fledged capitalist following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, making millions off the purchase and sale of the Donbass region’s prodigious industrial concerns and energy resources.

In 2014, following the United States-backed right-wing nationalist coup and the Russian annexation of Crimea, Medvedchuk was sanctioned by the US Department of Treasury for violating the “security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine.”

Despite his opposition to the US-backed coup, Medvedchuk has continued to play a significant role in Ukrainian bourgeois politics due to his immense wealth and influence over the Donbass region. As a result of both business and personal ties with the Russian oligarchy, Medvedchuk has been the most prominent go-between with Moscow and Kiev over the course of the civil war in eastern Ukraine. He has helped in drafting the Minsk peace accords and securing the release of captured Ukrainian soldiers by Russian-backed separatists.

It now appears that the increasingly right-wing, militaristic and undemocratic Zelensky government is moving to excise Medvedchuk from Ukrainian ruling-class politics altogether, threatening a complete breakdown of ties with Russia and any remaining possibility of a negotiated settlement between Moscow and Kiev over the Donbass region. The crackdown on Medvedchuk and his party also comes amidst ongoing tensions with Russia over East Ukraine and Crimea, which were escalated by Kiev’s adoption of a strategy to “recover Crimea.”

Zelensky’s crackdown on the pro-Russian oligarchic opposition has been encouraged by the United States since 2014. Washington has constantly urged both former President Petro Poroshenko and now Zelensky to prosecute the Russian-affiliated section of the Ukrainian oligarchy in the name of an “anti-corruption” campaign.

Last week, while visiting Kiev amidst growing tensions between Ukraine and Russia, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken obliquely called upon Zelensky to move more aggressively against this section of the oligarchy. He stated,“Ukraine is facing two challenges: aggression from outside, coming from Russia, and in effect aggression from within, coming from corruption, oligarchs and others who are putting their interests ahead of those of the Ukrainian people.”

The indictment and prosecution of Medvedchuk will undoubtedly further worsen relations between Kiev and Moscow.

New Zealand Labour-led government imposes public sector wage freeze

John Braddock


New Zealand’s Labour-led government, which includes the Greens, last week declared a pay freeze across the public service for the next three years. The move, which extends a measure introduced last year during the COVID-19 pandemic, will inevitably be used to suppress wages in the private sector as well.

Green Party co-leaders James Shaw and Marama Davidson with PM Jacinda Ardern and Labour Party deputy leader Kelvin Davis [Source: NZ Labour Party Facebook page]

Public Service Minister Chris Hipkins announced that workers earning more than $NZ60,000 will only be offered pay increases under “exceptional” circumstances, while increases for those on salaries over $100,000 are ruled out. Only about a quarter of public servants earns less than $60,000 and will theoretically qualify for pay increases, which still have to be negotiated.

Tens of thousands of doctors, nurses, teachers, social workers, border staff, conservation staff, administrative personnel and others will be hit by the freeze. Most have already had increases well below the inflation rate for years with pay packets eaten up by escalating house prices, rents and basic living costs. The median weekly income fell by 7.6 percent in the 12 months to June 2020.

Finance Minister Grant Robertson said “restraint” was necessary to keep a lid on public debt, which had skyrocketed during the pandemic, to pay for “expensive” measures like the wage subsidy. “As the recovery gets under way, we are keeping a close watch on the debt taken on during COVID to support the economy,” Robertson said.

In fact, the government’s response to the economic crisis has been the same as governments internationally: an unprecedented handout of billions of dollars to businesses, which have sacked or short-timed thousands of workers. The government’s “wage” subsidy scheme paid over $NZ14 billion to employers. Global conglomerates including Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, Asahi and Tesla, along with local NZX-listed companies, claimed millions in subsidies before handing out huge dividends to investors.

Boasting a “strong economic bounce-back,” Robertson earlier this year revealed the economic recovery would cost $60 billion less than the government was anticipating. Last September Treasury officials expected the government’s level of debt to jump from the pre-pandemic 20 percent range, to 48 percent in 2034. The figure is now expected to be 36.5 percent. On May 4, Robertson announced that $1 billion of underspent COVID money has been kept back for new initiatives.

Neither Robertson nor Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern was able to say how much money would be saved under the freeze, but the total wage bill is only about $5 billion of a $108 billion budget. Robertson said it was important however to “show leadership.”

In the wake of the 2020 general election, the WSWS warned: “Any illusions that Labour is a progressive party, or a ‘lesser evil’ to National, will be shattered by the assault on the working class that is already well underway. To repay the debt accumulated by bailing out the rich, the re-elected Ardern government will work with big business and the union bureaucracy to implement drastic austerity measures. This will inevitably trigger a resurgence of class struggle.”

The prediction is being borne out in spades. Public sector workers argued that they had carried the burden of the COVID-19 response, and responded with fury to the government’s announcement, denouncing it as a “betrayal.” Prominent right-wing blogger David Farrar meanwhile praised Labour’s move as “very bold” and something that a National government would never have dared.

The initial response by the trade unions was to meekly complain that the Labour government—which they had supported and many had funded during the election—had failed to “consult” them. The Public Service Association (PSA) told TV 1 they had no “heads up,” and the move would interfere with their ongoing negotiations.

Nurses, who have recently rejected a miserly 1.3 percent pay offer from the District Health Boards, took to social media to declare the move likely to precipitate a vote to strike.

One senior nurse told Radio NZ she spent last year terrified of dying from COVID-19 or giving it to her family. “To be facing in real terms a pay decrease… it was absolutely a slap in the face having faced extreme risk,” she said. She had never seen worse conditions in the past 15 years, saying they are regularly understaffed, wards and waiting rooms are overfull, and it is often unsafe.

The furious backlash from workers and union members quickly forced a change of language from the union bureaucracy. “Don’t expect us to take this lying down,” Council of Trade Unions (CTU) President Richard Wagstaff told the New Zealand Herald. In an open letter to Hipkins, the PSA declared: “Your pay restrictions at this time are unacceptable.” The Green Party, which is part of the government, launched a petition calling for Labour to reverse the decision.

These remarks were quickly demonstrated to be hot air. Wagstaff told Business Desk there was “nothing new with the issuing of expectations that set a low bar for public sector worker wage movement.” Wagstaff emphasised that wage negotiations would continue in “good faith” and there were “some positive aspects of the government’s expectations that we can agree on.”

Emerging from a meeting with ministers on May 11, the unions claimed a “victory” on the bogus basis that the “guidance” set out by the government will now be reviewed at the end of next year. Meanwhile, there is “scope to discuss” cost-of-living increases for union members covered by collective agreements, and scheduled increases through step-based pay systems.

In response, Hipkins bluntly told the media that his expectations had “not changed.” The government will continue with its brutal austerity agenda, which the unions will continue to enforce. In 2018 and 2019, following nationwide strikes by tens of thousands of teachers and nurses, the New Zealand Nurses Organisation and the teacher unions rammed through sellout agreements which did nothing to address severe understaffing and delivered a pay increase of just 3 percent for most workers.

Labour has simultaneously launched an overhaul of industrial law to empower the unions to police the broad sections of low-paid workers who are currently not union members. The policy will significantly boost the institutional power of unions through centralised wage bargaining. So-called “Fair Pay Agreements” (FPAs) will allow unions to negotiate on an industry-wide basis. If 10 percent of a workforce, or 1,000 workers agree, a union will have power to negotiate directly with the employer group covering a particular sector for an agreement for all workers, union and non-union.

Both the CTU and BusinessNZ will receive $250,000 for the next three years to support coordinating FPAs. Sectoral unions can also receive $50,000 to help with the costs of bargaining. That is, a corporatist framework of employer-union-government wage setting will be put in place to entrench low pay across entire industries, enforced by draconian legislation.

The unions, as they have done for decades, will impose the deals and suppress resistance from workers. The government has foreshadowed banning strikes and lockouts during FPA bargaining. Strikes are already illegal except when employment contracts are being re-negotiated or for health and safety reasons. These repressive provisions, legislated by the previous Helen Clark-led Labour government, will be expanded with the active support of the CTU. As it imposes austerity measures, the government is bringing forward this anti-working class legislation to suppress a new eruption of unrest and militancy.

EU powers back Israeli war on Gaza, banning anti-war protests

Johannes Stern & Alex Lantier


European Union (EU) governments are endorsing the Israeli bombing of the Gaza Strip. In a further attack on basic democratic rights, they are banning peaceful protests in favor of the Palestinians in European cities, based on the slander that those attending are violent anti-Semites.

The fighting that has escalated since Israeli riot police rampaged through the Al-Aqsa Mosque last weekend is a one-sided slaughter. The Israeli military is bombing the Gaza Strip and boasting of assassinating Palestinian military commanders, who can reply only with a few crude rockets. As of yesterday, there were over 126 Palestinian had been killed, along with six Israelis and one Indian national. Ten Palestinians were also killed by Israeli forces in the West Bank yesterday. Yet the EU and its member states are lining up behind the Israeli government, denouncing the Palestinians.

People gather outside Downing Street to protest against Israeli attacks on Palestinians in Gaza, in London, Saturday, May 15, 2021. (AP Photo/Alberto Pezzali)

EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen set the tone, taking to Twitter to declare herself “concerned.” She then endorsed the Israeli position against the Gaza Strip, writing: “I condemn indiscriminate attacks by Hamas on Israel. Civilians on all sides must be protected. Violence must end now.” Similar remarks came from both Berlin and Paris.

After German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s spokesman Steffen Seibert denounced Palestinian “terror attacks” and hailed Israel’s “right to self-defense,” the Elysée presidential palace in Paris released a statement yesterday. It said French President Emmanuel Macron had called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: “He presented his condolences for the victims of fire from Hamas and other terrorist groups that he again firmly condemned. And on the anniversary of Israel’s creation, the president stressed his unwavering support for Israel’s security and its right to self-defense.”

German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas (SPD) blamed Hamas for the conflict and called for bans on demonstrations in defense of the Gaza Strip. “At the very least, Hamas has wantonly caused the latest escalation, by firing over a thousand rockets at Israeli cities,” he told the Bild newspaper. He said pro-Palestinian demonstrations should be banned “if criminal actions can be expected there.”

The EU powers are supporting Israeli aggression, though they know it could trigger a broader war.

On May 12, Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian told the French Senate he was “very concerned at the gravity of the situation in the Near East.” Israel has repeatedly bombed Syria this year, targeting both Syrian government and Iranian forces, and Le Drian noted the danger that a regional war could erupt: “The ongoing spiral of violence in Gaza, Jerusalem, in the West Bank and several Israeli cities threatens to provoke a major escalation. In less than 15 years, the Gaza Strip has seen three bloody wars. Everything must be done to avoid a fourth.”

Nonetheless, Le Drian came down in support of Israeli aggression, declaring, “France condemns in the strongest terms the rocket and missile fire from the Gaza strip targeting Jerusalem and several inhabited areas in Israeli territory, including Tel Aviv.”

Without condemning Israel’s far greater bombardment of the Gaza Strip, Le Drian cynically tried to adopt an evenhanded posture. Condemning Israel’s forced resettlement of Palestinians from East Jerusalem, he pledged to work with German, Egyptian and Jordanian officials to “restart dialog between the conflicting parties to attain a just and lasting settlement of the conflict.” He also called for the right to protest to be respected in Israel.

EU governments’ own policy at home exposed the hypocrisy of Le Drian’s statements of concern about democratic rights in the Middle East. Amid growing working-class anger at police brutality, social inequality and the over one million deaths caused by the EU’s policy of malign neglect towards the circulation of the COVID-19 virus, governments across Europe are banning or threatening to ban anti-war demonstrations.

On Thursday, French Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin banned today’s pro-Gaza protest in Paris. “I asked the prefect of police to ban demonstrations Saturday that are linked to the recent tensions in the Near East,” he tweeted, adding that across France, “orders have been given to the prefects to be especially vigilant and firm.” He told France’s police prefects to “mobilize the intelligence services [to] closely follow these movements” and “anticipate any risk of troubles.”

The sole justification Darmanin gave for this drastic attack on civil liberties was that seven years ago, there was violence at a pro-Palestinian protest in Paris against the 2014 Israeli war on Gaza.

The Association of Palestinians of Île-de-France, which is organizing the Paris protest, condemned Darmanin’s ban. Its spokesman Walid Atallah said: “By banning this demonstration, France shows its complicity with the state of Israel, which wants to ban all expression of solidarity with the rights of Palestinians, who are suffering occupation, colonization, and bombardments.”

The Paris administrative court rejected a first appeal of Darmanin’s ban by the association, which appealed to France’s State Council. It maintained the call for the protest, nonetheless, noting that “too many demonstrators have planned to make the trip in order to express themselves.”

Frankfurt city authorities have banned a rally in the city center this afternoon by several pro-Palestinian organizations. The reason given on yesterday was that criminal acts committed by demonstrators could endanger public safety. City official Markus Frank (CDU) accused the organizers of making “anti-Semitic calls.”

Such accusations of anti-Semitism serve to suppress any protest against Israel’s murderous actions.

Before the protest, in fact, organizers repeatedly spoke out against anti-Semitism, especially after a few dozen people chanted anti-Semitic slogans outside a synagogue in Gelsenkirchen. A statement released Thursday by the group “Palestine Speaks” stated, “If you hate Jews, you have no business being here.” The official leaflet for the Frankfurt demonstration calls on everyone to show “solidarity against expulsion, against land theft, against ethnic cleansing, against the ongoing Nakba and for the right of return and for an open society for ALL.”

That does not stop European politicians and media from denouncing any protest against Israel’s war policies as anti-Semitic. However, criticism of the right-wing Netanyahu government’s brutal actions has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. On the contrary, the claim that the terror-bombing of a largely defenseless population is an expression of Judaism is itself an anti-Semitic argument.

Nothing could make the reactionary nature of the official propaganda campaign clearer than the fact that it is led in Germany by the far-right AfD (Alternative for Germany), whose members glorify the Nazi Wehrmacht and are agitating against the Holocaust Memorial in Berlin.

It is not anti-war demonstrators, but the EU governments that promote anti-Semitism. They not only court the far right across Europe, but also collaborate with openly anti-Semitic forces to pursue their political goals. This was notably the case with the far-right coup in Ukraine in 2014, when then-German Foreign Minister and current President Frank-Walter Steinmeier met the leader of the fascist Svoboda party, the notorious anti-Semite Oleh Tyahnybok, in the German embassy in Kiev.

As for France’s interior minister, Darmanin, he is a sympathizer of the far-right Action française on record as declaring that he dislikes seeing kosher foods in French supermarkets.

COVID-19 infections in Sweden surpass 1 million

Jordan Shilton


One year after Swedish authorities took the decision to let the coronavirus run rampant with the goal of reaching “herd immunity,” infection rates remain among the highest in Europe. Last week, the Scandinavian country, with a population of just 10.3 million people, surpassed the mark of 1 million officially registered cases. To date, over 14,200 deaths have been recorded, with over 5,000 of those occurring since the peak of the second wave in December.

The working class and young people are paying the price for the ruling elite’s policy of mass deaths and infections, which served as the template for governments across Europe and North America to abandon all serious lockdown measures following the spring 2020 first wave. Low-income earners and immigrant communities have been disproportionately affected by unemployment and coronavirus infection, while the current rollout of vaccines is failing to reach immigrant communities.

Throughout April, infection rates in Sweden were the highest of any major country in Europe, with intensive care units full to the brim with sick patients. On April 13, the seven-day rolling average for daily infections was 625 per million inhabitants, behind only tiny San Marino. By late April, the reported infection rate was 800 cases per 100,000 inhabitants within a two-week period, one of the highest rates at any time since the beginning of the pandemic.

The individual publicly identified with Sweden’s “herd immunity” policy is state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell, who infamously noted in an email on March 14, 2020: “One point might speak for keeping schools open in order to reach herd immunity more quickly.” At the time, Swedish authorities refused to impose a lockdown as the first wave spread, kept all primary and lower secondary schools open, and allowed businesses to continue operating normally.

Anders Tegnell [Source: Wikimedia Commons]

Even as Sweden’s elderly care homes were transformed into killing fields, and infection rates among the general population were among the highest in Europe, Tegnell refused to impose tighter restrictions and even rejected the wearing of masks as ineffectual. Sweden’s Public Health Agency only issued a “recommendation” to wear masks in December 2020 and only for commuters during rush hour travel.

But Tegnell only expressed in the most unvarnished manner what was in fact the policy of the entire Swedish ruling class and what rapidly became the homicidal agenda of every capitalist government in Europe and North America. His “herd immunity” strategy was embraced by the New York Times and the Trump administration in the United States, the Johnson government in Britain, which sought advice from Tegnell, and the political establishment in Germany. This included the Left Party whose only minister president, the head of the state government in Thuringia Bodo Ramelow, declared his support for the “Swedish model.” Indeed, the Swedish approach to COVID-19 has been so widely embraced that Tegnell has, with some justification, pointed out that Sweden has not handled the pandemic all that much differently to other countries.

In Sweden, the “herd immunity” strategy was enforced by the Social Democrat/Green coalition government, which relies in parliament for its majority on the ex-Stalinist Left Party and two small centre-right parties, the Liberals and Centre Party. Both the Centre and Liberal parties belong traditionally to Sweden’s right-wing party bloc, which is led by the Moderates and includes the Christian Democrats.

But in a significant shift to the right following the 2018 election, Social Democratic Prime Minister Stefan Löfven secured a deal with the Liberals and Centre that saw them leave the right-wing bloc known as the Alliance. The latest reports indicate that the Liberals will return to the Alliance for the 2022 election with the aim of establishing a right-wing government that will for the first time rely on support from the far-right Sweden Democrats, which has its roots in Sweden’s neo-Nazi movement.

As criticism of Tegnell and the Public Health Agency mounted throughout 2020, Löfven increasingly took over public announcements on pandemic policy, but nothing of substance changed. In November, as the second wave gathered pace, Löfven urged people to restrict private gatherings to eight, but no new regulations were brought in to enforce this. Schools and businesses remained open.

The first report by Sweden’s coronavirus commission was released in December. It presented a damning indictment of the government’s response, as well as sharp criticism of the austerity for health and social services enforced by successive governments of the “left” and “right.” The report noted that one of the main factors for the high death rate in care homes was “structural shortcomings” caused by cost cutting and privatisation. “These shortcomings have led to residential care being unprepared and ill-equipped to handle a pandemic. Staff employed in the elderly care sector were largely left by themselves to tackle the crisis,” the report added.

In January, a new pandemic law was adopted in parliament. But other than restricting the opening of restaurants and cafes to 8:30 p.m. and imposing limits on the number of guests at a single table, no major restrictions were implemented.

Anger over the government’s pandemic response continues to build within the medical community. Last month, The Lancet published a piece entitled, “The Swedish COVID-19 strategy revisited,” that was a searing condemnation of the authorities’ refusal to take the necessary measures to protect human lives.

“In December, 2020, we wrote about the Swedish response to the COVID-19 pandemic,” noted the authors, Mariam Claeson and Stefan Hanson. “Our hope was that our comment, together with hundreds of other fact-based articles, would gain the attention of the Swedish Public Health Agency, that they would revisit and change the national strategy that they had designed so that it would be more aligned with global best practices, and that the political decision makers would act on it. They did not.”

The authors continued that the Public Health Agency had as of April 19 recorded over 5,600 deaths since their December article. A third wave was raging in the country “without any widespread sense of gravity or urgency,” they continued. The Public Health Agency has “doubled down and defended its approach without reconsidering the assumptions on which the failed national strategy is based. It has downplayed the role of asymptomatic spread, aerosol transmission, children as potential source of infection, and the use of face masks.”

The Lancet article noted that medical experts have been urging Swedish authorities for over a year to “be strategic, test and trace more, follow the growing evidence base and recommend the use of face masks, and enforce regulations about physical distancing and ventilation, especially in schools if they are open.” The authors continued: “It has been a call for timely implementation of basic principles of pandemic prevention and control to contain the spread and flatten the curves of hospitalisations, deaths, and chronic illness.”

Sweden’s “herd immunity” policy has disproportionately impacted the most vulnerable sections of the population. During the first wave, infection and death rates were many multiples higher among Stockholm’s immigrant communities, many of which are wracked by high jobless and poverty rates, than the national average. People with North African and Middle Eastern backgrounds were seven times more likely to be admitted to hospital due to COVID-19 than native Swedes as of February 2021.

The Social Democrat/Green government also responded to the pandemic, like governments throughout Europe, by providing multibillion krona bailouts to big business and the financial elite. According to business daily Dagens Industri, at least 40 new krona billionaires emerged in Sweden during 2020 (1 dollar = 8.5 kronor). The total value of investments owned by 169 individuals and families increased by $35 billion, equating to almost 40 percent of all private savings in shares and equity funds held by Swedes. In 2020 the government also abolished Sweden’s top income tax rate, which imposed a 5 percent surcharge on all incomes over 703,000 kronor ($74,300). Cuts were also made in the 2021 budget to employers’ social security contributions for young workers.

Figures on Sweden’s vaccine rollout show that disadvantaged communities are being left behind. According to a report in the Financial Times, 91 percent of native-born Swedes over the age of 80 have received at least one vaccine dose. The rate drops to 59 percent for people aged over 80 from North Africa and just 44 percent for those from Sub-Saharan Africa.

Anger mounts in Turkey at Israel’s onslaught against Gaza

Hasan Yıldırım & Ulaş Ateşçi


As Israel’s ongoing onslaught on Palestinians in East Jerusalem and Gaza provokes mass anger in Turkey, it is also exposing the hypocrisy of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government led by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan over the plight of the Palestinian people. The Turkish government and other venal bourgeois regimes in the Middle East are all complicit in the Israeli government’s assault on the Palestinians.

A protest in front of the Israeli consulate in Istanbul, Tukey on May 11, 2021. (Photo: IHH via AP)

Over the past week, thousands of people in many cities of Turkey have protested against Israel’s attacks on the Al-Aqsa mosque in East Jerusalem and subsequent air strikes in Gaza. Mass demonstrations took place in front of the Israeli Consulate and Taksim Square in Istanbul, despite the curfew imposed amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

President Erdoğan called Israel a “terror state” last Saturday, after Israeli police stormed the Al-Aqsa mosque, and urged all Muslim countries and the “international community” to take “effective” measures against Tel Aviv.

The major establishment parties in parliament—the ruling AKP and its fascistic ally, the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), as well as the bourgeois opposition, the Kemalist Republican People’s Party (CHP), far-right Good Party and Kurdish nationalist Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP)—condemned Israel in a rare joint statement on Monday.

“We declare that we will always continue to react to Israel’s aggressive actions aimed at eroding the status of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, and [Israel’s] attempts to usurp the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people,” it said, before claiming, “We strongly declare that we will continue to defend the Palestinian cause and [support] the struggle of the brotherly Palestinian people for freedom, justice and independence.”

On Wednesday, after US State Department spokesman Ned Price said, “Israel does have a right to defend itself,” Erdoğan’s communications director Fahrettin Altun criticized Washington’s support for Israel, asking, “Does the US have not any reaction to these massacres and terrorist acts?” Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar also called Israel’s actions “crimes against humanity” and urged Tel Aviv to stop its ongoing attacks.

Though its president calls Israel a “terror state,” Turkey, the first country in the Muslim world to recognize Israel in 1949, maintains diplomatic, trade, economic and military ties with Tel Aviv as part of its broader military-strategic alliance with US imperialism.

However, the statements from top Turkish political and military officials are accompanied by intense diplomacy activity. According to Turkey’s state-owned Anadolu Agency, Erdoğan has recently called the leaders of Russia, Qatar, Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Indonesia, Algeria, Iraq, Pakistan and other countries. He again described the Israeli attacks as “terrorism.”

He also spoke with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and İsmail Haniyeh, a leader of Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated group that controls Gaza, promising support for “the cause of Palestine.”

During talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday, Erdoğan said that the “international community” needed to “teach a deterrent lesson” to Israel, before proposing that to discuss the “idea of sending an international protection force to the region in order to protect Palestinian civilians.” According to the statement made by the Kremlin, Putin had “called on the parties to deescalate tensions and peacefully resolve the emerging issues.”

The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) also condemned Israel “in the strongest terms the repeated attacks by the Israeli occupation authorities against the Palestinian people.”

This pro forma condemnation comes from an organization consisting of reactionary Arab regimes that have recently normalized relations with Israel.

As Israeli strikes on Gaza escalate, killing more than 100 mostly civilian victims, and as Israel prepares a more comprehensive military onslaught, the Turkish Foreign Ministry yesterday again called on “the international community to act swiftly to stop these attacks, which will cause further loss of civilian lives.” It added: “We have learned with concern that Israel has started firing tanks and artillery against Gaza this time.”

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu also called his Egyptian counterpart Sameh Shoukry to discuss Palestine after visiting Saudi Arabia. The meeting came amid Ankara’s ongoing efforts to reestablish relations with the Egyptian military dictatorship of General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. After Sisi’s bloody 2013 coup against elected Egyptian President Mohammed Mursi of the Muslim Brotherhood, Erdoğan denounced the Sisi regime, and the ties between the two countries collapsed.

On May 6, there was a direct diplomatic meeting of Turkish and Egyptian delegations for the first time in years. Turkish Trade Minister Mehmet Muş said Turkey wants to improve its economic relations with Egypt while trying to restore diplomatic ties.

The Erdoğan government’s regional initiatives came as part of a broader diplomatic campaign launched by Ankara, particularly after Joe Biden was elected US president last year. The Turkish government recently declared that it wants to improve relations with all countries in the region. This entails moving as far away from Iran and Russia as possible, while also developing better relations with Egypt and Israel.

After former US President Donald Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in 2017, Tel Aviv violently suppressed Palestinian protests, killing dozens. Ankara then recalled its ambassador to Israel. Although diplomatic relations between Turkey and Israel have been reduced to the level of chargé d’affaires since 2018, Turkish President Erdoğan declared last December that “Turkey wants to improve its relations with Israel. Our intelligence cooperation with Israel is ongoing.”

Moreover, Israel Hayom cited an anonymous senior Turkish official in March that Turkey “is ready to dispatch an ambassador to Tel Aviv once the Israeli government commits to simultaneously reciprocating the measure.” The paper claimed: “The main point of contention between the two former allies remains the presence of senior Hamas officials on Turkish soil.” Given the relations developed simultaneously with the military regime in Egypt, this is not an insurmountable obstacle.

One of the most critical points in Ankara’s approach to the Palestine question is the competition over the division of oil and gas resources in the eastern Mediterranean. An EastMed Gas Forum was formally established led by European imperialist powers, France and Italy. While it also involves Cyprus, Egypt, Greece, Israel, Jordan and Palestine, Turkey protested its exclusion from the forum. Although Palestine is a member of the forum, Israel is blocking it from accessing the Gaza gas field.

Moreover, there are strong economic ties between the two countries. In 2017, Israel’s Transportation and Intelligence Minister Yisrael Katz said that “Erdoğan is acting as a frenemy. … He attacks us a lot, and we respond, but this does not prevent him from channeling 25 percent of Turkey’s exports to the Gulf through Haifa’s port.”

Turkish Transport and Infrastructure Minister Adil Karaismailoğlu has called on his Israeli counterpart to allow a leading Turkish firm to bid in a recent tender for the privatization of the Haifa Port, according to a report made by the Israel Hayom in April.

At the end of April, the daily Cumhuriyet newspaper reported that Israeli Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz was invited to an official Diplomacy Forum in Turkey to be held on June 18-20. In March, he announced his government’s readiness to cooperate with Turkey on natural gas in the eastern Mediterranean.

This hypocritical Palestinian policy of the Turkish government, based entirely on the interests of the ruling class and its ties with imperialism, makes one thing very clear. The allies of the Palestinian people against the military onslaught they face are not this or that reactionary bourgeois regime in the region, but the working class in Israel, Turkey, Iran and all over the world.

End of CDC masking guidelines aimed at “normalizing” death

Andre Damon


On Thursday, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced that it is no longer advising that individuals vaccinated against COVID-19 wear masks indoors or socially distance.

David J. Sencer CDC Museum in Atlanta, GA [Source: Wikimedia Commons]

“Anyone who is fully vaccinated can participate in indoor and outdoor activities, large or small, without wearing a mask or physical distancing,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky declared.

But with nearly two thirds of the American population not fully vaccinated, there is no effective way to determine who is vaccinated and who is not. The change in the CDC’s guidelines will mean that all people, whether vaccinated or unvaccinated, will be allowed to gather indoors, including at mass events like sporting events, without masks. The result will be a significant increase in the rate at which the disease spreads.

The CDC’s guidance is a political, not a scientific, decision. It is intended as a signal that all measures that impinge on business interests, from social distancing requirements to enhanced sanitary guidelines, are to be dropped. Factories and workplaces will be free to bunch workers up in groups, never clean surfaces or bathrooms, and send their employees into unmasked crowds.

Within 24 hours, several of the country’s largest retailers, including Walmart, Sam’s Club and Trader Joe’s, announced that they would no longer be enforcing mask mandates. More than 10 states, including Kansas and Minnesota, loosened mask restrictions in response to the CDC’s new guidelines.

The announcement came as a shock to epidemiologists. Following the release of the guidelines, the New York Times published an article entitled “Hundreds of Epidemiologists Expected Mask-Wearing in Public for at Least a Year.” In a survey of epidemiologists carried out in the month before the announcement, the Times found that “80 percent said they thought Americans would need to wear masks in public indoor places for at least another year. Just five percent said people would no longer need to wear masks indoors by this summer.”

“Unless the vaccination rates increase to 80 or 90 percent over the next few months, we should wear masks in large public indoor settings,” Vivian Towe, a program officer at the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, told the New York Times.

Commenting on the CDC proposal, Eric Feigl-Ding, Chief Health Economist for Microclinic International and senior fellow at the Federation of American Scientists, commented “KEEP WEARING THE MASK—We card-carrying epidemiologists (with formal doctorate in epidemiology) know what we are talking about.”

He added in a subsequent tweet, “you cannot distinguish who took off the mask after fully vaccinated versus who took it off / never wore it despite being not vaccinated.”

While vaccination is critical to containing and eradicating COVID-19, it is only partially effective. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines claim to be 95 percent effective, meaning that one in twenty infections will still take place among vaccinated people.

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine is even less effective, with one study showing it was only 66 percent effective at blocking moderate to severe COVID-19. This reality was driven home when eight members of the New York Yankees baseball team and their managerial staff tested positive for COVID-19 in recent days, despite being fully vaccinated with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

From the beginning of the pandemic, the ruling class in the US and internationally responded by rejecting all necessary measures to save lives. The consequences have been catastrophic. The global death toll stands at more than 3.3 million. Daily new cases and daily deaths worldwide are near or at record levels.

In the United States, according to official figures, nearly 600,000 people have died from the COVID-19 pandemic. A recent study by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation estimated that the actual death toll is over 900,000—a figure greater than any war in US history.

Now, even the pretense that the disease is being combatted is being dropped. Instead of claiming to be stopping the spread of the disease, mass death from COVID-19 is being “normalized.” The pandemic will continue. New strains will spread, and workers are being told that they will simply have to accept widespread death as a fact of life.

In December 2020, when the US death toll stood at nearly 300,000, the WSWS explained:

The normalization of death arises from the decision, rooted in class interests, to treat “economic health” and “human life” as comparable phenomena, with the former prioritized over the latter. Once the legitimacy of the comparison and prioritization is accepted—as it is by the political establishment, the oligarchs and the media—mass death is viewed as unavoidable. It is from this awful calculus that the slogan emerges, “The cure can’t be worse than the disease.”

In the past five months, the death toll has doubled. A new administration has taken power, but the same policy continues. As part of this campaign, the number of daily deaths and infections in the US is not even being reported in news reports. However, the US death toll remains between 600 and 700 a day. Over 20,000 people died of COVID-19 over the past 30 days, and 868 people died of the disease on Wednesday alone. At this time last year, there were 24,000 daily new cases of COVID-19, compared to 40,000 today.

The end of mask mandates will eliminate another obstacle to the spread of COVID-19 variants, which are potentially more resistant to the immunity provided by vaccines and natural infection. Every day, more than 700,000 people around the world test positive for COVID-19, giving the virus more opportunities to mutate as it spreads. The potential risks of new variants of COVID-19 are unknowable and unknown.

The change in CDC guidelines has no scientific or public health validity. The Trump administration repeatedly pressured the CDC to falsify science to justify the administration’s goal of reopening schools and business. This reality has not changed under Biden, who has dedicated his administration to the single-minded pursuit of reopening schools, with the aim of getting the largest possible share of the population back into the labor force to swell the profits of major corporations and hold down rising demands by workers for wage increases.

Workers must not accept the CDC’s politically motivated guidance. They must demand that all those entering their workforce be masked, and that management allocate the necessary resources for the enforcement of strict hygiene protocols to stop the spread of COVID-19.

The fight for these demands is impossible within the framework of the trade unions. The same day as the CDC’s politically motivated guidance, American Federation of Teachers (AFT) President Randi Weingarten expressed her determination to break the resistance of teachers to the reopening of schools, declaring, “There is no doubt: Schools must be open. In person. Five days a week.”

Workers cannot accept that tens of thousands of people will die every month in the United States, together with hundreds of thousands around the world. The struggle to contain the pandemic is inseparable from the creation of rank-and-file committees in every workplace, and the fight to arm the working class with a socialist perspective to overthrow the capitalist system that subordinates the preservation of human life to private profit.

14 May 2021

Africa Plant Nutrition Scholarship Program 2021

Application Deadline: 31st May 2021.

About the Award: The African Plant Nutrition Institute (APNI) has released the details of the 2021 Plant Nutrition Scholar Award program that is available to graduate students enrolled in programs specializing in the sciences of plant nutrition and management of crop nutrients. 

The 2021 African Plant Nutrition Scholar Award Program will offer ten (10) awards of $2,000 (U.S. Dollars) to M.Sc., M.Phil., or Ph.D. students in the disciplines of soil science, agronomy, and horticultural or tree crop science with a focus on plant nutrition. Students must also be attending a degree-granting institution located in Africa.

Type: Masters, PhD

Eligibility: Graduate students are eligible if they are:

  1. Currently attending a degree-granting institution located in Africa.
  2. Candidates for M.Sc., M.Phil., or Ph.D. degrees, who are currently enrolled in a program of graduate study as of the application deadline. Applicants who have already completed their degrees are ineligible.
  3. Students in the disciplines of soil and plant sciences (including agronomy, horticulture, ecology, soil fertility, soil chemistry, crop physiology, environmental science, and other areas related to crop nutrition) are encouraged to apply.
  4. Past winners of the Award are not eligible.

Eligible Countries: African countries

To be Taken at (Country): African countries

Number of Awards: 10

Value of Award: USD $2,000 each.

How to Apply: The application is only available on-line here at www.apni.net/scholar-apply

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

Visit Award Webpage for Details

Nelson Mandela Foundation Dialogue & Advocacy Fellowship 2021

Application Deadline: 21st May 2021

About the Award: The Nelson Mandela Foundation aims to recruit a Fellow that will be based within the Dialogue and Advocacy unit. We envision this person as being someone who not only contributes towards public discourse but who also sees research as a verb in that they are committed towards actualising their proposals into tangible outcomes. We are looking for someone who can take initiative, network and engage with stakeholders in a meaningful way. Where possible, they must use relevant empirical evidence from both South Africa and elsewhere in the world. Any interventions or initiatives they propose must be possible in our local context. 

Eligible Field(s): Interested Fellows can submit applications in line with either one of these focus areas: 

a) The uneasy task ahead: The Economy

As we grapple with the notion of building back better and what that means for us in a local context, there are proposals such as universal basic income that are being proposed as possible mechanisms for easing the burden of the country’s poor. It is envisioned that the Fellow selected would help the Foundation shape its economic positions, have an understanding of economic debates and research and also contribute to the public discourse in these areas. Moreover, the Fellow selected should also be willing to apply their mind to issues of sustainability and the mainstreaming thereof, as well as creating public awareness about the need to be deliberate about our development path as a country. Moreover, international approaches need to also be considered so as to locate South Africa within the global context. Applicants should outline what research, dialogue convenings and other initiatives they would want to undertake while at the Foundation as part of what they hope to achieve – this should be done in Appendix A.

A place to call our own: Urban land and housing

The issue of land reform is central to realising a more just and equitable future. Beyond mere rhetoric, there is a need to consider and action proposals that can realise this. We believe that the issue of land reform can be used as a yard stick to measure progress and redress as a country, and while much of the focus has been on rural land, there is a need to focus on urban land in the context of urbanisation. Housing is linked to the issue of land, especially when speaking to the urban context. The selected Fellow should help to advance the discourse on this important issue. More specifically, applications submitted should outline what research, dialogue convenings and other initiatives they would want to undertake while at the Foundation as part of what they hope to achieve – this should be done in Appendix A.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: To be considered for the Fellowship, the Fellow needs to:

  • Have at least a Masters degree or be studying towards one
  • Must be able to write for a popular audience and show proof of ability to do so
  • Must be comfortable with public speaking and stakeholder engagement
  • Must be able to take initiative, work with little supervision and be self-motivated
  • Must be able to convene dialogues and be willing to support the Dialogue and Advocacy team with work that is related to their chosen focus area
  • Must be willing to meet deadlines and be hardworking
  • Preference may be given to candidates that are Gauteng based

Eligible Countries: South Africa

To be Taken at (Country): Guateng, South Africa (preferably)

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value & Duration of Award:

  • This position is full time, until the end of 2021 
  • The position will be a combination of working remotely as well as on site at the Nelson Mandela Foundation offices in Johannesburg
  • The remuneration for this position is R30 000 a month, with a R1 000 data and airtime allowance 
  • The Nelson Mandela Foundation reserves the right to terminate the Fellowship, at any point, if output does not meet agreed upon targets 
  • The Fellowship will incorporate a leadership development component

How to Apply: Prospective Fellows will need to complete the application form ie. Appendix A, which must be sent along with their CV to HR@nelsonmandela.org 

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

Visit Award Webpage for Details

Microsoft Research PhD Fellowship 2021

Application Deadline: 30th June 2021 at 7:00 PM UTC.

About the Award: Fellowships for PhD students at universities globally pursuing research aligned to the Microsoft Research areas of focus.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility:

  • Microsoft’s mission is to empower every person and every organization on the planet to achieve more. Students should support this mission and embrace opportunities to foster diverse and inclusive cultures within their communities.
  • PhD students must be enrolled at a university in EMEA (Europe, the Middle East, or Africa).
  • Proposed research must be closely related to one of the themes at Microsoft Research Cambridge:
    • Cloud Infrastructure
    • Confidential Computing
    • Future of Work
    • Health Intelligence
    • Machine Intelligence
  • Students must be entering their third year or beyond of their PhD program sometime between August 2021 – July 2022 having taken into account transfers, approved leaves of absence, etc.
  • PhD students must continue to be enrolled at the university in the beginning of academic year 2022 or forfeit the award. Fellowships are not available for extension. If you require time away for family or medical leave, this will be accommodated. If you are unsure if a particular need for time away will affect the award, you can contact Microsoft Research Fellowships at msfellow@microsoft.com.
  • Payment of the award, as described above, will be made directly to the university and dispersed according to the university’s policies. Microsoft will have discretion as to how any remaining funds will be used if the student is no longer qualified to receive funding (e.g., if the student unenrolls from the program, graduates, or transfers to a different university).
  • Funding is for use only during the recipient’s time in the PhD program; it cannot be used for support in a role past graduation, such as a postdoc or faculty position. Those interested in receiving this fellowship will need to confirm their PhD program starting month and year, as well as their expected graduation month and year.
  • A recipient of the Microsoft Research PhD Fellowship subject to disciplinary proceedings for inappropriate behavior, including but not limited to discrimination, harassment (including sexual harassment), or plagiarism will forfeit their funding.
  • PhD students submitting a proposal should be able to communicate about their research (both in writing and verbally) in English.

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

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award:

  • $15,000 USD is provided to help complete research as part of their doctoral thesis work for academic year 2022–23.
  • Eligible recipients will be offered a 12-week paid internship with Microsoft Research’s Cambridge, UK lab, or the Microsoft Africa Research Institute (MARI).
  • Opportunities will be provided to build relationships with research teams at Microsoft and receive mentorship.

How to Apply: See information (in LINK) below

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

Visit Award Webpage for Details