What has South Africa’s G20 presidency brought to the people?

In October of 2024, the Afrikan Liberation Hub (ALH) was invited to the G20 South Africa: Kickoff workshop for civil society. The event was hosted in a hotel in inner Joburg that has gained notoriety as a gathering space for civil society organisations and movements; ANEW Hotel eParktonian. We were excited to receive the invitation, hopeful that it came from an understanding of our work of amplifying grassroots movements that are doing the ‘leg work’ of economic systems change. The same groupings that are building wellbeing economies at a local level, attempting with little resources and no real policy backing, to offset negative and violating effects of the skewed global financial architecture. Equipped only with a strong sense of justice and solidarity amongst forgotten people.

Indulge us, we don’t have pictures of our reactions but you can imagine our glee at seizing the opportunity to bring the perspectives and experiences of ALH members to such highbrow discussions. The workshop was a capacity building exercise to ensure that SAs civil society have an understanding of the G20 and subgroup C20, through which much of our advocacy work would take place. We had colleagues from Brazil, specifically the C20 sherpa do a procedural handover; comrades from India shared their disillusionment with the state co-opting of the C20 and how it inspired their formation of WE20:The people’s summit on G20; South African government Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) declared that the country’s presidency is dubbed THE PEOPLE’S G20 to serve as a constant reminder of the intention to put ordinary South Africans’ interests at the heart of all G20 processes, negotiations and decisions; Oxfam SA, Afrodad and Environmental Justice Network promised to champion the peoples’ needs in their participation in C20 processes and policy making, leading the rest of CSOs in attendance through identifying shared demands, the modes of engagement within the C20 and carving out working groups that would capture the diversity of sectors/concerns represented in the room.

We left with even higher enthusiasm, signing up to two Working Groups 1-Gender Equity & Feminist Just Economies and 5-Environmental Justice & Sustainable & Resilient Communities. Little did we know that we wouldn’t participate in any of them because those organisations that invited us to the Kickoff workshop were no longer in the C20 leadership. A development that was never really formally communicated, at least not from the initial facilitating organisations. In February, we reached out to Oxfam, reiterating our readiness to fully participate in the working groups and asking why we have yet to move past the planning stages and into policy building. For months until May 2025, we were only privy to rumours of a leadership battle in the C20 that has caused its total collapse. At the same time, we fielded questions from ALH members on outcomes of our participation in the C20, requests to consider joining other working groups so as to influence their area of concern. And for months, we couldn’t give them concrete answers for C20s’ seeming fall from the face of G20 processes. In this vacuum, more established working groups continued working, climate finance for instance have had several virtual meetings to design policy recommendations, they have written open letters to the SA G20 sherpa and are continuing to engage with researchers in the field. Climate finance is an issue that is inaccessible to many of the communities we work with, the language and framing alone is enough to send even the most well read amongst us to do mini desktop studies. We mention it here because the organisations leading the working group have long been working on fair climate financing solutions, they have climate economists and co-creation funds that made it so that their work was not dependent on C20s stability.

The working groups we were a part of however, were not held in the same way. It is 3 months away from the G20 Summit where the C20 is expected to put forth condensed civil society needs, demands, and recommendations for G20 leaders to consider. Yet, which civil society actually crafted these manifestos? How many grassroots organisations can confidently show up to G20 civil society activations knowing that their causes will be tabled? In one of our most recent ALH members’ meeting, several organisations expressed how G20 processes including the C20 are not worth their time or energy. How will the participation of these organisations feed the food insecure? Will attending all the meetings in fancy Joburg North hotels/conference venues create dignified work for unemployed youth? The climate finance policy recommendations won’t save mamas who are losing their crops every summer due flash floods. As for the Afrikan Liberation Hub, what moral and otherwise obligations do we have to continue dancing with these processes in the name of getting marginalised voices in the room when the very voices aren’t convinced of the change-making potential of this participation?

(By Inolofatseng Lekaba, Afrikan Liberation Hub)

(Image Credit: G20 South Africa: Kick-off Workshop Report)

To starve, to die, or cause to die

“Starving / Help Now / Millions Are Starving in Bible Lands! …”

Today’s headline reads: “Anger Over Starvation in Gaza Leaves Israel Increasingly Isolated”. There’s, finally, been much, or some, discussion among “the powers that be” of Israel’s politics of starvation in Gaza. There’s some anger, some dismay, not enough but some. There’s some disgust, some revulsion, not enough but some. As so often, much of this timidity and “modesty” results in an articulation that is actually a blurring of meaning. Starvation is not hunger. Hunger is ”the uneasy or painful sensation caused by want of food; craving appetite. Also: the exhausted condition caused by want of food.” Hunger is bad, destructive, and a politics and public policy based on hunger is evil. But hunger is not starvation. Starvation, and these definitions all come from the Oxford English Dictionary, or better to starve, means “To die, or cause to die”. When starve is a transitive verb, it means “to cause to die”, that is, to kill, to murder, by refusing access to food. That’s what’s going on in Gaza. Nothing else. Starvation.

Does it matter that children are being starved? Yes. Yes, it does. Does it matter that adults are being starved, adults of all genders? Yes. Yes, it does. Is the world acting as if these deaths and this mass murder actually matters? No. Palestinians are not starving to death. They are being starved. That is a death sentence, for the individuals, families, communities, people and nation. What would you call such a public policy?

(By Dan Moshenberg)

(Image Credit: American Committee for Armenian and Syrian Relief Artist(s), 1914 – 1918 / Smithsonian Museum)

and what do you do tomorrow

enquire of the fellow
he doing good
on International Mandela Day

I on the outside
library bench
reading and lapping up
the sunlight peeking out

he has brought sandwiches
doing his bit ticking off
a box on a checklist
for today

his finger points
to up above
as he asks someone
are there children there

as is my wont
I look skywards
and I think to myself

manna is falling
yet one more time
from the upstairs

for Africa the begging bowl
for Africa with its riches
in the ground below
look above and beyond

and what do you do tomorrow
I enquire of the fellow
he practising an act
of kindness
on International Mandela Day

he chuckles good-naturedly
and I am at the receiving end
of a packet of sandwiches
(a free lunch)

and what do you do tomorrow

The afternoon of International Mandela Day brings a free lunch my way (Friday 18 July 2025).

 

(By David Kapp)

(Image Credit: Denis Farrell/AP/ The Guardian)

The `agony’ of Lisa Murkowski

On July 1, by a vote of 51 – 50, the U.S. Senate passed the mammoth budget and policy bill that now sits in the House of Representatives. Here’s how the story’s told: “The Senate voted 51 to 50 to pass the Republicans’ major tax and domestic policy bill, which President Trump wants on his desk by Friday, with Vice President JD Vance casting the tiebreaking vote.” While officially JD Vance cast the tiebreaking vote, the real story, as you already know, the real “tiebreaker”, who broke so very many ties with her vote, was Senator Lisa Murkowski, so-called moderate Republican Senator from Alaska. When asked to describe the process by which she arrived at this momentous, if not cataclysmic, decision, Senator Murkowski answered with one word, “Agonizing”.

Agonizing. The good Senator was “in agony”. Here’s how else she described her thinking on the subject: “Do I like this bill? No …. I know that in many parts of the country, there are Americans that are not going to be advantaged by this bill.” Americans are “not going be advantaged”? Here’s just a little of what “not being advantaged” looks like: “a proposed Medicaid work requirement, which would cut off coverage for millions of enrollees who do not meet new employment or reporting standards”. According to nonpartisan estimates and experts, at least 17 million Americans will lose their health coverage. This slow-moving death sentence is what passes for “not being advantaged.”

Finally, Senator Murkowski explained, “I struggled mightily with the impact on the most vulnerable in this country when you look to the Medicaid and the SNAP provisions.”

Agonizing. What is agony, exactly? Agony has many roots, all of which gesture towards its importance and extremity: “mental struggle or anguish of Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane (Vetus Latina, Vulgate), anguish, distress (4th cent.), death-agony.” The list, from the O.E.D., goes on, but you get the picture. Being divided is not agony; being conflicted is not agony. Frankly, it’s not even struggling mightily, but that’s another story. The earliest widely used version of agony was the Agony of Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane, where Jesus enters the Garden and realizes and ultimately embraces the betrayal and subsequent torture he will be made to endure. “Not being advantaged”

Knowing what was to occur, Jesus prayed: “And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.” This is what agony looks like, the transformation of sweat into something like blood. Senator Murkowski voted to send millions of people into various forms of excruciating suffering. They will be in agony. They will struggle mightily, as many have done for all of their lives. What the Senator did was vote for the bill. As Jesus concluded, in the night of the Agony of the Garden of Gethsemane, “Get up, let us be going. See, my betrayer is at hand.”

Agonizing.

 

(by Dan Moshenberg)

(Image Credit: William Blake, “The Agony in the Garden” / Tate)

Chronicle of a death foretold: Eviction’s `adverse impact’ on parenting college students

New America, in collaboration with Princeton’s Eviction Lab, released a brief this week, “Ousted from Opportunity: Eviction’s Adverse Impact on Parenting College Students”. While the report is dire and grim and much of the findings are tragically predictable, it’s still worth consideration, especially this, the last of the major seven findings: “Parenting Students Threatened with Eviction Die at Higher Rates 10 Years Post-Enrollment: Parenting students who were threatened with eviction were more than twice as likely to die over the 10 years immediately following enrollment than parenting students who were not threatened (see Figure 8). Threatened parenting students’ mortality rates were even significantly higher than those of nonparenting students who were threatened with eviction.” What else is there to say? What more do you need to know? People who are parents and attending college have a difficult time, often and even typically. People who are parents and attending college who receive an eviction notice die relatively soon after. What more do you need to know?

The data concerning mortality rates come from a report published this month, “Consequences of Eviction for Parenting and Non-parenting College Students”. The authors found the following: “The mortality rate 10-years post-grad is 290 (200-380) per 100,000 for threatened parenting students compared to 140 (110-160) for non-threatened parenting students; in other words, an eviction filing is associated with a 107% increase in risk of death over the next ten years.” Where will you be in ten years? Where were you ten years ago?

To be clear, this slow-moving massacre does not concern parenting college students who have actually been evicted. This 107% increase in risk of death over the next ten years involves those who have had eviction filings. Who are they? You already know the answers. Parenting students disproportionately come from historically underserved groups. They are more likely to be women, especially women of color, and tend to be older. They are also more frequently first-generation college goers, low-income, and veterans. Student fathers are more likely to be Black than any other racial group. Parenting students have higher rates of food insecurity and are more likely to be working full time. 20% of undergraduate students care for one or more children while enrolled in college. What else is there to say?

The report had seven major findings. Parenting students threatened with eviction tended to be younger than parenting students not threatened by eviction. Parenting students threatened with eviction tend to come from lower-income backgrounds, compared to parents and non-parents who were not threatened with eviction. Black students, whether parenting or not, were far more likely to be threatened with eviction, but Black parenting students are the most at risk. Parenting students who were threatened are much more likely to identify as female, at 81%, compared to 63% of non-threatened parenting students. These are both extraordinarily high percentages. 37% of parenting students who were never threatened with eviction completed a bachelor’s degree, while only 15% of parenting students who were threatened completed a bachelor’s degree. Parenting students threatened with eviction had significantly reduced family income five years post-enrollment.

Parenting students who were threatened with eviction were more than twice as likely to die over the 10 years immediately following enrollment than parenting students who were not threatened

Twenty-two years ago, Achille Mbembe opened his seminal article “Necropolitics”, with these words, “The ultimate expression of sovereignty resides … in the power and the capacity to dictate who may live and who must die.” Who may live and who must die. A young person receives a notice saying they face eviction. No matter what happens, whether they are evicted or not, within ten years they are dead. What else is there to say? What more do you need to know?

Who may live … and who must die?

(By Dan Moshenberg)

(Image Credit 1: Day Gleeson and Dennis Thomas, “Title Deed Second Ave.” / hyperallergic)

(Image Credit 2: New America)

This will kill trans children, as I believe it is intended to

The Tennessee law the Supreme Court just upheld did not ban some special kind of transgender medicine. Rather, it denied transgender children access to the same life-saving medicines that doctors will continue to prescribe to cisgender children, who also sometimes need interventions in the development of secondary sex characteristics. The law is about denying basic medical care to transgender children, solely on the basis that they are transgender. This will kill trans children, as I believe it is intended to.

The complicity of virtually every newspaper in pushing the narrative of exceptional transgender medicine rather than the simple question of equal access to medical care paved the way for this decision and for the broader anti-trans hate movement.

It’s heartbreaking.

 

(By Angela Zimmerman)

(Image Credit: “Protect Trans Dreams”, Noah Grigni)

 

She simply glowed (Olorato Mongale did)

She simply glowed (Olorato Mongale did)

she simply glowed
Olorato Mongale did

past tense

she a child of the community
embraced and cared for
by many

passionate about journalism
and the fight against
Gender Based Violence
Olorato Mongale was

she did
she was

past tense

when will all
our war and our wars
be
past tense

(By David Kapp)

(Image Credit: Sofia Weidner / PBS)

 

Welcome to the age of the tolerated Intolerable

“To regard the lives of those your country is subjugating as being equal to your own would make even one death intolerable.” Owen Jones, 2014

In the past twenty-four hours, the word “intolerable” has figured prominently, a kind of keyword marking this moment. Perhaps what set this off is the joint statement by Canada, France and the United Kingdom, which deplored current Israeli actions in Gaza, adding, “The level of human suffering in Gaza is intolerable.” During his address to the House of Commons, Keir Starmer explained “I would like to say something about the horrific situation in Gaza, where the level of suffering innocent children being bombed again is utterly intolerable.” In an interview on the BBC yesterday, an aid worker, just returned from Gaza, called the withholding of food “simply intolerable.”

While any actions to end the atrocities being committed in Gaza are welcome, the question of timing hovers and with it the meaning of “intolerable”. What makes the situation “intolerable” today, rather than, say, three months ago, when the Israeli blockade of Gaza formally began? A complete blockade of any assistance to a population desperately needing aid and assistance is always meant to starve that population. The Israeli government said as much from the very beginning. For weeks, we’ve seen, read and heard reliable reports of children suffering malnutrition, hunger on their way to dying, or, for the “lucky ones”, “merely” living with the consequences of prolonged starvation for the remainder of their lives, however brief they may be. Wasn’t the situation simply intolerable then?

Intolerable: that which physically, mentally, or morally “cannot be tolerated, borne, or put up with; unendurable, unbearable, insupportable, insufferable.” It doesn’t mean that which no longer can be tolerated; it means that which, in its essence, cannot be tolerated. Again, while the recognition of the intolerable situation is preferrable to the denial, while any action emerging from that recognition is welcome, we live today with the painfully obvious fact of our ongoing, deepening and expanding capacity to tolerate the intolerable and thereby to contribute to the intolerable.

(By Dan Moshenberg)

(Image Credit: Simon Pemberton / The Guardian)

Landmark case: In Australia, Raya Meredith leads class action case against strip-searches

In 2018, at the Splendour in the Grass music festival in Byron Bay, New South Wales, Australia, Raya Meredith was strip-searched. Not that it matters, but nothing illegal was found. In 2022, then-27-year-old Raya Meredith filed a class action suit against the police of New South Wales, arguing that the strip-searches conducted at music festivals from 2016 to 2022 were unlawful and constituted assault, battery, and false imprisonment. Her landmark suit now represents 3,000 people who were strip-searched. That case is currently being heard in court. Today, Raya Meredith’s attorneys explained that the New South Wales police admitted the strip-search was unlawful but “objectively reasonably necessary.” What?

Kylie Nomchong, Raya Meredith’s attorney, responded to that claim, ““We get to the quite outrageous submissions … where the defendant is asking your honour to infer that it was objectively necessary to search the plaintiff’s breasts and genital area,” Nomchong told the court. It is unbelievably offensive to assert, without any evidence whatsoever, that there was some objectively reasonable basis on the part of the searching officer to inspect the plaintiff’s vagina, to ask her to pull out her tampon, to ask her to bare her buttocks and anal area and to bend over and drop her breasts. It’s just offensive.”

Justice Dina Yehia, the presiding judge in the case, agreed with Nomcholeng, “I’m not quite sure I understand those submissions, given the way this matter has proceeded.”

What else is there to say? For the police, the violation of a woman’s body and person was, and continues to be, “objectively reasonably necessary.” The objective and reasonable necessity of the strip-searches is so self-evident that just days before the hearing began, the police withdrew 22 witnesses, mostly police … because it was objectively reasonably necessary for them not to speak under oath.

Raya Meredith’s attorneys note that strip-searches seldom “work”, as in produce any evidence of illegal activity. But police engage in them anyway. So, what’s the point and purpose of strip-search? A study published in 2021, the year before Raya Meredith’s encounter with the police, considered the scale and scope of strip-searches conducted by New South Wales police from 2014 to 2018, As Raya Meredith’s attorneys suggest, most of those searches produced nothing, other than trauma and pain. Nevertheless, the use of strip-searches “at music festivals, at train stations, in police vehicles and at other locations” increased. What did the few strip searches that did produce any evidence of illegal activity show? 96% involved drugs, either possession or distribution: “It can be inferred from these data that the strip search regime is primarily being used for the enforcement of the summary offence of drug possession, rather than the serious indictable offences for which the power to strip search was envisaged.” A War on Drugs was declared, and strip-searches were normalized, naturalized, deemed “objectively reasonably necessary”.

When the State declares War on its population, as in a War on Drugs or a War on Crime, it declares a state of exception. That is, it declares a crisis so grave, so threatening to the State that the elimination, ostensibly temporary, of constitutional rights and protections is reasonably objectively necessary. The police in New South Wales were just following orders.

(By Dan Moshenberg)

(Image Credit: Roberto Matta, “Nuremberg Judgment” / MoMA)

We will run out (of gas by 2026)

 

We will run out (of gas by 2026)

sufficient wind
and solar power
is what we have
declared a minister
years ago

wind
air in motion
there is lots
amongst the tribe
of politrickians

politrickians
hot air
gaseous exchange
smoke and mirrors
flatulence clouding
the way (forward)

politrickians
of all shades
of shadiness
however bejewelled
and dressed-up
they tend(er) to be

We will run out
of gas by 2026
we hear all dramatic-like
like a politrickian
announcing
his or her rectitude

One thing we do know
Is that we won’t run out
of gaseous and windy
politrickians
now or ever

(no matter the smoke
white pink or black)

Can you imagine that

(A morning TV newsbyte sets this one off, 7 May 2025.)

(By David Kapp)

(Image Credit: Do Ho Suh, “Fart in the Wind” / Art Basel)

Advocates working to improve the status of women in various environments can securely manage digital resources using the wallet login, trusted across