Category Archives: Socio-economic Collapse

Despite its proclaimed support for the Lukashenko regime, the Kremlin is increasingly frustrated with the Belarusian president, who has skillfully avoided integration with Russia and engaged in a multivector foreign policy with the West. A democratic alternative to Lukashenko with a proper privatization program will likely be accepted by Moscow as it seeks to gain access to key assets of the Belarusian economy.

On February 7, 2020, Vladimir Putin held talks inSochi with Alexander Lukashenko, who came toRussia onaworking visit. Photo: kremlin.ru.

The August 9 presidential election in Belarus was the latest challenge to the regime of Alexander Lukashenko, a strongman known as Europes last dictator, who has ruled the country for 26 years. This time the challenge came from the young female democratic opponent Svetlana Tikhanovskaya. Despite overwhelming popular support, Tikhanovskaya officially won only about 10 percent of the vote, while Lukashenko claimed a landslide victory with over 80 percent. Unprecedented mass protests against the rigged election followed, resulting in police violence and international outrage over the brutal crackdown on the peaceful demonstrations. Still, these were not Lukashenkos only problems.

Another challenge facing the Belarusian president is his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, who increasingly wants him gone. On the surface such an assumption might seem strange for at least two reasons: first, Belarus and Russia are members of the Union Statea supranational formation established in 1996and second, both leaders have emerged as resilient autocrats. In reality, their interests stand in direct opposition, and their regimes have diverging socio-economic roots, making Lukashenko and Putin as alike as a dolphin and a shark.

Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia and Belarus followed very different paths. Boris Yeltsins government in Russia engaged in market reforms and privatization, which resulted in numerous valuable state assets (including oil and gas companies) being sold at discounted prices to a narrow circle of people who eventually became Russias first oligarchs. At the same time, average Russians went through economic ruin, while the countrys social safety net inherited from the Soviet timesfree healthcare, higher education, housingcrumbled.

Public resentment with the reformers ran high, and many people started to feel nostalgic for the stability of the Soviet erasentiments that were harnessed by Vladimir Putin when he came to power in 2000. He exploited the public mood for his own political gain. For example, to please this part of the electorate, he readopted the Soviet anthem and claimed that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century. But these concessions were superficial, as major results of the Yeltsin era, such as the privatization of the Russian economys commanding heights, were preserved. While initially Putin did go after some oligarchs (notably, Vladimir Gusinsky, Boris Berezovsky, Mikhail Khodorkovsky), they were not eliminated as a group and remained one of the pillars of his regime. In fact, many of Putins close associates joined the oligarchic ranks over the next two decades, thus showing continuity between Yeltsins and Putins Russia.

Belarus followed a completely different path, one that is more comparable to China than to Russia. Under Lukashenko, who was first elected president in 1994, the commanding heights of the Belarusian economy remained in the states hands. The Soviet-era social safety net was also preserved. The ultimate rejection of wholesale privatization has been an essential trait of the Lukashenko regime ever since. Additionally, Lukashenkos political ambitions have shaped Minsks relationship with Moscow. In the late 90s, when the Union State project was first forged, some members of the Russian elite saw him as a potential successor to Yeltsinas a head of a united statedue to his popularity with large groups of the Russian electorate. But realizing that Lukashenkos leadership would bring imminent nationalization, Yeltsins family ultimately favored Putin, who was not seen as a threat to the status quo.

Over time, as Putins grip on power was secured, the Russian elite started to look with increased interest at Belarusian assets, such as oil refineries and factories. The 2013 incident involving Vladislav Baumgertner, head of Uralkali, a leading global potash producer, is a case in point. Baumgertner was arrested in Minsk, having come on the invitation of the Belarusian prime minister to discuss the escalating conflict between Uralkali and its former partner Belaruskali. The two companies formed an exporting cartel, but Baumgertner accused his Belarusian counterpart of illegal sales on the side and pulled out of the cartel, predicting collapse in potash prices and thus jeopardizing the Belarusian economy, which gets about eight percent of its profit from the potash industry. Baumgertner became Lukashenkos hostage in one of its many wars with Russia over Belarusian industrial assets. He was later extradited to Russia, where the criminal case against him was eventually dropped in 2015.

Given these differences and conflicting interests, why, then, are Minsk and Moscow still formally united in one state? For one, states can be allies for pragmatic reasons, regardless of their ideological differenceslike Maos China and Nixons USA, who joined forces against the USSR, which they both feared. Putin needs Belarus as a geopolitical ally due to its strategic location between Russia and Europe. Pragmatic cooperation with the Lukashenko regime may have led some members of the Russian elite to believe that they could gain access to Belarusian assets. To lure Minsk into a deeper integration, the Kremlin largely subsidized the Belarusian economy, including selling it gas and oil at discounted prices. Still, for many years, Lukashenko refused to be fully integrated with Russia, although he joined Putin in co-founding the Eurasian Unionthe Russian presidents geopolitical pet project. But both Belarus and Kazakhstan, another co-founder of this supposed counterweight to the European Union, refused to surrender any authority to the transnational body, that is, to Russia. Lukashenkos unwillingness to fall in line increasingly frustrated the Kremlin, and feuds between the two countries became regular business, but Belarus dependence on Russian subsidies and Russias security imperatives would always incentivize a compromise.

In 2018, however, tensions started to grow beyond the usual. First, as a result of its geopolitical adventures that cost Russian economy a heavy price and the decline in global oil and consequently gas prices, the Kremlin decided that it needed a more tangible return on its investment in Belarus. Second, the Kremlins ambitious geopolitical projectsthe Nord Stream II and Turkish Stream gas pipelinesbegan to stall. Amidst these challenges, Moscow opted to hike gas prices for Belarus, implying that, should Lukashenko agree to fully integrate into Russia, he would be granted gas contracts at Russian domestic prices.

The timeframe of this last push is based on Putins estimate of the poor state of the Belarusian economy, which would leave Lukashenko no choice but to join Russia. Another factor was Moscows growing concern about Minsks tilt toward the West.

Lukashenko dabbled in foreign policy multivectorism for a while, as did many other post-Soviet states. But since his efforts were largely unsuccessful, Moscow was not worried about his flirting with the West. In recent months, however, the situation has begun to change. Minsks relationship with Brussels has softened. In February, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo visited Minskthe first such visit of a high profile American official in 26 years, which resulted in full restoration of diplomatic relations. Moreover, Lukashenko claimed that NATO would not tolerate a Russian invasion of Belarus and would rightly respond with a war.

All these developments alarmed the Kremlin, which at first tried the usual disciplinary measure of denying Belarus its gas discount, and then reignited the idea of removing Lukashenko from the top job through the August 9 presidential election. Perhaps the 33 Russian mercenaries affiliated with the Kremlin-linked Wagner group who were arrested days before the election had been sent to Minsk at the Kremlins directive to cause disorder (Moscow bluntly denied it, of course).

But after Lukashenko rigged the election and Belarus became embroiled in mass protests and countrywide strikes that utterly undermine his regime, whom does the Kremlin see as his replacement? And wouldnt the victory of a democratic opposition candidate, such as Tikhanovskaya, be Moscows worst nightmare?

To answer these questions, consider the differences between the Russian and Belarusian socio-economic models. With Lukashenko in charge, the key assets of the countrys economy prized by the Russian elite will remain in the hands of the Belarusian state. But if the democratic opposition comes to power, it would most likely launch a privatization program, opening up great opportunities for Russian investors. Russian control over the commanding heights of the Belarusian economy would de facto mean Russian control over the country, even without formal annexation. Such dependence implies that the Belarusian democratic opposition would not be able to successfully challenge the Putin regime.

It is still unclear if Lukashenko will ride out the current storm and, if he does, how long his regime will be able to survive, even with his multivectorism. With Lukashenko in power, Belarus would preserve its status as the last relic of the long vanished USSR, but judging by the magnitude of the August protests, Belarusian people are already rejecting it. As ever, the Kremlin is watching closely.

See the original post:

What Putin wants from Lukashenko - Institute of Modern Russia

The Zimbabwe Heads of Christian Denominations (ZHOCD) meet with political leaders to discuss pressing issues affecting the country.

By Fr. Benedict Mayaki, SJ

The heads of Christian denominations in Zimbabwe have gathered religious and political leaders in a meeting, in the wake of the countrys pronounced socio-economic problems, now exacerbated by the Covid-19 crisis.

In a press statement, the Zimbabwe Heads of Christian Denominations (ZHOCD) said the meeting is part of a series of consultations lined up by the churches to find consensus on the current but also the long-standing challenges facing the nation.

The meeting, which took place last week in Harare, saw representatives from seventeen political parties in attendance. However, representatives from the countrys ruling party, ZANU PF (Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front) were noticeably absent from the meeting.

The ZHOCD reports that participants at the meeting discussed a series of issues affecting the nation.

The participants raised concerns about the current state of the health sector characterized by the protracted strike by medical personnel, especially as the nation battles with increasing Covid-19 cases. They also noted that the resources mobilized for the pandemic were not being satisfactorily put to use.

Another point of unease was the failure to implement the constitution. The Christian leaders and political representatives agreed this has led to an increase in fear among citizens confronted by violence and unresolved cases of abductions and systematic torture at the hands of persons alleged to be state functionaries.

The participants also highlighted the negative effects of the current economic collapse in the country. They pointed out that even the informal economy, which had become the source of livelihood for many citizens, has been destroyed not only by the pandemic, but also because of poor economic policies. In addition, the increase in the level of poverty has further marginalized citizens, especially women and children.

At the same time, the political representatives noted that at the heart of many of the countrys issues is the failure to bring closure to the many hurts and human rights violations of the immediate and long-past, including, but not isolated to,Gukurahundi.They pointed out that due to this wounded past, some communities feel marginalized from national development priorities.

TheGukurahundirefers to a series of killings of mainly Ndebeles in Matabeleland from 1983 to 1987 by military forces. It is estimated that approximately 20,000 civilians were killed. This Shona word Gukurahandi loosely translates as the early rain which washes away the chaff before the spring rains.

In light of these concerns, the participants pointed out that the intertwined and overarching nature of these issues require an urgent, inclusive, broad-based national dialogue process involving political parties, churches, the security and business sectors, among others.

The participants, therefore. requested the collaboration of all stakeholders as these issues can neither be addressed in isolation nor by a few actors.

According to the World Bank, poverty in Zimbabwe rose from 29 percent in 2018 to 34 percent in 2019, with a population increase from 4.7 to 5.7 million people.

Severe droughts in the country, which used to be the breadbasket of southern Africa, have now made it one of the most food-insecure countries in the world.Electricity and water supplies have also been reduced, with widespread rationing.

See the original post here:

Zimbabwe: Churches mediate between government and opposition - Vatican News

BAKU, Azerbaijan, July 18

Trend:

The Armenian leadership today needs some kind of a crisis to divert thoughts from these fundamental issues, and it deliberately resorted to this provocation, said President of the Republic of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev during the meeting of the Cabinet of Ministers dedicated to the results of socio-economic development in the first quarter of 2020 and future objectives, Trend reports.

As for the reasons for the Armenian military provocation, of course, we cannot know them for sure, life will tell. But there are many logical assumptions, and I would like to share my thoughts on this with the citizens of Azerbaijan. I believe that the first reason is the current political and economic crisis in Armenia. This is no secret to anyone. Two years ago, a group funded from abroad, receiving salaries and instructions from foreign funds and using their coup technologies, seized power by illegal means and made many promises. They promised that there would be prosperity and paradise in Armenia. They stated that investments of tens of billions of dollars would be made in Armenia in a short time, the population of Armenia would soon reach 5 million although it is less than 2 million people now, life in Armenia would be rebuilt, there would be justice, democracy would develop, human rights would be protected they made other promises, said President Ilham Aliyev.

He noted that the Armenian people are so disgusted with Sargsyan's regime that they would have believed anyone.

If someone else had organized that coup, the Armenian people would have voted for him as well because the hatred for Sargsyan's regime was enormous. The group that took advantage of this and seized power by force had to fulfill these promises to the end. But how can they do it if there is no experience, competence, domestic resources or foreign investment? On the contrary, today they treat foreign investors with contempt and drag them into litigation. Strategic investors who are helping Armenia stand on its feet are being prosecuted and accused of corruption. They are committing dirty deeds even against companies of the country they are attached to, so to speak. Of course, all of this will scare any potential investor away. If this is how you treat the closest companies that invest in your country, create infrastructure there and provide your people with jobs, then what should investors from other countries think? said President Ilham Aliyev.

The head of state pointed out that therefore, it is natural that the collapse of these promises has already led to the emergence of a crisis in Armenia.

How did the authorities react to this? Instead of uniting society, it actually creates political prisoners, political opponents are detained, prosecuted and deprived of immunity, the constitution is flagrantly violated, illegal amendments that are possible only through a referendum are made to it. They know perfectly well that these amendments will not pass in a referendum. Power has been usurped and there is no division of powers. Power is concentrated in the hands of one person, there is no democracy at all and never has been. What kind of democracy, human rights can we talk about in a fascist state? But the current situation is even more deplorable, because the promises made for the economic sphere were never fulfilled, while from a political point of view Armenia has driven itself into isolation. This was once again confirmed by their silly actions related to the convocation of a special session of the UN General Assembly on the initiative of Azerbaijan. The whole world supported us, only Armenia opposed, said President Ilham Aliyev.

The head of state noted that democratic principles are completely violated in Armenia, recommendations of the Venice Commission are rejected, political opponents are prosecuted and there is a dictatorship.

Therefore, the Armenian leadership today needs some kind of a crisis to divert thoughts from these fundamental issues, and it deliberately resorted to this provocation. Why 12 July? This is also no coincidence. This is being linked to certain events in Armenia now. I do not want to touch on this issue, because I have never touched on family matters and do not advise anyone to do this. But I believe that the main reason for this was the special session of the UN General Assembly, which was officially declared open on 10 July. Because this is yet another huge success, another great victory for our country, as we received the support of 130 countries. Azerbaijan is a country that has drawn attention to the COVID-19 problem that occupies the entire agenda, has held two major summits and after that a special session of the UN General Assembly. This is the reason, said President Ilham Aliyev.

The head of state pointed out that there may be many reasons.

I just want to share my thoughts. The fact is that it is no coincidence that Armenia committed this military provocation at this particular time. But they have received a fitting response. I want to say again that the Azerbaijani army is in full control of the situation. I should also note that although our villages were shelled and an elderly person was killed, none of the inhabitants of our villages budged, not a single person left anywhere. At the same time, according to the operational data we have, people from some villages and cities of Armenia are being evacuated. There is panic there now. This is the difference. The citizens of Azerbaijan live on their land with dignity. The Azerbaijani state and the Azerbaijani army protect and will continue to protect them, said President Ilham Aliyev.

Read more:

President Ilham Aliyev: Armenian leadership needs some kind of crisis to divert thoughts from fundamental issues, and it deliberately resorted to this...

(MENAFN - The Conversation) Health and government officials around the globe are slowly and ever-so-tentatively moving to relax lockdowns due to coronavirus.

In Canada, where the possibility of health-care collapse seems to have been averted (for the time being), some are beginning to ask questions other than ''when will the pandemic end?'' Instead, they''re turning towards ''how will we move forward?''

Young people have some answers that warrant our attention. Over the past five years, through my collaborative ethnographic research with 250 young people in drama classrooms in Canada, India, Taiwan, Greece and England, I have gained remarkable insight into these young people''s experiences and assessments of the world .

I found crisis after crisis being shouldered by young people. Through their theatre-making, they documented their concerns and hope, and they rallied around common purposes. They did this despite disagreement and difference.

Beyond simply creating art for art''s sake, or for school credits, many of the young people I encountered are building social movements and creative projects around a different vision for our planet. And they are calling us in. This is an unprecedented moment for intergenerational justice and we need to seize it.

I have had an up-close look at how seemingly disparate crises around the globe are deeply connected through divisive systems that don''t acknowledge or respect youth concerns. I have also learned how young people are disproportionately affected by the misguided politics of a fractured world.

In England, young people were burdened by the divisive rhetoric of the Brexit campaign and its ensuing aftermath.

In India, young women were using their education to build solidarity in the face of dehumanizing gender oppression.

In Greece, young people were shouldering the weight of a decade-long economic crisis compounded by a horrifying refugee crisis.

Read more: Solidarity with refugees can''t survive on compassion in crisis-stricken societies of Greece and Italy

In Taiwan, young people on the cusp of adulthood were trying to square the social pressures of traditional culture with their own ambitions in a far-from-hopeful economic landscape.

In Toronto, youth tried to understand why the rhetoric of multiculturalism seemed both true and false, and why racism persists and, in so doing, they spoke from perspectives grounded in their intersectional (white, racialized, sexual- and gender-diverse) identities.

They embraced the reality that everything in popular culture may enter a drama classroom. But they responded to current news stories like the 2016 presidential debates in the United States by saying that they had different and more pressing concerns, like mental health support and transphobia.

Today''s young people are a generation that has come of age during a host of global crises. Inequality, environmental destruction, systemic oppression of many kinds weigh heavily.

I found a youth cohort who, despite many not yet having the right to vote, have well-honed political capacities , are birthing countless global hashtag movements and inspiring generations of young and old .

These marginalized youth are aware that their communities have been living with and responding to catastrophic impacts of crises of injustice and inequalities long before now.

How do these youth live with their awareness of global injustices and what these imply for the years ahead? We learned some disturbing things: as young people age and move further away from their primary relationships (parents, teachers, schoolmates), they feel less optimistic about their personal futures.

But in terms of hope, we learned something very recognizable to many of us now: many young people practise hope, even when they feel hopeless . They do this both in social movements they participate in and in creative work they undertake with others .

This is something we can all learn from. In Canada, we are maintaining social distancing as a shared effort. Acting together by keeping apart is how we are flattening the curve, as all the experts continue to tell us .

We know that in communities around the world, government leadership matters enormously . But citizens, social trust and collective will matter at least as much.

In this pandemic, institutions, like universities , businesses and individual citizens have stepped up remarkably in the interests of the common good and our shared fate.

However, Jennifer Welsh, Canada Research Chair in Global Governance and Security at McGill University, argues that the defining feature of the last decade is polarization , existing across many different liberal democracies and globally.

Along with this, the value of fairness has been deeply corroded because of growing inequality and persistent historic inequalities we have failed to address, like Indigenous sovereignty and land rights in Canada .

Read more: The road to reconciliation starts with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

In the context of the rise of populist politicians and xenophobic policies globally, and also the rise of the most important progressive social movements in decades, my research has taught me that in this driven-apart, socio-economic landscape, the social value of art has never been more important.

People are making sense of the inexplicable or the feared through art, using online platforms for public learning . Art has become a point of contact, an urgent communication and a hope.

But some are still without shelter, without food, without community and without proper health care . The differences are stark.

Arundhati Roy has imagined this pandemic as a kind of portal we are walking through: we can ''walk through it lightly ready to imagine another world .'' We can choose to be ''ready to fight for it.''

Read more: What is solidarity? During coronavirus and always, it''s more than ''we''re all in this together''

It''s time to put global youth at the centre of our responses to crises. Otherwise, young people will inherit a planet devastated by our uncoordinated efforts to act, worsening a crisis of intergenerational equity .

We should of course develop a vaccine and, in Canada, stop underfunding our public health-care system . But we must also flatten the steep curves we have tolerated for too long . For a start, we could act on wealth disparity and social inequality .

But our response to the pandemic could also illuminate new responses to fundamental problems: disrespect for the diversity of life in all its forms and lack of consideration for future generations.

Youth expression through theatre and in social movements are valuable ways to learn how youth are experiencing, processing and communicating their understandings of the profound challenges our world faces. How powerfully our post-pandemic planning could shift if we changed who is at decision-making tables and listened to youth.

MENAFN20720200001993603ID1100512516

The rest is here:

After coronavirus: Global youth reveal that the social value of art has never mattered more - MENAFN.COM

The COVID-19 pandemic and the ensuing global economic crisis revealed a very troubling fact: the world is unprepared for food security. The complex global systems that were created in the era of accelerated globalization are threatening to collapse: Leading food producers have placed limitations on the export of agricultural goods from their territory, disturbances and interruptions have been encountered along the entire global supply chains from production in the field, to the international marketing of food, the decline in demand and buying-power due to the global economic recession, shortage of farm-hands and the contraction of disease amongst workers in the food-packing factories.

But what is important to emphasize is that we still have not truly distanced ourselves from the danger of hunger and the interruption in the global food supply mechanisms. At the same time, the phenomena of rising food prices, the lack of foreign currency for purchasing food on the global market, market disturbances etc., continue vigorously. Tens of millions of people in the Middle East, Africa, Asia and other areas of the world have joined the 820 million people that, prior to the pandemic, were already defined as under-nourished and in danger of hunger or starvation. The World Bank estimates that approximately 40 million people have entered the category of immediate risk in western Africa alone. UN reports, and first among them, that of the International Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), warn of a rising threat of hunger, and the UN called upon the international community to maintain open commerce and to refrain from national protectionist policies.

The situation in Georgia is also of considerable concern. According to the UNEP (United Nations Environment Program), land resources are limited in Georgia: only 15% of the country is cultivated, while 70% is forests, bush, meadows and pastures. Agricultural cultivation methods are still largely traditional or unsustainable, which, when combined with climatic and terrestrial conditions, results in the unfortunate fact that more than a third of agricultural land is affected by degradation, erosion, pollution and soil damage. Moreover, around 4% of farmland is vulnerable to desertification. Naturally, that affects food security: Georgia is 70% self-sufficient in vegetables, but only 8% self-sufficient in wheat, according to official statistics.

Just this week, the UN published its annual report on The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2020. According to it, projections show that the world is not on track to achieve Zero Hunger by 2030 and, despite some progress, most indicators are also not on track to meet global nutrition targets. The food security and nutritional status of the most vulnerable population groups is likely to deteriorate further due to the health and socio-economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.

This situation raises the question of what we can do to prevent a global food crisis which may result in hunger, political and security instability and rampant migration. Without doubt, international trade systems for food and agricultural necessities such as fertilizers, machinery, fuel, etc. must be kept open and functioning. At the same time, states would do well if they increased their local food production capacity. This food, in addition to supplying caloric needs, must be healthy, nutritious and available to everyone and at an affordable price. For this, local farming requires significant incentives and support in order to increase its production and variety.

The State of Israel, having proved itself over a period of decades an expert in successful innovative farming in some of the most challenging desert and drought prone areas of the world, can be a supplier of quick, efficient and low-cost solutions for these needs. Drip-irrigation is one of the best examples of this. It is amazing that, to date, most of the agricultural crops the world over are still grown by dry farming, i.e. farming that is reliant on rain for field irrigation. Moving to irrigated farming would increase the crop yield, would save water and greenhouse gases, and would, over time, create food security. Vegetables, for instance, could be grown a number of times during the year via drip-irrigation as opposed to only once a year when relying on natural precipitation during the rainy season.

Precise agriculture, which supplies all plant needs on an almost individual basis, is another example. Today, sensors are capable of informing precisely how much water and fertilizer is required for each tree and from what diseases it is suffering, and accordingly, an individualized treatment which is often administered via drones or other methods. The use of satellites for information gathering and remote sensing, computerized greenhouses and continuous monitoring of temperature, humidity, pests/insects, etc. from afar also increase agricultural crop yields and creates more food.

Everyone knows that without water, nothing can be grown, and in arid Israel, unlimited solutions have been found and implemented, such as the use of purified sewage water for farming, or even the use of saline water, leak prevention and/or the identification of their source in water supply systems, and hydroponics (a form of farming that allows for growing vegetables in water). Water conservation, irrigation monitoring and many other solutions developed in Israel can be implemented relatively easily and at low cost throughout the world.

Among other things, the COVID-19 crisis has also exposed the exaggerated reliance on animal-based food. The closure of slaughter houses and meat packaging facilities, due to the contraction of the disease by their employees, gave a very strong push to the market of plant based substitutes for protein. This industry is seeing an accelerated growth and many technologies such as cultivated meats will begin to see mass use in the coming years. This process will also be accelerated since we know that cultivation of livestock creates heavy damage to the planet and is unsustainable and must therefore be reduced. As a result, the importance of protein sources whose origin is found in plants or cultivated meats, will grow considerably. In Israel, there is extensive research in this area and Israeli startups are on the frontline of the global development of such foods.

The need to strengthen local agricultural produce grows even stronger against the backdrop of the ever-worsening phenomena of climate change, widespread global desertification and water crises, and the extinction of animal and plants species, and with it, huge damage to biodiversity. These and other issues are threatening our ability to supply food over the long term. As a result, there is great importance in preparing ourselves to be able to guarantee food security and for agricultural production by means that do not adversely affect the environment and the climate.

In conclusion, the COVID-19 crisis is still very far from being resolved and we will continue to experience its ramifications in almost every realm of our daily lives. Therefore, it is more important today than ever before to understand the fragility of the global food supply chains, the vulnerability of food security to different sources of disturbance, and to increase local food production wide-scale.

Israel would be both happy and honored to share its rich experience and knowledge in these areas with our Georgian partners. MASHAV (Israels International Development Cooperation Agency) has been operating in Georgia for almost 30 years and has so far trained more than 1,500 Georgian women and men in various professional spheres relating to agriculture, irrigation, entrepreneurship, womens empowerment, public health and numerous other disciplines. The COVID-19 pandemic presents us not only with challenges, but also with fresh opportunities for increasing food security in Georgia and the entire Caucasus. Israel and MASHAV are ready to continue partnership with Georgia (both the public and private sectors) and invest in a better, healthier and safer future for all.

By Ambassador of Israel, Ran Gidor

Isreli water technology innovators share best practices with high-level Indian stakeholders. Source: 2030wrg.org

16 July 2020 17:50

Continue reading here:

Global Food Security Does the Solution for Local Food Production Lie with Israel? - Georgia Today

Brazil currently has the worlds second highest number of deaths from covid-19. The lack of action from the Brazilian President, Jair Bolsonaro, and his open denial of the pandemic is widely seen as being one of the reasons for this crisis. However, while that is undoubtedly one of the causes of the high rate of infection and deaths from covid-19, we argue that the countrys underlying conditionsits deeply rooted socio-economic inequalities, the fragmentation and chronic underfunding of its public health systemare equally important factors. In the midst of a rapidly evolving public health and economic crisis, there are early signs of some form of resilience in the system, and possible lessons to be learned for the countrys future.

Although the pandemic has not yet reached its peak in Brazil, the country is at risk of being shattered by the coronavirus. The bed occupancy rate in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) is over 90% in three Brazilian statesAmazonas, Cear, and Rio de Janeiro. How did Brazil reach this point? It is the combination of the health systems flaws and entrenched inequalities, as well as President Bolsonaros denialism and lack of action that have cost the lives of so many Brazilians.

Since Brazils first case of covid-19 at the end of February 2020, Bolsonaro has denied the gravity of the pandemic and acted against public health measures such asphysical distancing. He has used words such as hysteria, neurosis and fantasy to criticize the reaction of people and the media to what he classified as a little gripe. [1] Within one month, two of his ministers of health left their position, refusing to implement Bolsonaros plans to end quarantine, and prescribe hydroxychloroquine to all covid-19 patients regardless of their health condition. But despite his antics and blunders, it is too simplistic to only blame Bolsonaro for the rapid escalation of the epidemic.

It is really the underlying conditions of Brazils health system that have allowed the pandemic to take hold and get out of control. Brazils health system is highly fragmented. Although everyone uses the public unified health system (Sistema nico de Sade SUS), 25% of the population hold private health insurance, mostly through their employment. This has created an ethical, equity, and social justice problem within the pandemic, as those who can afford it, use private health services. The large majority of those who cannot pay for an insurance, use the SUS. Long before this pandemic, Brazils SUS struggled with chronic underfunding, aggravated by the austerity measures introduced in the aftermath of the 2014-2016 economic recession. [2] Despite the universal public system, 56% of Brazils health expenditures are private. [3] In the last few years, there has been an increase in out-of-pocket expenditures, especially for medicines.

In Brazil, the pandemic started in affluent urban areas more exposed to contagion from international travel. It is now quickly spreading to the suburbs and favelas (slums). Brazils deeply entrenched social inequalities and the vulnerability of specific populations, have provided a hotbed for the pandemic. In Brazil, the wealthiest 1% of the population concentrates 28.3% of the countrys total income. About 150 million Brazilians live on an average monthly salary of 420 Reais (around $70). Roughly 13 million Brazilians live in favelas, where hygiene and sanitation is poor. [4]. The virus has also spread among more than 600,000 prisoners in the country, and there is the likely risk of rapid dissemination among the population of Indigenous people, which is approximately 800,000 people.

With such underlying conditions, it is surprising the system did not collapse sooner. Thankfully, a few mitigating factors have been able to boost resilience in the face of Bolsonaros lack of action and denialism. There are currently 478,000 active doctors (2.3 per 1,000 population) and 2.3 million nursing professionals. Despite its numerous failings, Brazils SUS still guarantees free access to all levels of health services, from primary care to specialists. Its extensive primary health care network in particular stands out: there are 43,000 Family Health teams and 260,000 community health agents in Brazil, embedded in the community. The primary care network functions as a gateway for early case identification, referral of severe cases to specialized services, monitoring of vulnerable groups such as older people, people who are immunosuppressed, chronically ill, and pregnant women. The primary healthcare system also provides surveillance of mental health disorders, rates of domestic violence, and alcoholism during lockdown.

The joint performance of professionals working in the SUS system, universities and public scientific institutions, have historically helped overcome crises and produced sound public health responses, such as dealing with the Zika outbreak, or the national responses to the HIV and AIDS epidemic [5,6] Most importantly, responsibility for the health system in Brazil is decentralized and regionalized. [5] Decentralised funds for healthcare are larger than the funds transferred by the central state. States and municipalities manage hospitals and services, buy supplies, hire human resources, and carry out health surveillance. As the spread of coronavirus occurs at different time intervals and geographical regions, such decentralisation has allowed the implementation of locally-tailored measures. This localised approach has allowed to keep the epidemic in check to a degree, stopping its spread to the rural areas.

Despite all the challenges posed by the pandemic, it would appear that the checks and balances of Brazils democracy, together with its decentralized health system, still seem to be working, and are tapping into the countrys vast, if depleted, capacity to respond to the pandemic. It would appear that strengthening its national healthcare system and preserving the existing democratic institutions are Brazils only guarantees in dealing with covid-19.

Raquel Nogueira Avelar e Silva, Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark

Giuliano Russo, Centre for Global Public Health, Queen Mary University of London, The UK

Alicia Matijasevich, Department of Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil

Mrio Scheffer, Department of Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil.

Competing interests: None declared

References:

Read the rest here:

Covid-19 in Brazil has exposed socio-economic inequalities and underfunding of its public health system - The BMJ - The BMJ

Theatre, ultimately, is not about buildings or props or sets its about people. The people who make it, the people who engage with it, and the crossover between.

The greatest threat to the vitality of plays, musicals and live performance once the lockdown ends is a drain of people leaving the arts. Audiences who can no longer afford ticket prices against a backdrop of economic strain, reinforcing the idea that culture is not for them. Skilled artists particularly those from lower socioeconomic and working-class backgrounds (yes, we do exist in the arts) who cant afford to remain in the industry.

In normal times, theatre is a hugely profitable industry, and one of the UKs most successful cultural exports. But the industry has always been staffed by precariats. Despite the glamour of the trade, almost three-quarters of its employees, no matter what our backgrounds, are freelancers living from job to job. And a significant proportion of this workforce fell through the cracks of the governments job retention schemes.

Right now, nothing frightens theatre creatives more than a slowdown or reversal of even modest gains made in recent years in terms of the inclusivity and diversity of the theatre, on stage and off. These included Natasha Gordon becoming the first (and sinfully late) black British woman to have a play in the West End, with the extraordinary Nine Night, and the National Theatres commitment to 50:50 gender representation. But theres still so much left to do.

The postwar settlement in 1945 was built on the passionate belief that art for everyone was vital to peoples wellbeing and social cohesion. Our aspirations for the future of the industry should be just as hopeful and as high. Assuming the industry survives, its incumbent upon us to hardwire radical, imaginative, hopeful strategies into its recovery, ensuring greater access across society.

For this reason, class barriers require our full attention. Theatre has a class problem. Few would deny it, but there is often a squeamishness in talking about this particular area of representation and a lack of confidence in how to define it. I myself have wrestled with the existential angst that once you reach a certain level in the industry, you must abandon any claim to this identity.

There are also justifiable suspicions, particularly from black, Asian and minority ethnic artists, that the term class is deployed as a proxy to mean exclusively white, working-class men. So it is vital that any discussions of class must wholeheartedly intersect with every community, identity and culture in Britain, and for white working-class writers to amplify and champion their even more neglected peers.

The socio-economic group you were born into and the levels of social deprivation youve experienced are the most decisive factors in whether or not you go to the theatre, let alone carve out a career within it. It seems that half the country goes, half the country doesnt. And the half who dont are unlikely to want to if they cant hear their voices or see their own stories represented on stage.

There are glimmers of opportunity in this crisis. Zoom networks offering peer-to-peer support in quarantine have sprung up, including the digital coffee mornings for working-class artists led by Common, an arts and social justice organisation Im a patron of, alongside the director Matthew Xia and writer Nessah Muthy. Such engagement should continue as leaders listen to the lived experiences of their freelancers when deciding how to rebuild.

Theatre outreach and education departments have been some of the most dynamic during the pandemic. In Leeds, the theatre company Slung Low, based at The Holbeck, an old social club, has been active in distributing food and care packages in the community.

But other mountains feel steeper to climb. The cultural disparity between the south-east, where much of the arts and theatre industry is concentrated, and the rest of the country could grow wider as smaller local organisations and touring groups collapse. The unforgivable demise of arts education in state schools over recent years may further narrow the already limited pool of artists and audiences.

Most importantly of all, of course, are cheaper tickets. Cheaper, cheaper, cheaper, cheaper tickets. We know this will be even more challenging for theatre companies barely able to make ends meet. Whatever new, inventive, convention-defying methods that artists, fundraisers, producers and sponsors can collectively devise, our new theatre culture can only claim to represent contemporary Britain if everyone who lives here is allowed to come and see it.

James Graham is a British playwright and screenwriter

Continue reading here:

British theatre has a class problem, and coronavirus could make it worse - The Guardian

Share this with more people!

A group calling itself Coalition of Aggrieved Customers of collapsed banks in the country has given the government a 14-day ultimatum to pay their cash deposits totaling millions of Ghana cedis or face their anger amidst the Corona Virus Disease (COVID-19).

The 2,221 aggrieved customers, spread across the Bono Region therefore threatened to embark on a protest march to besiege the Jubilee House, the seat of government if President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo failed to address their grievances.

According to the group, comprising customers of the defunct GN Bank and UT Bank, as well as the DKM and God is Love Micro-finance, whose cash deposits were locked-up following the collapse of the financial institutions, President Akufo-Addo had failed to refund their cash deposits.

Last year, the Bank of Ghana (BoG) revoked the licenses of some savings and loans companies in the country.

The revocation of the licenses of the financial institutions, according to the central bank were necessary because they were insolvent even after a reasonable period within which the BOG had engaged with them in the hope that they would be recapitalized by their shareholders to return them to solvency.

But, at a news conference held at Abesim, near Sunyani, some members of the coalition who wore red armbands and headgears to portray their anger, explained that the life time savings of many of them were locked up at the defunct banks, thereby collapsing their businesses and worsening their socio-economic livelihoods.

Many of us who entrusted our money and lifetime savings in these banks and financial institutions held on to Governments promise that our monies would be safe, Mr. Nicholas Saddari, the convener of the group, said.

We never anticipated that the Governments so-called clean-up of the banking and financial sector would take-down so many banks and financial institutions especially on the basis that Government itself indicated that it required between GH9 billion to GH13 billion to solve the crises in the banking and financial sector.

Today government is saying they cant pay us, so they have issued a five-year bond for our locked-up deposits, that is zero or no interest paid on our deposits and investments after we have to wait for the 5 years to receive our money.

Then after many of us depositors agitated by saying we cannot wait for five years then government tells us to take the five bonds to Consolidated Bank of Ghana which will discount the bonds by 50 percent of the face value amount of the bond and pay that to us whilst we forfeit or forgo the remaining 50 percent the bond value which CBG will keep.

Source: GNA

Share this with more people!

Read the original post:

Aggrieved customers of collapsed banks threaten to besiege Jubilee House - Ghana Business News

The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.

Article 2, Treaty of the European Union

The EU is a learning system. Most of its members are well aware that they fare better in a functioning union, based on mutual support and solidarity. It will take time and energy, but there is a good chance that the EU will not only survive the COVID-19 pandemic, but emerge from it stronger and in more solidarity, writes Valdai Club expert Sabine Fischer.

Many actions taken by EU member states in the early days of the crisis were considered egoistic and even nationalist. Sceptics felt vindicated in their belief that solidarity among nation states, a key pillar of the European integration, is delusional. The COVID-19 pandemic put the EU under enormous stress. But it is neither the end of EU solidarity, nor of European integration.

The first cases of COVID-19 infections in the EU were confirmed in January 2020. On 11 March, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the fast spreading virus a pandemic. Just two days later, on 13 March, it stated that Europe had become the epicenter of the pandemic.

Northern Italy was most affected by the disease. For weeks, images from Lombardy of overloaded hospitals, despairing health workers, coffins piling up in morgues and churches shocked the world. And yet, Romes late February call on Brussels for the urgent supply of personal medical equipment first went unanswered. It took EU member states almost three weeks to start deliveries. During that time, China, Russia and other third countries stepped in and made their support a powerful representation of their willingness and ability to compensate for the EUs failing its own member state.

The Italian case was the most blatant and depressing example of the EUs inability to appear as a union founded on solidarity during the first weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic. EU member states reacted in a largely uncoordinated cacophony of national health emergency measures, including the closure of borders in the Schengen zone and national requisition measures of medical equipment etc. This triggered a grave debate about how the pandemic accentuated the crisis of European integration and the prevalence of national interests.

EU solidarity was tested in four areas in particular: borders, emergency aid, individual government (re)actions, and strategies to meet the economic consequences of the pandemic.

Seeing border controls reinstated between France and Germany, Finland and Sweden, Portugal and Spain and so forth, came as a nasty shock for many. The freedom of movement is a key aspect and symbol of European integration, both in terms of relations between EU member states and of the rights of EU citizens.

What looked like (wealthier) EU member states banning medical supplies to other (less wealthy but more affected) EU member states reinforced the impression that nationalism had taken the better of European governments. To make things worse, some leaders and many populist politicians throughout the EU demonstrated a glaring lack of empathy and, indeed, solidarity with their fellow Europeans.

It is frequently overlooked in the debate that European law entitles EU member states to restrict the freedom of movement in case of an epidemic or other major threat to public health. The hasty decisions taken by EU capitals in the first weeks of frantic crisis management implied protective measures fully supported by the legal framework of the European Union. Opinions diverge about whether the closing of national borders was an efficient means to contain the pandemic. Future research will hopefully provide answers to this question. What is important here is that borders within the Schengen Area are now being re-opened in a gradual and better coordinated process. It would not be possible otherwise: the EUs member states and societies are too interdependent to keep them closed over a longer period.

Similarly, no EU member violated European rules by restricting the export of medical equipment. The question remains, however, why the EU proved unable to use its Civil Protection Mechanism quickly and efficiently enough so as not to disappoint the early distress calls from Italy. The EUCPM can be invoked when the scale of an emergency overwhelms the response capabilities of a country. Any country in the world, but also the United Nations and its agencies or other relevant international organisations, can call on the EUCPM and have done so on numerous occasions (for instance during Ebola outbreaks in African countries in 2014 and 2015, after an earthquake in Albania in 2019 or during forest fires in Sweden and other EU and non-EU countries in 2019). Once the mechanism is activated, the European Commission coordinates the response and covers up to 75 percent of the costs. However, the COVID-19 pandemic was and is an unprecedented challenge (not only) for the EU. In the early days of the crisis the EUCPM did not live up to an emergency situation of this scale. The EU (institutions and member states) will have to work towards better coordination and more capacity to act if they intend to avoid such pitfalls in the future. The current pandemic should give them ample opportunity to observe, draw lessons, and learn them.

It is a fact, though, that EU institutions responded to the pandemic from January on, including through co-financing the mass repatriation of EU citizens to their home countries (for this the EUCPM was activated successfully), joint efforts for research on the coronavirus outbreak, coordinating joint procurement of protective equipment, and shipping protective equipment to third countries (in February 2020, more than 50 tons of protective equipment went to China alone). From mid-March, help from inside the EU to heavily affected EU member states outmatched by far any support from outside its borders.

Communication seems to be at least as big a problem as the actions that have or have not taken place. The EU once again exhibited its well-known weakness in communicating (as) loud and clear (as others) what it is doing, and for whom. Only from mid-March did the European Commission start to publish more comprehensive and systematic information about its actions. The EU came (and perhaps still is) very close to losing the battle of narratives to countries such as China or Russia. Brussels cannot and should not match those actors communication techniques. But more can be done to make EU action transparent early on, both to EU citizens and to the world.

The bigger communication problem, though, lies with EU member states. Not all governments gave the impression that they were prioritizing European over national solutions. The fact that EU member states were affected very unevenly and took different roads in the battle against the pandemic (from near total lockdown in Italy and Spain to the very liberal policy in Sweden) has added to the controversy. Hungary evoked criticism in Brussels and other EU capitals for using the pandemic to further unhinge democratic principles. Polands Law and Justice Partys attempt to carry out the presidential election on 10 May, in the midst of the pandemic, triggered similar reactions. Like a magnifying glass, the pandemic exposed cracks and tensions between EU member states that undermine solidarity. It remains to be seen if there is enough political will in member states capitals to shrink them back to their pre-pandemic size.

The economic response to the pandemic will be of key importance for the EUs future. First initiatives, like a Corona Response Investment Initiative of EUR 60 billion, and fiscal and other measures to mitigate the socio-economic impact of the COVID-19 outbreak, entered into force in early April.

But yet again, the EU depends on its member states for more decisive action and for solidarity. The pandemic added fuel to the dispute about Eurobonds, which dates back to the financial crisis of the early 2010s. The Franco-German economic recovery plan, presented on 19 May, marks the end of long years of German resistance to a more flexible European fiscal policy. To be sure, Berlins decision is not a purely altruistic one. Germany would itself benefit from the newly created fund. Moreover, the German economy is highly dependent on, and therefore has a very strong interest in, a functioning single market. But the initiative has the potential to revive and strengthen the feeling of solidarity among EU member states, and also to unlock the lingering blockade between Berlin and Paris in other policy fields. The Commission has expanded and transformed it into a proposal for the European Council on 19 June. The meeting of the EU heads of states and governments will show if the EU is ready for this impulse.

Societies responded to the pandemic in a similarly multifaceted manner. Where governments enjoyed societal trust, vast majorities supported the drastic confinement measures. This was the case in countries such as in Denmark, Finland, or Germany. In France, where state-society relations had been tense before the outbreak, the government found it more difficult to gain approval for its pandemic policy. The situation of right-wing populist and euro-sceptic parties is inversely proportional for now, the pandemic has eroded their support base. A multi-country survey, commissioned by the European Parliament in April 2020, showed that six out of ten citizens were dissatisfied with the solidarity shown by EU member states. Only 42 percent approved of the measures or actions initiated by the EU. However, 69 percent said that the EU should have more competences to deal with crises such as the pandemic. Individuals, civil society organisations and companies across the EU have been engaging in impressive actions of solidarity to support elderly people, other vulnerable groups, and health workers. However, societal solidarity and support for governments may collapse if the economic crisis related to the pandemic drags on and compounds social inequalities.

The EU will have a lot to process after the COVID-19 outbreak. This is a crisis of unprecedented scale. It accumulates and reinforces many aspects of the three crises of the past decade (the financial crisis, terrorism, and migration). The EU was slow to act in the early days of the crisis. Since mid-March, Brussels has taken a much more active role, particularly with regard to managing the economic fallout of the pandemic. Its success will depend on two factors: First, will EU member states muster the political will to allow for the ambitious economic recovery plan to go forward? Secondly, will economic recovery policies manage to stabilise the socio-economic situation in member states and to curb social inequalities? The EU is a learning system. Most of its members are well aware that they fare better in a functioning union, based on mutual support and solidarity. It will take time and energy, but there is a good chance that the EU will not only survive the COVID-19 pandemic, but emerge from it stronger and in more solidarity.

View post:

COVID-19 Is Not the End of EU Solidarity - Valdai Discussion Club

The COVID-19 pandemic has upended almost every aspects of life as we know it. Even those countries that are supposed to have the means to manage the spread and mitigate the effects are struggling.

Besides the US$5 trillion stimulus package that the G20 economies agreed to deal with the pandemic, individual countries are also devising various measures to shore up their health care systems, stabilize their economies, and assist affected workers and businesses.

Even before the full brunt of the coronavirus outbreak reached some of the poorest countries, the economic impacts are already being felt. With declining global demand for raw materials, breakdown of global supply chain, and mounting debt burden, the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic is estimated to exceed US$220 billion.

The urgent shouldnt crowd out the important

With greater uncertainty and fear of global recession looming, governments are looking for resources needed to lessen the socio-economic pains of the crisis. In this process, official development assistance (ODA) wont be spared and could come under increased scrutiny.

Decisions made now will have potentially devastating or transformative impact for years to come. Despite the economic and political pressure, we must protect ODA, which is needed more than ever.

The spread of COVID-19, especially in places with weak governance and health infrastructures is expected to be overwhelming if the international community does not act now.

In sub-Saharan Africa, many countries have the lowest number of physicians per capita in the world while some experience ongoing conflicts, making it difficult to fight the virus.

Collateral impact

The collateral impact of COVID-19 on health, education and nutrition systems will be extremely damaging, and in many cases irreversible, for children and society at large. And when the world opens up again, the resilience of the weakest health systems will dictate how well we do against future threats.

The UN Secretary-General Antnio Guterres, argued that, this human crisis demands coordinated, decisive, inclusive and innovative policy actionand maximum financial and technical support for the poorest and most vulnerable people and countries.

It is critical for the international community to fulfil the humanitarian appeal for COVID-19 response while protecting existing commitments to long-term development and other silent emergencies.

Doing so will help protect the most vulnerable people from being exposed to the effects of COVID-19 and preserve hard-earned development gains in fighting global poverty and expanding basic services.

Left to their own devises, fragile nations may risk the breakdown of socio-political order, civil unrest and state collapse, further exacerbating the dire situation.

A humanitarian and development crisis

COVID-19 is not only a humanitarian crisis, but also a development crisis. Development agencies are supporting countries to prepare for, respond to, and recover from the crisis.

The effectiveness of their response to certain degree depends on the flexibility afforded to them in funding and operational procedures.

To tackle this uniquely complex health and development crisis, the adequacy and flexibility of funding to development agencies are pivotal. Flexible core funding is already making a difference in the COVID-19 response to reach people in need faster, empower local actors, deploy essential supplies to the frontline, and protect the most vulnerable children, refugees, women.

Immediately responding to threats

This enabled the communities to practice due diligence and self-driven discretion to immediately respond to threats of the pandemic, while waiting for the pledged assistance to arrive. For instance, in Nigeria, funding flexibility allowed UNICEF to come up with an innovative solution to fight misinformation around COVID-19 while UNDP was able to support the government double the ventilator capacity in the country.

The COVID-19 pandemic is a devastating crisis in history. But it also posits an opportunity to remind the global community why multilateralism is vital to securing the worlds peace, security, and prosperity.

We witness how the health crisis of todays globalized world interlinks global economy, geopolitics, and social values. Our effective response to the public health crisis should be key to resolving the ensuing economic, humanitarian and development challenges.

A complex reality

Understanding this interlinked and complex reality of COVID-19, governments need to work together closely to take coordinated actions and share scientific information, resources and expertise.

It is this strong motion for collaboration that underpins the UN agencies commitment to reinforce the humanitarian-development nexus to jointly respond to the COVID-19 crisis, working closely through the UN Crisis team, humanitarian response plan, UN Response and Recovery Fund for COVID-19.

In Guinea-Bissau, WHO, UNICEF, UNDP, and IOM joined hands to help build isolation facilities and triage space, and procure necessary equipment for COVID-19, both for the national hospital as well as for the re-modelling of the UN clinic.

With strong solidarity and effective cooperation, the international community will not only arrest COVID-19, but also use the emergency to build back better health systems and a more inclusive and sustainable economy.

This article was originally published here.

Continued here:

Global solidarity in the face of COVID-19 - UNDP