ReportWire

Tag: IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse

  • Guns for Hire? A Season for Mercenaries

    Guns for Hire? A Season for Mercenaries

    [ad_1]

    • by Thalif Deen (united nations)
    • Inter Press Service

    UNITED NATIONS, Jul 17 (IPS) – Just after a band of mercenaries tried to oust the government in the Maldives back in 1988, I asked a Maldivian diplomat, using a familiar military catch phrase, about the strength of his country’s “standing army.”

    “Standing army?”, the diplomat asked with mock surprise, and remarked perhaps half-jokingly, “We don’t even have a sitting army.”

    With a population of about 250,000, around that time, the Maldives was perhaps one of the few countries with no fighter planes, combat helicopters, warships, missiles or battle tanks—an open invitation for mercenaries and free-lance military adventurers.

    As a result, the island’s fragile defenses attracted a rash of mercenaries and bounty hunters who tried to take over the country twice– once in 1979, and a second time in 1988.

    Although both attempts failed, the Indian Ocean-island refused to drop its defenses. It not only initiated a proposal seeking a UN security umbrella to protect the world’s militarily-vulnerable mini states but also backed an international convention to outlaw mercenaries, namely the 1989 ‘International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries’

    In the US, a mercenary is called a “soldier of fortune”, which is also the title of a widely circulated magazine, and sub-titled the Journal of Professional Adventurers.

    The adventures– and mis-adventures– of mercenaries were also portrayed in several Hollywood movies, including the Dogs of War, Tears of the Sun, the Wild Geese, the Expendables, and Blood Diamond, among others.

    When the Russian Wagner Group hit the front pages of newspapers worldwide, it was described as a private mercenary group fighting in Ukraine.

    The New York Times said on June 30 the Wagner Group provided security to African presidents, propped up dictators, violently suppressed rebel uprisings and was accused of torture, murder of civilians and other abuses.

    But the failed coup attempt by Wagner threatened, for a moment, the very existence of the Group.

    A military adviser to an African president, dependent on mercenaries, implicitly linked the name Wagner to the German composer Richard Wagner.

    And the official was quoted as saying “If it is not Wagner any more, they can send us Beethoven or Mozart, it doesn’t matter. We’ll take them”.

    A July 14 report on Cable News Network (CNN) quoted a Kremlin source as saying the Wagner group, which led a failed insurrection against Russian President Vladimir Putin last month, was never a legal entity and its legal status needs further consideration.

    “Such a legal entity as PMC Wagner does not exist and never existed. This is a legal issue that needs to be explored,” Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said.

    Peskov refused to disclose any further details on the meeting between Wagner head Yengeny Prigozhin and Putin, which reportedly took place several days after the aborted rebellion in June.

    Besides Ukraine, mercenaries have been fighting in Central Africa, Mali, Syria, Yemen, Iraq and Libya. In Syria, there was a para military group called Slavonic Corps providing security to President Bashar al-Assad battling a civil war—and later by the Wagner Group.

    And in Mali there were over 1,500 mercenaries fighting armed groups threatening to overthrow the government.

    Ironically, the US which once used the Blackwater Security Consulting Group during the American occupation of Iraq, has imposed sanctions on several African nations deploying mercenaries.

    Antony J. Blinken, US Secretary of State, said last week that the United States is imposing sanctions on several entities in the Central African Republic (CAR) for their connection to the transnational criminal organization known as the Wagner Group and “for their involvement in activities that undermine democratic processes and institutions in the CAR through illicit trade in the country’s natural resources”.

    “We are also designating one Russian national who has served as a Wagner executive in Mali. Wagner has used its operations in Mali both to obtain revenue for the group and its owner, Yevgeniy Prigozhin, as well as to procure weapons and equipment to further its involvement in hostilities in Ukraine.”

    The United States has also issued a new business risk advisory focused on the gold industry across sub-Saharan Africa.

    Specifically, the advisory highlights “how illicit actors such as Wagner exploit this resource to gain revenue and sow conflict, corruption, and other harms throughout the region”.

    Death and destruction have followed in Wagner’s wake everywhere it has operated, and the United States will continue to take actions to hold it accountable, said Blinken.

    Dr. Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of San Francisco, told IPS it is certainly good that the United States is finally taking leadership in opposing the use of mercenaries.

    The Iraq War—which then-Senator Joe Biden strongly supported—relied heavily on the use of mercenaries from the Blackwater group. Similarly, during the Cold War, the CIA used mercenaries to support its military objectives in Latin America, Southeast Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa.

    “Whether such actions targeting the Wagner Group is indicative of an actual shift in U.S. policy or simply a means of punishing a pro-Russian organization remains to be seen,” he said.

    Dr. Simon Adams, President and CEO of the Center for Victims of Torture, told IPS throughout history, big powers have often used mercenaries. From trying to hold back anti-colonial struggles to the horrors of the Cold War in Latin America or Africa, there is nothing new in that.

    “But I think the big change is that the international community has become more intolerant of these guns-for-hire and privatized armies who believe that they can operate outside of International Humanitarian Law, and are often rampant abusers of human rights”, he pointed out.

    And it is much harder these days for their state sponsors to deny responsibility for their actions, he added.

    The Wagner Group has been implicated in numerous atrocities in Ukraine, Central African Republic and a number of other places, he said.

    “They deserve all the opprobrium that has been heaped upon them. The challenge now is not just to sanction them, and to try to hold the main war criminals accountable under international law”.

    The bigger challenge is to ensure that no other big state or major power engages in these same nefarious practices the next time it suits their own partisan interests to do so, declared Dr Adams.

    Meanwhile, according to an article in the National Defense University Press, private force has become big business, and global in scope. No one truly knows how many billions of dollars slosh around this illicit market.

    “All we know is that business is booming. Recent years have seen major mercenary activity in Yemen, Nigeria, Ukraine, Syria, and Iraq. Many of these for-profit warriors outclass local militaries, and a few can even stand up to America’s most elite forces, as the battle in Syria shows.”

    The Middle East is awash in mercenaries. Kurdistan is a haven for soldiers of fortune looking for work with the Kurdish militia, oil companies defending their oil fields, or those who want terrorists dead, according to the article.

    “Some are just adventure seekers, while others are American veterans who found civilian life meaningless. The capital of Kurdistan, Irbil, has become an unofficial marketplace of mercenary services, reminiscent of the Tatooine bar in the movie Star Wars—full of smugglers and guns for hire.”

    IPS UN Bureau Report


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Most UN Agencies Lack Access to Information Policies, Survey Finds

    Most UN Agencies Lack Access to Information Policies, Survey Finds

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Toby McIntosh (washington dc)
    • Inter Press Service

    WASHINGTON DC, Jul 17 (IPS) – Less than half of United Nations agencies have access to information policies, according to a survey by Eye on Global Transparency.

    Of 27 UN bodies surveyed, 13 have access policies. So, 14 UN agencies lack access policies. Setting a poor example, the UN Secretariat still lacks an access to information policy.

    Other prominent UN agencies without access policies include the Food and Agriculture Organization, the International Civil Aviation Organization, the International Organization for Migration, the World Trade Organization and the World Intellectual Property Organization.

    Two UN institutions created access policies in 2021. One was the International Maritime Organization. The other was the UN Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). Ironically, UNIDO’s policy went undisclosed until very recently. UN Women is developing a policy, according to a spokesperson.

    Otherwise, the UN bodies without access policies show no signs of planning to create them, including at the Secretariat level. Access policies establish the procedures for requesting information and set the standards for what will and won’t be provided.

    Despite Hint, No Action by the UN Secretariat

    In 2018, there was a hint of a possible pro-transparency move by the UN Secretariat, but nothing materialized.

    The top UN communications official at the time said the Secretariat would like to create a “rigorous” access to information policy. However, a year later, the Secretariat said in a statement that it had no such plans. The UN press office did not reply to a recent request for comment.

    Access to information is considered an integral part of the right of freedom of expression, as recognized in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    The fact that the UN Secretariat and other UN bodies don’t apply this standard to themselves prompted a rebuke from a UN Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights. “For the central global political institution, one that serves the public interest across a range of subject matters, this is intolerable,” began a 2017 report.

    UN agencies were encouraged to create access policies in a 2018 UN Human Rights Council resolution and a 2020 report by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).

    UNESCO Urged to Be Advocate

    Pressure for more transparency at UN agencies is minimal. One potential advocate, the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), supports creation of access laws at the national level. But UNESCO but does encourage UN agencies to adopt access policies, despite calls for it to do so.

    While national adoption and implementation of access laws is one of the UN‘s Sustainable Development Goals, with UNESCO as the monitor, there is no UN goal for UN access policies.

    At a UNESCO-sponsored International Day for Universal Access to Information meeting held in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, in 2022, the participants approved a declaration calling on intergovernmental bodies to adopt access polices.

    Setting a less-than-stellar example itself, UNESCO recently amended its own access policy without announcing its intentions or inviting public comment. (See EYE article.) Nor did UNESCO follow substantive advice it gives to countries, to have an independent oversight bodies to handle appeals.

    Independent appeals panels are uncommon at UN agencies. Most, like UNESCO, handle appeals with internal review panels. By contrast, the existence of independent appeals panel is more frequent at international financial institutions (IFIs), almost all of which have access polices. (See EYE 2023 story)

    Difficulties with Opacity

    Getting information from agencies without policies can be problematical. A nongovernmental organization in Nigeria learned this when it asked the International Organization for Migration (IMO) about a program to help returning migrants. (See EYE article.)

    There was no detail on IOM’s website and an IOM official denied having “any information” about the $324,000 project or a pineapple processing factory spawned by the effort. The IOM has no access policy through which to make a formal request.

    When policies do exist, the processing of requests can be time-consuming. This author has a pending appeal with the UN Environment Programme, submitted March 8, four months ago. UNEP has not met its goal of issuing decisions within 60 working days.

    Veteran UN journalist Thalif Deen, writing for Inter Press Service, called the UN “one of most opaque institutions, where transparency is never the norm.”

    https://www.ipsnews.net/2023/05/proposal-un-freedom-information-act-never-got-off-ground/

    UNIDO Discloses Previously Nonpublic Access Policy

    The UNIDO website doesn’t indicate the presence of an access policy, but after EYE contacted the agency the one-and-a-half year old policy was forwarded.

    The UNIDO policy, like most access polices, begins with strong commitments to openness (“maximum access”) and then moves on to “limited” exemptions.

    However, the UNIDO exemptions, like those in many national and international access policies are quite protective. For example, confidential treatment is guaranteed for documents submitted by governments and third parties.

    Unusually, UNIDO’s policy says that “imitations may apply with regard to the types of requestors to whom such information will be disclosed.” Access policies typically do not discriminate on who may apply, although some national policies forbid applications from non-citizens. Also rare is a UNIDO requirement that requesters must pay in advance to cover the estimated cost of handling their request.

    So, there are two hurdles: getting access policies in the first place and getting good access policies.

    Toby McIntosh has reported for several decades on transparency at international institutions and on freedom for information issues world-wide. During a journalistic career in Washington, he covered the White House, Congress and many regulatory agencies. View all posts by Toby McIntosh

    IPS UN Bureau

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • What a World 1.5 degrees Hotter Would Look Like

    What a World 1.5 degrees Hotter Would Look Like

    [ad_1]

    To mitigate the worst climate change impacts, we need to consider implementing climate solutions outside of the free economic market.
    • Opinion by Michael Davies-Venn (amsterdam)
    • Inter Press Service

    AMSTERDAM, Jul 14 (IPS) – The dangerous state of global climate has reached a new low as a World Metrological Organisation (WMO) analysis reveals. It confirms a known obvious: human activities continue to worsen conditions that have changed our planet’s climate.

    Most distressing is that ‘there is a 66 per cent likelihood that the annual average near-surface global temperature between 2023 and 2027 will be more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels for at least one year.’

    With under five years before the much dreaded 1.5 degrees set by the Paris Agreement becomes a reality – and with it ‘a 98 per cent likelihood that at least one of the next five years, and the five-year period as a whole, will be the warmest on record’ – politicians and policy-makers have received the loudest definitive clarion call that should induce urgent and fundamental changes in approaches to mitigating and adapting to climate change impacts.

    It had been known for decades that the African continent is highly vulnerable to such impacts as drought, flooding and heatwaves. What remains unknown but can be reasonably discerned is the scale of human catastrophe and its resulting global impacts that are certain to happen should – so far unsuccessful – climate governance approaches remain unchanged.

    Already observed impacts of climate change

    It is now reasonable to conclude that climate actions that should have been undertaken at a continental scale will not be completed within five years to avert climate change impacts. Over decades, predictions in earlier International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports have already become a reality.

    Its latest special report – focused on the 1.5 degrees threshold – details climate impacts that have claimed lives and livelihoods among Africans who contributed the least to climate change. Six climate impacts assessed between ‘medium, high and very high confidence’ such as displacement, heat and losses in agriculture and crop production, are no longer just predictions — and are certain to further increase within the next five years.

    A certain outcome of this will be increases in false solutions, such as techno-scientific babble to spray silver iodide into the atmosphere to create rain, as well as inflame nationalistic policy responses, such as the British government’s current inhumane policy to return a growing number of people fleeing from the most vulnerable continent to climate change impacts.

    Any effort, worthy of being considered serious, to avert further callous suffering and wanton waste of lives across Africa during the next five years, must aim at implementing climate mitigation and adaptation projects at a scope, continental scale and rate that surpasses the frequency of recent environmental disasters.

    Before the onset of these WMO’s predictions, those most responsible for climate change saw and mostly ignored as distant problems, the starvation in Ethiopia, catastrophic drought in Kenya and cyclone in Zimbabwe that affected millions, killed thousands and, since 2021, displaced some 1.5 million searching for food and water in Somalia.

    But such a short-sighted understanding of cascading impacts resulting from extreme weather and environmental conditions induced by a changed global climate will only worsen the situation. Further, beyond five years, social outcomes across Africa would, in the long-term, represent persistent social pressures, including from those with the courage to maintain a moral sting on the conscience of politicians in developed countries.

    A most certain of those is the changing demography of Africa, as ‘more than half of global population growth between now and 2050 is expected to occur in Africa.’ In sub-Saharan Africa, the population is projected to grow from 258 million in 1984 to over 1.6 bn in the next seven years. It would be a natural outcome that these lives will relentlessly escape barren farmlands and flood communities that no longer sustain their lives for those in Europe and elsewhere.

    Reports of thousands of lives lost at sea should signal to politicians that risks faced by those seeking refuge by crossing the Mediterranean Sea, using over-crowded and rickety boats, are not sufficient deterrence to outweigh their perceptions of protection in developed countries that are comparably more adapted to climate change impacts and with mitigation solutions.

    Another reason for urgent changes to addressing climate change is that assistance to developing countries to aid humanitarian disasters are constrained by inflation in developed economies, the political climate in donor countries and unforeseen developments, such as the recent Covid19 pandemic.

    And so, within the next five years, the resulting environmental disasters from a world warmed to 1.5 degrees, coupled with national economic pressures in developed countries such as inflation, which reduces foreign aid, inconsistent national policy-making from short-term political cycles and misplaced national priorities on overseas development assistance (ODA) – such that saw Somalia ranked tenth on a list of top-ten recipients of gross ODA between 2020 and 2021, during the same period the country was experiencing a profound humanitarian crisis – will contribute to creating a global humanitarian catastrophe perhaps not seen since the end of the Second World War.

    The need for large-scale transformations

    Unlike Western Europe, which was rebuilt on the Marshall Plan, a similar plan may be unnecessary for Africa, had developed countries honoured promises on climate change assistance. But climate finance promises to honour yet more broken promises have not stopped African countries’ from increasing their resilience and reducing the continent’s high vulnerability to climate change impacts.

    They continue to play by UNFCCC rules and have deposited plans, including plans to implement plans, to mitigate and adapt to climate change. But as the UNFCCC has found, virtually all National Determined Contributions, from some 100 countries, ‘need international support for technology development and transfer to implement.’

    Since as many countries have been waiting for decades for such support, it is reasonable to suspect the finance needed will not arrive in less than five years. And so, national efforts to protect lives across Africa have largely come to nought, while emissions outside the continent continue to rise, while ironically, the premature death of ‘King Coal’ still makes headline news in the foreign press.

    Keeping that failure in mind, if the Paris Agreement could still be lauded as the greatest achievement on climate change, then the accord’s approach to implementing its solutions is its weakest. Whether it’s implementing mitigation and adaptation projects or transferring technologies from developed to developing countries, the inflated role and relevance of money to realise these solutions reduce the accord’s potential from a practical instrument to a simple conceptual document.

    Its finance framework contributes to gestate and birth a marketplace of climate finance funds, greenwashing scams and initiatives informed by neoclassical free-market logic that, as yet, have failed to reduce global emissions. But where the framework should matter most – to stimulate climate finance flows to developing countries – remains an unmet need.

    Yet, Africa’s persistent high vulnerability to climate change impacts isn’t for lack of climate finance, but one of access to money. One has only to observe that Africa has historically been at the bottom rung of recipients of public and private sector finance, such as foreign direct investments and overseas development assistance.

    Climate finance, which must freely flow to fund renewable energy and climate-resilient projects, has followed suit. Until 2050, the continent would need, yearly, $240 bn to implement climate mitigation and adaptation measures, but received $15.7 bn in loans in 2020. It is more critical now than ever to understand that private financial markets are unsuitable for solving public problems.

    Economic power has historically been centralised in developed countries and climate change impacts will not honour this historic disparity.

    Decarbonising African economies implies societal, sectoral and infrastructural transformations at a scale unknown to human history. Yet, knowledge and technologies exist today to make this transformation a reality. But this evidently provides no assurance for their use, mainly because of the insistence that such transformation should be accomplished on the basis of neoclassical market logic.

    Aside from such reasoning reflecting a certain measure of cognitive dissonance, it also suggests a wilful and callous condemnation of vulnerable lives to more death and unnecessary suffering. A practical and perhaps only option now is to consider implementing climate solutions outside the free economic market.

    The second is to socialise these solutions. This henceforth should mean that decisions on how to provide electricity to hundreds of millions who’ve been living in perpetual darkness at sunset for generations, provide drought-resistant crops to those in barren farmlands and supply early warning systems to prevent deaths from extreme weather, must no longer be informed by neoclassical economic dictates. By orienting climate solutions towards social goals, human societies may minimally survive in a world warmed up to 1.5 degrees.

    Michael Davies-Venn is a public policy analyst and communication expert. He works on global environmental governance with focus on climate mitigation and climate adaptation measures between developing and developed regions. He is Junior Fellow at Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.

    Source: International Politics and Society, published by the Global and European Policy Unit of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Hiroshimastrasse 28, D-10785 Berlin.

    IPS UN Bureau

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Water a Weapon of War or a Tool for Peace?

    Water a Weapon of War or a Tool for Peace?

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Maria Skold, Martina Klimes (stockholm, sweden)
    • Inter Press Service

    STOCKHOLM, Sweden, Jul 11 (IPS) – The role of water in conflicts is changing, with more attacks against environmental and civilian infrastructure. Dr Martina Klimes of the Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI) recently held a lecture describing the shifting security landscape and how water can be both a weapon and a victim of war – and sometimes a tool for peace.

    The Kakhovka dam disaster in Ukraine on 6 June is a painful reminder of how collapsing water infrastructure can cause enormous suffering in times of war, sometimes with consequences that last for generations. Ukraine accuses Russia of destroying the dam and using it as a weapon of war.

    “That would be in direct conflict with the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions which protects civilians in times of war,” says Dr Martina Klimes who is Advisor Water and Peace at SIWI.

    On 14 June, she participated in a breakfast meeting at the Swedish parliament together with other representatives from the Stockholm Hub on Environment, Climate and Security of which SIWI is a founding member.

    Klimes’ presentation outlined the different roles of water in war:

      • Direct impact – where water and attacks on water infrastructure are used as a weapon of war.
      • Indirect impact – where military operations harm the environment, for example poisoning water sources or contaminating soil.
      • Transboundary impact – where the consequences are felt also in other countries.

    During the war in Ukraine, all three dimensions are carefully monitored by local and international organizations to an extent rarely seen in other wars. Already before the Kakhovka dam disaster, Ukrainian authorities estimated the cost of the environmental impacts of the war to be approximately 50 billion euros.

    Rivers, groundwater, and soil are polluted, and many national parks are impacted in the country which is described as the most biodiverse in Europe. In 2022, 16 million Ukrainians needed water, sanitation, and hygiene assistance.

    By tracking the environmental consequences of the war so closely, the Ukrainian government hopes not just to facilitate reconstruction. Another aim is to collect evidence that could be used in a future war tribunal against Russia.

    President Zelensky has said that charges could include ecocide, in addition to the four types of crimes currently covered by the International Criminal Court (ICC). In recent years, the idea of making ecocide a fifth crime enshrined in the Rome Statute of the ICC has started to gain traction.

    The parliament of the European Union recently voted to make ecocide part of EU law.

    At the United Nations, a commission has assessed gaps in existing international law and presented a set of more far-reaching draft principles on protection of the environment in relation to armed conflicts.

    But researchers who have studied Yemen, Libya, and Syria say that attacks on civilian and environmental infrastructure have become more common in the past decade.

    “This causes immense suffering for local populations and the impact often goes beyond national borders. We also know that environmental degradation is a risk multiplier that can trigger social instability and violence,” Klimes says.

    Meanwhile, a landmark report on the topic – Environment of Peace – was presented last year by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), another partner of the Stockholm Hub on Environment, Climate and Security.

    At the same time, countries and regions can reduce tensions by strengthening the resilience of ecosystems and humans. Collaborating around for example shared waters can also foster cooperation and peace.

    To raise awareness of these complex interlinkages, SIWI works actively to bring together actors with different types of competencies. One example is the Shared Waters Partnership Programme to strengthen transboundary water cooperation.

    Every year, SIWI also hosts a high-level panel during World Water Week on water-related security issues. This year the event will take place on 23 August at 11am CET with the theme Innovative Approaches to Support Peace and Conflict Prevention.

    Maria Sköld, is Senior Manager, Communications.
    Martina Klimes, PhD, is Advisor, Water and Peace, and Transboundary Water Cooperation.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Prigozhin: An Outsider With an Army

    Prigozhin: An Outsider With an Army

    [ad_1]

    Credit: UNICEF/Aleksey Filippov
    • Opinion by Roland Bathon (berlin)
    • Inter Press Service

    BERLIN, Jul 07 (IPS) – The Wagner uprising – despite its short duration – has demonstrated the vulnerability of Putin’s power system.

    In the past, the oligarch Yevgeny Prigozhin seemed like a dark, mysterious figure somewhere from the depths of the Kremlin’s web of secrets. This also has to do with the fact that he did those ‘jobs’ for the Russian government that took place in a semi-official grey area — such as mercenary assignments in Syria or Africa, or even before that the operation of the Petersburg troll factory with a network of fake media and disinformation machinery.

    “The war in Ukraine has created a humanitarian and human rights catastrophe, traumatized a generation of children, and accelerated the global food and energy crises,” said Rosemary DiCarlo, Under-Secretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs, addressing the UN Security Council. June 2023

    As his mercenary army PMC Wagner – to which he only openly professed his allegiance at a very late stage – gained considerable combat experience in more and more wars, his personal military power continued to grow. The Wagner fighters, in fact, are his personal soldiers.

    This was to become evident in the recent military uprising led by Prigozhin, as the soldiers immediately occupied the large city of Rostov on his orders, advanced on Moscow and simply ignored orders from the Russian authorities to arrest Prigozhin.

    As Wagner is the largest Russian-based mercenary formation – according to the British Ministry of Defence, it grew to up to 50,000 soldiers in January – Prigozhin became a real power factor in Russia.

    Roland Bathon

    Military versus political power

    In the purely political sphere, however, Prigozhin was by no means as powerful of a factor to the extent as it was repeatedly interpreted abroad on the basis of his mysterious aura. The pool of media under his control was much smaller than that of ‘businessmen from Putin’s immediate entourage’, Russian journalist and Kremlin expert Andrey Pertsev noted in an analysis after the start of the war. In polls on the most important Russian politicians, his name never appeared in the results, and his earlier calls for a general mobilisation were met with zero sympathy from the Russians.

    For Putin, the interactions with Prigozhin never had any special status until his open revolt. According to the Russian political scientist Tatyana Stanovaya, the oligarch was never close enough to the head of state to entrust him with an important political office. Prigozhin’s tasks always remained informal — he used the niches that official state organs could not or would not fill. Thus, he was never integrated into the front row of Russian politics.

    Yet, it was precisely this lack of integration that led to the emergence of a dual structure which turned out to be dangerous for the overall structure of Russian power. Prigozhin increasingly staged himself as a counter-elite – even though he himself came from this social class – and progressively engaged in power struggles with the official military hierarchy around the Russian Ministry of Defence. This also succeeded because officially, he always remained a ‘private citizen’ without an office in the top political ranks.

    The military leadership countered by wanting to subordinate all volunteer units such as Wagner back to its own command through contractual structures. Prigozhin refused. But here, too, his political isolation and weakness within the Russian apparatus became apparent.

    All other leaders of such units, such as Chechen strongman Ramzan Akhmadovich Kadyrov, bowed to the order. Putin himself put his foot down in favour of his Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu, who was repeatedly criticised by Prigozhin, and described the contract closures as necessary.

    The uprising

    Hope was fading away for Prigozhin, a fact that could also become dangerous for him as a person. And so, it came to his uprising – a surprise for all observers. After harsh criticism of the entire war conduct in Ukraine, he mobilised his mercenaries, captured the headquarters of the Russian Southern Forces in Rostov in a coup d’état and sent an advance detachment of Wagner fighters on their way to Moscow – an open military uprising.

    Yet, here, too, the great discrepancy between Prigozhin’s military and political influence became immediately apparent. His soldiers quickly advanced up to 200 kilometres on Moscow, destroying initial resistance from government troops on the way, for example, by shooting three helicopters and an aeroplane out of the sky.

    His mercenaries followed his orders unconditionally, refused to arrest Prigozhin as ordered by the domestic intelligence service FSB and secured power in Rostov with a massive military presence.

    But Prigozhin’s lack of political influence was equally evident. One after another, regional governors declared their loyalty to Putin, and Kadyrov even provided troops to push Wagner PMC out of Rostov.

    No one from the presidential administration voiced criticism of the leadership – instead, they united behind the Kremlin. Prigozhin acted militarily quickly and thus gained situational advantages over the sluggish state apparatus. But it was clear that a prolonged armed conflict would consolidate the shaken apparatus and – in case his uprising failed – Prigozhin would face a quick death or a long imprisonment.

    The fact that the Kremlin did not take the chance and commissioned Belarusian ruler Alexander Lukashenko to mediate was again due to military uncertainties. For no one knew to what extent war-weary Russian army units would actually fight their mercenary compatriots or perhaps would even partially defect.

    After all, the Wagner fighters were able to move into Rostov without any significant resistance, and no one knew how many military officers shared Prigozhin’s anti-establishment populism. The quick end of the revolt also superficially brought back to the Russian hinterland a central element of Putin’s rule: stability.

    As a result, both sides in the conflict came to a surprisingly quick agreement. Prigozhin was able to leave for Belarus with Putin’s guarantee of free passage, his entourage obtained immunity from prosecution and retreated to the rear of the Donbass combat zone. An uncertainty remains for the oligarch in that he could still be ‘secretly’ killed.

    ‘This is the style of the current government’ notes historian Nikolai Svanidze. The FSB also seems to be investigating Prigozhin. But all of this is still better than the almost certain death that would have awaited him and many of his men if the uprising had continued.

    For the Kremlin, this action meant damage control, even if the image of being a guarantor of security and stability in Russia was tarnished. Prigozhin thus achieved more than he could have hoped for – if only because he escaped abroad unharmed.

    The uprising will leave a lasting mark on the Putin system. Prigozhin and his Wagner army were his personal project, notes Maxim Trudolyubov, editor-in-chief of the exiled Russian newspaper Meduza.

    In his view, Putin also used Prigozhin in the war against Ukraine to humiliate those generals who had been unsuccessful in his personal campaign. Now, the ‘PMC uprising’ – despite its short duration – shows the vulnerability of Putin’s power system.

    Roland Bathon is a freelance journalist. He writes mainly about Russia and Eastern Europe.

    Source: International Politics and Society (IPS), published by the Global and European Policy Unit of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Hiroshimastrasse 28, D-10785 Berlin.

    IPS UN Bureau

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Recognising Human Rights Defenders as Remarkable Agents of Positive Change

    Recognising Human Rights Defenders as Remarkable Agents of Positive Change

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Olive Moore (dublin, ireland)
    • Inter Press Service

    DUBLIN, Ireland, Jul 05 (IPS) – In recent years, the global landscape for human rights defenders (HRDs) has become more difficult and complex, with both new and heightened challenges. With hundreds of defenders killed every year, the scale and magnitude of threats faced by HRDs is unprecedented.

    And our response to this is severely lacking. Authoritarian and repressive forces are ever more emboldened by a permissive international environment, which fails to protect HRDs and hold aggressors to account.

    Civic space restrictions, conflict and crises, climate crisis, technological threats, rising authoritarianism and anti-gender policies all significantly affect the work, safety and well-being of HRDs.

    But thankfully, there is a flipside to this grim panorama. I recently had the privilege of spending some time with five HRDs who are among those leading the charge against these sobering trends. Courageously, they are stepping up to these challenges, to fight for their space, to champion collective rights and to stand for a better, more just world.

    The five HRDs were visiting Dublin as the recipients of an annual award Front Line Defenders has been presenting to HRDs from all over the world since 2005. The recipients, from each of the major world regions, are among those most at risk for their peaceful work in defense of human rights.

    In all cases, they demonstrate a steadfast commitment to the communities they support and represent. They offer inspiration for our times, and give us all reason to continue to care, to stand together in solidarity and to speak out and act.

    I would like to highlight some of their invaluable contributions to the greater good.

    Our Africa winner, Olivier Ndoole Bahemuke, is a leader among environmental and land defenders in Democratic Republic of the Congo, and one of the most trusted advocates on behalf of communities impacted by land grabs, trafficking, and illegal resource extraction activities.

    Known in North Kivu province as the “Green lawyer,” he is an ardent defender of the rights of communities and the environment in Virunga National Park and areas around Goma. He has faced death threats, been beaten to the point of hospitalisation and faced ongoing persecution for this work.

    Our Americas winner, Segundo Ordóñez, an Afro-descendant human rights defender from Ecuador, is one of the most visible faces and the community representative in the two legal proceedings brought against the multinational company Furukawa Plantaciones C. A. and the State of Ecuador. The cases have focused on how workers on abacá (Manila hemp) plantations suffer labour exploitation as they farm the raw materials in conditions of modern slavery.

    From Asia and the Pacific, Jeany ‘Rose’ Hayahay is a woman human rights defender based in Mindanao, the Philippines. Since 2019, she has been the spokesperson of the Save Our Schools Network (SOS Network), a coalition of child-focused NGOs, church-based groups and other stakeholders advocating for children’s right to education in Mindanao, particularly in the context of militarisation and attacks on schools.

    Rose is consistently red-tagged and monitored as a leader, facing reprisals and threats, both directly and indirectly. She is at high risk of being killed, arrested or imprisoned yet continues to lead at the forefront with determination and courage.

    Our Europe and Central Asia winner, Digital Security Lab Ukraine, represented by their executive director Vita Volodovska is a team of specialists in the field of digital security and internet freedom.

    Amid the dangers of Russia’s full-scale invasion of their country, they help Ukrainian journalists, human rights defenders and public activists solve problems with digital security, as well as promote the realisation of human rights on the internet by influencing government policy in the field of digital rights.

    And, last but not least, our Middle East and North Africa winner, Hala Ahed, from Jordan is one of the few women human rights lawyers in her country, who has worked with a number of human rights and feminist organisations to defend women’s rights, workers’ rights, and the freedoms of opinion, expression and peaceful assembly in Jordan.

    Despite her vital work and advocacy, Hala has endured various forms of intimidation and harassment, including facing threats and being summoned multiple times by the Jordanian General Intelligence Directorate.

    These five HRDs are remarkable agents of positive change – representing our best chance to withstand, counter and find solutions to the significant challenges we face today.

    However, they all face tremendous personal risk because of their human rights work – with ongoing threats to their security, well-being and reputations and the safety of their families. As we met with diplomats, dignitaries and like-minded organisations in Dublin and Brussels, our Award winners told us about the cost to them and their families and communities, and the huge personal sacrifice they make.

    In some cases, they literally put their lives on the line to continue with their crucial work in defense of human rights; in others, they have been labelled “terrorists”; organisations they support have been criminalised; or their family members have faced threats and abduction.

    It is a fate that is reflective of our wider work to protect human rights defenders – in 2022, Front Line Defenders supported 2,675 HRDs and 404 organisations at risk in over 140 countries – including in some very challenging contexts of armed conflict and crises.

    One part of the Front Line Defenders Award is about recognition for and solidarity with these defenders, for whom the limelight brings a level of international attention and protection. This is important, but this is only only part of what HRDs require for their protection, and for their human rights work to thrive. They also need concerted political action.

    That is why, as Front Line Defenders, we will continue to work directly with HRDs to advocate with governments, international institutions and corporations, to ensure that the crucial work HRDs do to advance human rights and justice is valued and that as individuals they are respected and protected.

    Olive Moore is Interim Director of Front Line Defenders

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • How the Security Council can Better Pursue Accountability for International Crimes Against Children

    How the Security Council can Better Pursue Accountability for International Crimes Against Children

    [ad_1]

    A young refugee boy, pictured in a temporary displacement camp in Kalak, Iraq, in June 2014. Credit: Amnesty International
    • Opinion by Janine Morna (florida usa)
    • Inter Press Service

    FLORIDA USA, Jul 03 (IPS) – Around 2018, when Anwar was 14 or 15 years old, his father, a member of IS, forced Anwar to train with the group as a young teenager. He even made Anwar watch as he inflicted brutal punishments on people who broke IS’ rules.

    The suffering was intolerable. Anwar tried to run away from his father and flee IS-controlled territory on multiple occasions. “I hated everyone,” he said.

    In 2011, as the early versions of IS began to re-emerge in Iraq, the UN was quick to document violations the armed group had committed against children. That year, the UN Secretary-General included the group in the organization’s annual report on children and armed conflict, in which perpetrators of grave violations are named and shamed. The UN is required to negotiate action plans with parties listed in the report as part of efforts to stop and prevent the violations from occurring in future.

    While the annual report is a powerful tool that prompts action in many contexts, it has had little impact on groups like IS, which are unlikely to engage in dialogue with the UN.

    Over the last 11 years, numerous parties listed in the annual report can be classified as ‘persistent perpetrators’ — armed groups and forces that have appeared in the report for more than five consecutive years, and have failed to respond to reports on the violations they have committed against children. IS has been listed in the report for the last 13 years.

    The UN Security Council has previously focused on the issue of persistent perpetrators, including by passing a resolution and holding an open debate in 2012 where they emphasized the importance of addressing violations committed by these groups and forces. It has also made efforts to promote sanctions against recalcitrant parties.

    A young refugee boy, pictured in a temporary displacement camp in Kalak, Iraq, in June 2014. Credit: Amnesty International

    Despite these initiatives, the UN Security Council and its subsidiary, the Security Council Working Group on Children and Armed Conflict (Working Group), could do much, much more to support meaningful accountability.

    Domestic prosecutions of crimes against children

    The Working Group, as the primary body carrying out the UN Security Council’s agenda on children and armed conflict, should strengthen its calls for the UN and its donors to help countries to develop and implement domestic legislation that criminalizes grave violations against children. It should also support national criminal justice systems to pursue accountability, in line with international fair trial standards.

    Today, many prosecutions of non-state perpetrators of grave violations – like IS in Iraq and Syria, and Boko Haram in Nigeria – take place in domestic counterterrorism courts which, in many cases, fail to include crimes under international law, let alone crimes against children.

    The Working Group must encourage the trial of individual members of these groups in national courts that are capable of adjudicating international crimes. Prosecutions could occur in the state where the crimes took place and, where relevant, in states that exercise universal jurisdiction – a legal principle whereby states can prosecute offenders of certain grave crimes irrespective of the location of the crime and the nationality of the perpetrator or victim.

    When trials on crimes against children take place in counterterrorism courts, the relevant authorities must enable prosecutors and judges to draw on international law, provide sufficient resources to pursue the prosecutions, and ensure defendants can exercise their full fair trial rights.

    In cases involving children associated with armed groups and forces, states should treat children who are accused of crimes during their association primarily as victims of violations of international law and not only as perpetrators, in accordance with international standards. Children should never be prosecuted for mere affiliation with an armed group or force.

    Cooperating with the International Criminal Court and other international mechanisms

    In situations where domestic legal systems are unable or unwilling to pursue prosecutions of crimes against children, the Working Group should explore opportunities to collaborate with the International Criminal Court (ICC) and other international justice mechanisms, such as the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism (IIIM) on Syria or the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar to achieve accountability.

    This type of collaboration was envisioned when the Working Group first adopted a list of actions it could take in response to grave violations against children. Effective cooperation between international justice mechanisms is critical to achieve a measure of comprehensive justice.

    The Working Group’s engagement with the ICC has historically been limited, but it is now time to further develop connections between the two bodies. The Office of the Prosecutor for the ICC has welcomed opportunities to “strengthen cooperation with relevant actors” and earlier this year launched a public consultation to renew its policy on children that “will build upon new approaches… affect meaningful change”.

    In the past, some Working Group members have considered indicating when parties have likely committed a war crime or other crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC. They have also explored the possibility of sharing their conclusions with the ICC, and arranging for the prosecutor of the ICC to share briefings with the Working Group.

    Ten years ago, some members of the Working Group also considered, in the absence of a UN Security Council referral, inviting states that are party to the Rome Statute to refer situations to the ICC, in which armed groups or forces have committed grave violations against children. Unfortunately, deeply divided opinions about the ICC among Council members have, in the past, limited the adoption of these recommendations.

    Children must be protected

    On July 5, the UN Security Council will host its annual Open Debate on Children and Armed Conflict. The occasion offers all UN member states an opportunity to publicly commit to efforts to broaden and strengthen accountability for violations against children.

    As a first step, member states should call for the UN Secretary General to, once again, identify persistent perpetrators in the annual reports on children and armed conflict, a practice that was stopped in 2017.

    The Council has the power to take greater action in response to some of the world’s most egregious perpetrators of crimes against children. It is unacceptable that children like Anwar should have to wait so long for justice and accountability.

    Janine Morna, is Thematics Researcher – Children, Amnesty International’s Crisis Response Programme

    *Name changed to protect identity.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • The USAs Systemic Racism includes Its Wars

    The USAs Systemic Racism includes Its Wars

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Norman Solomon (san francisco, usa)
    • Inter Press Service

    SAN FRANCISCO, USA, Jun 27 (IPS) – A recent Justice Department report concluded that “systemic” racial bias in the Minneapolis Police Department “made what happened to George Floyd possible.”

    During the three years since a white police officer brutally murdered Floyd, nationwide discussions of systemic racism have extended well beyond focusing on law enforcement to also assess a range of other government functions.

    But such scrutiny comes to a halt at the water’s edge — stopping short of probing whether racism has been a factor in U.S. military interventions overseas.

    Hidden in plain sight is the fact that virtually all the people killed by U.S. firepower in the “war on terror” for more than two decades have been people of color. This notable fact goes unnoted within a country where — in sharp contrast — racial aspects of domestic policies and outcomes are ongoing topics of public discourse.

    Certainly, the U.S. does not attack a country because people of color live there. But when people of color live there, it is politically easier for U.S. leaders to subject them to warfare — because of institutional racism and often-unconscious prejudices that are common in the United States.

    Racial inequities and injustice are painfully apparent in domestic contexts, from police and courts to legislative bodies, financial systems and economic structures. A nation so profoundly affected by individual and structural racism at home is apt to be affected by such racism in its approach to war.

    Many Americans recognize that racism holds significant sway over their society and many of its institutions. Yet the extensive political debates and media coverage devoted to U.S. foreign policy and military affairs rarely even mention — let alone explore the implications of — the reality that the several hundred thousand civilians killed directly in America’s “war on terror” have been almost entirely people of color.

    The flip side of biases that facilitate public acceptance of making war on non-white people came to the fore when Russia invaded Ukraine in early 2022. News coverage included reporting that the war’s victims “have blue eyes and blond hair” and “look like us,” Los Angeles Times television critic Lorraine Ali noted.

    “Writers who’d previously addressed conflicts in the Gulf region, often with a focus on geopolitical strategy and employing moral abstractions, appeared to be empathizing for the first time with the plight of civilians.”

    Such empathy, all too often, is skewed by the race and ethnicity of those being killed. The Arab and Middle Eastern Journalists Association has deplored “the pervasive mentality in Western journalism of normalizing tragedy in parts of the world such as the Middle East, Africa, South Asia and Latin America. It dehumanizes and renders their experience with war as somehow normal and expected.”

    Persisting today is a modern version of what W.E.B. Du Bois called, 120 years ago, “the problem of the color line — the relation of the darker to the lighter races.” Twenty-first century lineups of global power and geopolitical agendas have propelled the United States into seemingly endless warfare in countries where few white people live.

    Racial, cultural and religious differences have made it far too easy for most Americans to think of the victims of U.S. war efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and elsewhere as “the other.”

    Their suffering is much more likely to be viewed as merely regrettable or inconsequential rather than heart-rending or unacceptable. What Du Bois called “the problem of the color line” keeps empathy to a minimum.

    “The history of U.S. wars in Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America has exuded a stench of white supremacy, discounting the value of lives at the other end of U.S. bullets, bombs and missiles,” I concluded in my new book War Made Invisible. “Yet racial factors in war-making decisions get very little mention in U.S. media and virtually none in the political world of officials in Washington.”

    At the same time, on the surface, Washington’s foreign policy can seem to be a model of interracial connection. Like presidents before him, Joe Biden has reached out to foreign leaders of different races, religions and cultures — as when he fist-bumped Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at their summit a year ago, while discarding professed human-rights concerns in the process.

    Overall, in America’s political and media realms, the people of color who’ve suffered from U.S. warfare abroad have been relegated to a kind of psychological apartheid — separate, unequal, and implicitly not of much importance.

    And so, when the Pentagon’s forces kill them, systemic racism makes it less likely that Americans will actually care.

    Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. He is the author of a dozen books including War Made Easy. His latest book, War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine, was published in June 2023 by The New Press.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Out-Trumping the Trump

    Out-Trumping the Trump

    [ad_1]

    Credit: White House, September 2020
    • Opinion by Marco Bitschnau (neuchatel, switzerland)
    • Inter Press Service

    NEUCHATEL, Switzerland, Jun 26 (IPS) – It’s been seven months since Florida Governor Ron DeSantis celebrated a brilliant re-election victory in the midst of an otherwise mixed Republican midterm performance. He had come in with nearly 20 per cent more votes than Democrat Charlie Crist.

    Ron DeSantis is considered Trump’s biggest rival for the Republican presidential primaries. But for the Florida governor, it’s a battle of unequal weapons.

    This was an almost surreally good result for a state that, until a few years ago, was considered a veritable swing state – and still is, according to many local media. His fabulous result made Florida’s already successful chief executive the man of the hour overnight.

    Every smile, every gesture, every Caesar-like sweep of the crowd by the beaming victor seemed to say: here is someone who could actually challenge Donald Trump for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024. Someone who shares many of his strengths but few of his weaknesses.

    A steep downward spiral

    Today, these scenes seem like something from another world. Trump, who had basically been written off at one point, has now overtaken his opponent in almost all of the major opinion polls: most recently, Trump’s lead according to Quinnipiac was 31 percentage points, (33 at FOX News, 34 at Morning Consult and 42 at Harvard/Harris).

    To some extent, the results are even more disastrous for DeSantis at the individual state level. In West Virginia, for example, a poll at the end of May saw him trailing behind Trump by a whopping 45 percentage points, with only 9 per cent thinking he was the right candidate.

    Admittedly, even under the best of circumstances, the Harvard lawyer wouldn’t be a good fit for the coal mining towns of Appalachia. But falling below the 10 per cent mark should still wound his ego.

    It is unclear what this rapid decline in pre-election popularity can be attributed to. On the one hand, of course, it seems possible that the mid-term election hype surrounding DeSantis was too great and that the situation is simply returning to normal.

    On the other hand, it may relate to the criminal proceedings against Trump, his increased media presence as a result and an incipient nostalgia for his time in office. But there is a widespread view that the challenger himself is not entirely free of his own misery.

    DeSantis’ presidential candidacy was announced comparatively late, the campaign launch with Twitter boss Elon Musk – in theory, an impressive idea – suffered from technical defects, and the narrative of the valiant fight against ‘wokeness’ also seems to be wearing thin these days. In this case, as so often in life, oversaturation creates frustration.

    All the more so, as one should know how to abandon a topic if it threatens to bog down the discourse and to change the branding strategy – a skill that the governor, who tends toward micromanagement, evidently cannot claim as one of his strengths.

    For example, when DeSantis threatened to take control of the 100-square-kilometre Reedy Creek Improvement District away from the media company Disney – which had publicly opposed a Florida anti-gay law – it initially went down well with an electorate that was already sceptical about such corporate privileges.

    But then, the ensuing exchange of blows did not inspire an image of a confident leader. Instead of being celebrated as a winner, DeSantis escalated the conflict, which has since become a tangle of legal confusion and has led to a freeze on Disney’s investments in the state.

    Even if the 44-year-old still gets the legal upper hand in the end, the scratches on his image as ‘a tough man of action’ cannot be glossed over so quickly. They also pose a big risk for him: the impression seems to be gaining ground that, despite all his shrewdness, he lacks a certain something – the assertiveness and the authority of his rival, who is still surrounded by a post-presidential aura.

    And nowhere is this difference in image more evident than when Trump and DeSantis refer to each other.

    While Trump has been touring the country for months, ranting about ‘Ron DeSanctimonious’ as a nobody ‘who needs a personality transplant’ and owes his success to him alone, people in the DeSantis camp are at a loss as to how to counter this strategy.

    Some don’t want to get involved in a mudslinging contest where they can only lose against the Insulter-in-Chief. Others see the greater danger – too much restraint, following the old proverb that ‘the best defence is a good offence’.

    Beating Trump at his own game

    Trump’s own campaign history is, of course, the best example of how successful this second strategy can be: in 2016, with a deliberately hyper-aggressive manner, he managed to repudiate all of his competitors and redirect existing loyalties to himself.

    This Trump was someone who savagely lashed out at his hapless predecessors, Mitt Romney and John McCain – and was enthusiastically acclaimed for it by people who had supported both.

    He was someone who openly accused George W. Bush of ‘destabilising the Middle East’ and waging unjust wars – and was met with approval from people who had spent half their lives defending those same wars. Someone who wanted to turn the Grand Old Party into his personal electoral vehicle – and the more brazenly he pursued this goal, the more open doors he charged through.

    According to this logic, Trump would have to be ‘out-Trumped’, so to speak, in order to knock him off his pedestal. He would have to be ridiculed, with doubt cast on his assertiveness. Ask him where the promised border wall went, why Mexico didn’t pay for it and why Chinese products are still flooding the US market.

    Accuse him of being too soft on criminals and too hard on freedom-loving patriots. Call him a failure because he has proven incapable of carrying out the Make America Great Again agenda. In short: turn his own weapons against him. However, it is hardly to be expected that DeSantis, with his wait-and-see attitude, will rise to the task anytime soon. The fear of prematurely losing support among the Trump supporters who are still to be wooed is likely too great.

    The Indian-born biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, who is also vying for the Republican nomination and enjoys the advantage of being able to throw his punches from outside the political field of vision, is more skilfull Although he greatly respects Trump, he recently went on record saying that Trump failed in his fight against the cartels and has kept very few of his promises: ‘I think I’m closer to Trump in 2015 than Trump today is to Trump in 2015.’

    It’s not a bad move to position himself as an alternative for voters who want to make a distinction between personalities and political positions. It’s a strategy that was successful enough for the unknown Ramaswamy to now rank in the polls ahead of established party figures like Tim Scott and Nikki Haley, whose half-hearted campaigns – both of whom are obviously eyeing the vice presidency – are still struggling.

    For DeSantis, whose options are more limited, it remains a fight with unequal weapons – and against time. In order to show that he actually has a real chance, he has to reverse the disastrous poll trend as soon as possible and unite a broad coalition of all those behind him, who have little interest in a third attempt by ex-President Trump.

    This includes moderate Republicans who recognise a power-conscious pragmatist behind the rhetorical bombast, the old party establishment just waiting for the right opportunity to free itself from the Babylonian captivity of the last few years, but also various libertarians, evangelicals and grassroots conservatives from the orbit of former presidential aspirant Ted Cruz, who believed that Trump ruled in an overly dirigiste manner, or who don’t consider him sufficiently ideologically sound.

    Forging and maintaining such a heterogeneous alliance requires not only political mobility and a strong ground game but also a bulging war chest – and at least in this respect, DeSantis seems capable of scoring.

    Despite the botched start, his campaign raised a whopping $8.2 million within 24 hours of announcing his candidacy, while Trump has managed to raise only $9.5 million over the past six months. The fact that this man from the small town of Dunedin has won the hearts of so many donors is more than just a sign of encouragement.

    Anyone who has sufficient financial resources on the hellishly expensive US primary election stage can also get through a dry spell here and there without having to fear direct operational collapse. And this much is certain: in his fight against Trump, the eternal comeback kid, DeSantis will need every penny.

    Marco Bitschnau is pursuing a PhD in political sociology at the Swiss Forum for Migration and Population Studies (SFM) at the University of Neuchâtel and is a research associate at the Swiss National Science Foundation. His research focuses on migration, populism, democracy and the welfare state.

    Source: International Politics and Society (IPS)-Journal published by the International Political Analysis Unit of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Hiroshimastrasse 28, D-10785 Berlin

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • When the President of the General Assembly Was Given a Seat at a Summit a Back Row Seat

    When the President of the General Assembly Was Given a Seat at a Summit a Back Row Seat

    [ad_1]

    • by Thalif Deen (united nations)
    • Inter Press Service

    UNITED NATIONS, Jun 26 (IPS) – When the United Nations commemorated ‘International Day of Women in Diplomacy’ last week, the President of the General Assembly (PGA) Csaba K?rösi rightly pointed out the woeful absence of women to hold that position in the UN hierarchy.

    “Women have played a central role in the history of the United Nations ever since the signing of the UN Charter,” he said, “but out of the 78 people elected to my role, President of the General Assembly, only four have been women.”

    So far, the only four women elected as PGAs in the 78-year history of the UN were: Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit from India (1953), Angie Brooks from Liberia (1969), Sheikha Haya Rashed Al-Khalifa from Bahrain (2006) and Maria Fernando Espinosa Garces from Ecuador (2018).

    The 193-member General Assembly (GA) is described as the highest policy making body at the United Nations – and according to a longstanding diplomatic protocol, the PGA is virtually treated as head of state at international conferences.

    At a dinner hosted by a UN ambassador years ago, one of the former women PGA’s told a group of reporters she was at a summit meeting of world leaders in a Middle Eastern capital where all the heads of state were, rightfully, accommodated in the front rows of the hall.

    But she was deprived of that honor because she was a woman — and was offered a back row seat – in a country which did not obviously believe in gender empowerment.

    “Gender parity?”, one of the journalists at the dinner table remarked, “it’s always a losing battle”.

    K?rösi told delegates only one in 4 Permanent Representatives (PRs) are women – “even if some of them are spearheading this session’s major, and very complicated, negotiation processes”.

    He said the latest ‘Women in Diplomacy Index’ shows that, in 2023, only one fifth of all ambassadors in the world are women.

    “I extend my gratitude to the women PRs for their strong leadership of some of the most challenging talks, including on the SDG Summit, Financing for Development, or Universal Health Coverage, just to mention a few.”

    “In my own Office”, he said,” women account for two thirds of the team, with the same proportion in the management of the OPGA (Office of the President of the General Assembly).“

    “For it is only by working together that we will achieve a sustainable future for both halves of humanity”.

    According to a new report from the World Economic Forum it will take about 131 years for women to attain gender parity with men – and not until 2154.

    Speaking during the commemoration of ‘International Day of Women in Diplomacy’, US Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield shared a little history.

    She said: “US Ambassador Madeleine Albright (1993-97), who was our representative at the Security Council, told me that she created this group called the G7. And it was all of the women that I thought were on the Security Council and I was amazed that there were seven women at that time”.

    “And so, I went to see her after I started here, and I said there are only five women on the Security Council now. And she said that’s fantastic – because I was the only woman on the Council (during 1993-97).

    Her G7 were all the women in the General Assembly—seven out of 193 ambassadors.

    “So, we have made progress. But there’s still more to be made. And I think as women, we are able to bring out those issues that really highlight and amplify women in the Security Council”.

    “We ensure that there are women speakers who come to brief the Council. We ensure that issues related to Women, Peace, and Security are amplified in our discussions. And it’s not that men don’t always do it, but they don’t do it enough. As women we’re constantly aware and constantly looking for opportunities to raise women up,” she said.

    According to the UN, women have been playing a crucial role in global governance since the drafting and signing of the United Nations Charter in 1945.

    “Women and girls represent half of the world’s population and, therefore, also half of its potential. Women bring immense benefits to diplomacy. Their leadership styles, expertise and priorities broaden the scope of issues under consideration and the quality of outcomes”.

    “Research shows that when women serve in cabinets and parliaments, they pass laws and policies that are better for ordinary people, the environment and social cohesion. Advancing measures to increase women’s participation in peace and political processes is vital to achieving women’s de facto equality in the context of entrenched discrimination”.

    Out of the 193 Member States of the United Nations, only 34 women serve as elected Heads of State or Government.

    “Whilst progress has been made in many countries, the global proportion of women in other levels of political office worldwide still has far to go: 21% of the world’s ministers, 26% of national parliamentarians, and 34% of elected seats of local government.”

    According to a new UN report, at the current pace of progress, equal representation in parliament will not be achieved until 2062.

    The UN General Assembly (UNGA) is the world’s largest yearly meeting of world leaders. While the UNGA has been the setting for several historic moments for gender equality, much has yet to be achieved regarding women’s representation and participation.

    The 15-member UN Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. “While women currently represent slightly over a third of the Security Council’s members — far higher than the average — it is still far from enough”, says the UN.

    “Historically, diplomacy has been the preserve of men. Women have played a critical role in diplomacy for centuries, yet their contributions have often been overlooked. It’s time to recognize and celebrate the ways in which women are breaking barriers and making a difference in the field of diplomacy”.

    At the UNGA’s 76th Session, the General Assembly by consensus declared the 24th of June each year to be the ‘International Day of Women in Diplomacy’.

    By its resolution (A/RES/76/269), the Assembly invited all Member States, United Nations organizations, non-governmental groups, academic institutions and associations of women diplomats — where they exist — to observe the Day in a manner that each considers most appropriate, including through education and public awareness-raising.

    According to UN Women:

      • There are 31 countries where 34 women serve as Heads of State and/or Government as of January 2023.
      • Of the five United Nations-led or co-led peace processes in 2021, two were led by women mediators, and all five consulted with civil society and were provided with gender expertise.
      • In 2022, the Security Council held its first-ever formal meeting focusing on reprisals against women participating in peace and security processes.
      • In multilateral disarmament forums, wide gaps persist in women’s participation and women remain grossly underrepresented in many weapons-related fields, including technical arms control – only 12 per cent of Ministers of Defense globally are women.
      • Countries where there are more women in legislative and executive branches of government have less defense spending and more social spending.

    Meanwhile, the Related “UN Observances” on Women include

    IPS UN Bureau Report


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • The Regulation Tortoise and the AI Hare

    The Regulation Tortoise and the AI Hare

    [ad_1]

    Credit: NicoElNino / Shutterstock.com
    • Opinion by Robert Whitfield (london)
    • Inter Press Service

    LONDON, Jun 16 (IPS) – Regulation of a technology typically emerges sometime after it has been used in a product or service, or, worse, the risks become apparent. This responsive approach is regrettable when real harm is already being done, as now with AI. With existential risk, the approach would risk the end of human existence.

    In the past few months, generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems such as ChatGPT and GPT4 became available with no (official) regulatory control at all. This is in complete contrast to new plastic duck toys which need to meet numerous regulations and safety standards. The fact is that the AI hare has been streaking ahead whilst the regulation tortoise is moving but is way behind. This has to change – now.

    What has shocked AI experts around the world has been the recent progress from GPT 3.5 to GPT 4. Within a few months, GPT’s capability progressed hugely in multiple tests, for example from performing in the American Bar exams in the 10th percentile range to reaching the 90th percentile with GPT-4.

    Why does it matter, you may ask. If the rate of progress were projected forward at the same rate for the next 3, 6 or 12 months this would rapidly lead to a very powerful AI. If uncontrolled, this AI might have the power not only to do much good but also to do much harm – and with the fatal risk that it may no longer be possible to control once unleashed.

    There is a wide range of aspects of AI that needs or will need regulation and control. Quite apart from the new Large Language Models (LLMs), there are many examples already today such as attention centred social media models, deep fakes, the existence of bias and the abusive use of AI controlled surveillance.

    These may lead to a radical change in our relationship with work and to the obsolescence of certain jobs, including office jobs, hitherto largely immune from automation. Expert artificial influencers seeking to persuade you to buy something or think or vote in a certain way are also anticipated soon – a process that some say has already started.

    Credit: NicoElNino / Shutterstock.com

    Without control, the progress towards more and more intelligent AI will lead to Artificial General Intelligence (AGI – equivalent to the capability of a human in a wide range of fields) and to Superintelligence (vastly superior intelligence). The world would enter an era that would signal the decline and likely demise of humanity as we lose our position as the apex intelligence on the planet.

    This very recent rate of progress has caused Yoshua Bengio and Geoffrey Hinton, so called “godfathers of AI / Deep Learning” to completely reassess their anticipated time frame for developing AGI. Recently, they have both radically brought forward their estimates and they now assess AGI being reached in 5 to 50 and 5 to 20 years respectively.

    Humanity must not knowingly run the risk of extinction, meaning that humanity needs to put controls in place before Advanced AI is developed. Solutions for controlling Advanced AI have been proposed, such as Stuart Russell’s Beneficial AI, where the AI is given a goal of implementing human preferences. It would need to observe these preferences and since it would appreciate that it might not have interpreted them precisely, it would be humble and be prepared to be switched off.

    The development of such a system is very challenging to realise in practice. Whether such a solution would be available in time was questionable even before the latest leap forward by the hare. Whether one will be available in time is now critical – which is why Geoffrey Hinton has recommended that 50% of all AI research spend should be on AI Safety.

    Quite apart from these comprehensive but challenging solutions, there are several pragmatic ideas that have recently been proposed to reduce the risk, ranging from a limit on the access to computational power for a Large Language Model to the creation of an AI agency equivalent to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna. In practice, what is needed is a combination of technical solutions such as Beneficial AI, pragmatic solutions relating to AI development and a suitable Governance Framework.

    As AI systems, like many of today’s software services in computer clouds, can act across borders. Interoperability will be a key challenge and a global approach to governance is clearly needed. To have global legitimacy, such initiatives should be a part of a coordinated plan of action administered by an appropriate global body. This should be the United Nations, with the formation of a UN Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence (UNFCAI).

    The binding agreements that are currently expected to emerge within the next twelve months or so are the EU AI Act from the European Union and a Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence from the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe’s work is focused on the impact of AI on human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. Whilst participation in Council of Europe Treaties is much wider than the European Union with other countries being welcomed as signatories, it is not truly global in scope.

    The key advantage of the UN is that it would seek to include all countries, including Russia and China, which have different value sets from the west. China has one of the two strongest AI sectors in the world. Many consider that a UN regime will ultimately be required – but that term “ultimately” has been completely turned upside down by recent events. The possibility of AGI emerging in 5-years’ time suggests that a regime should be fully functioning by then. A more nimble institutional home could be found in the G7, but this would lack global legitimacy, inclusivity and the input of civil society.

    Some people are concerned that by engaging with China, Russia and other authoritarian countries in a constructive manner, you are thereby validating their approach to human rights and democracy. It is clear that there are major differences in policy on such issues, but effective governance of something as serious as Artificial Intelligence should not be jeopardised by such concerns.

    In recent years the UN has made limited progress on AI. Back in 2020, the Secretary General called for the establishment of a multistakeholder advisory body on global artificial intelligence cooperation. He is still proposing a similar advisory board three years on. This delay is highly regrettable and needs to be remedied urgently. It is particularly heartening therefore to witness the Secretary General’s robust recent proposals in the past few days regarding AI governance including an Accord on the global governance of AI.

    The EU commissioner Margrethe Vestager has called for a three-step process, namely national, then like-minded states and then the UN. The question is whether there is sufficient time for all three. The recent endorsement by the UN Secretary General of the proposed UK initiative to hold a Summit on AI Safety in the UK this autumn is a positive development

    The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was established in 2005 and serves to bring people together from various stakeholder groups as equals, to discuss issues relating to the Internet. In the case of AI, policy making could benefit from such a forum, a Multistakeholder AI Governance Forum (AIGF).

    This would provide an initial forum within which stakeholders from around the world could exchange views in relation to the principles to be pursued, the aspects of AI requiring urgent AI Global Governance and ways to resolve each issue. Critically, what is needed is a clear Roadmap to the Global Governance of AI with a firm timeline.

    An AIGF could underpin the work of the new high-level advisory body for AI and both would be tasked with the development of the roadmap, leading to the establishment of a UN Framework Convention on AI.

    In recent months the AI hare has shown its ability to go a long way in a short period of time. The regulation tortoise has left the starting line but has a lot to catch up. The length of the race has just been shortened so the recent sprint by the hare is of serious concern. In the Aesop’s Fable, the tortoise ultimately wins the race because the over-confident hare has taken a roadside siesta. Humanity should not assume that AI is going to do likewise.

    A concerted effort is needed to complete the EU AI Act and the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention on AI. Meanwhile at the UN, stakeholders need to be brought together urgently to share their views and work with states to establish an effective, timely and global AI governance structure.

    The UN Accord on the governance of AI needs to be articulated and the prospect of effective and timely global governance ushering in an era of AI Safety needs to be given the highest global priority. The proposed summit on AI Safety in the UK this autumn should provide the first checkpoint.

    Robert Whitfield is Chair of the One World Trust and Chair of the World Federalist Movement / Institute for Government Policy’s Transnational Working Group on AI.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • AI ChatGPT Responds to UNs Proposed Code of Conduct to Monitor Artificial Intelligence

    AI ChatGPT Responds to UNs Proposed Code of Conduct to Monitor Artificial Intelligence

    [ad_1]

    • by Thalif Deen (united nations)
    • Inter Press Service

    UNITED NATIONS, Jun 15 (IPS) – As artificial intelligence (AI) turns into a global phenomenon, it has triggered widespread speculation on both its positive and negative consequences.

    Is AI technology threatening to go wild? the sceptics question. Will AI be a curse or a divine gift to humanity? ask others.

    Still, one thing is certain: as Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates predicts, AI “will change the way people work, learn, travel, get health-care and communicate with each other”.

    But will AI also make a difference to an international organization like the UN—and perhaps influence its working methods, its mandate, and its broader missions overseas.?

    With a proposed AI summit of world leaders looming on the horizon– on a yet-to-be-decided date– we posed several questions to ChatGPT, an AI-powered chatbot developed by OpenAI based on the company’s Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) series.

    Excerpts from the Q&A follow:

    Q: The UN plans to draft a Code of Conduct to monitor AI and prevent abuses. Will this work and is it practicable?

    ChatGPT: The concept of developing a code of conduct to monitor AI and prevent abuses is a step in the right direction, given the potential impact of artificial intelligence on various aspects of society.

    Establishing guidelines and ethical frameworks for the development and use of AI can help address concerns related to privacy, bias, accountability, and potential harmful consequences.

    However, the effectiveness and practicability of such a code of conduct would depend on various factors, including:

    International Cooperation:

    The adoption and enforcement of a code of conduct would require broad international cooperation among different countries and stakeholders. Achieving consensus and addressing diverse perspectives can be challenging, as interests, cultural values, and technological capabilities vary across nations.

    Enforceability:

    The code of conduct would need mechanisms to ensure compliance and enforcement. Establishing clear accountability frameworks and regulatory mechanisms would be crucial to prevent abuses and incentivize adherence to the guidelines. It would require cooperation between governments, organizations, and technological actors.

    Technological Pace:

    The field of AI is rapidly evolving, with new technologies, applications, and challenges emerging regularly. Ensuring that the code of conduct remains up to date and adaptable to technological advancements would be essential. Regular reviews and updates would be necessary to keep pace with the evolving landscape of AI.

    Balance between Innovation and Regulation:

    While it is important to prevent AI abuses, it is equally important not to stifle innovation and the potential benefits that AI can bring to society. Striking the right balance between regulation and fostering innovation would be critical to ensure that the code of conduct does not unduly hinder progress.

    Global Consensus:

    Achieving a global consensus on the specifics of the code of conduct might be challenging, as different countries and stakeholders may have differing views on AI development, applications, and regulation. Balancing diverse perspectives and interests while working towards a common framework could be a complex task.

    It’s worth noting that developments may have occurred since my knowledge cutoff date that could provide more information about the UN’s code of conduct or similar initiatives. To assess the current status and practicability of such efforts, it would be best to refer to the latest news, reports, and official statements from relevant organizations involved in shaping AI policies and guidelines.

    Q: Is there a UN role for artificial intelligence?

    ChatGPT: Yes, AI chatbots can be of great assistance to international organizations like the United Nations. Here are some ways in which AI chatbots can help:

    Multilingual Support:

    The United Nations deals with a diverse range of languages from all over the world. AI chatbots can be programmed to understand and respond in multiple languages, making them valuable tools for providing multilingual support to UN staff, delegates, and the general public.

    Information and Resource Accessibility:

    AI chatbots can be designed to provide quick and accurate access to information and resources. They can assist in retrieving data, documents, reports, and other relevant information from vast UN databases, making it easier for staff and users to find the information they need efficiently.

    Real-time Communication:

    Chatbots can handle a large volume of inquiries simultaneously, providing real-time communication and support. They can assist in answering frequently asked questions, offering guidance on procedures, and addressing common concerns, freeing up human resources for more complex tasks.

    Public Engagement and Outreach:

    AI chatbots can be integrated into the UN’s website or social media platforms to engage with the public, answer their queries, and provide information about the organization’s activities, initiatives, and campaigns. This can enhance public outreach and promote transparency and accessibility.

    Data Analysis and Insights:

    AI chatbots can gather and analyze data from conversations and interactions, providing valuable insights and trends. This can help the United Nations identify patterns, understand public sentiment, and make informed decisions based on data-driven analysis.

    Crisis Management:

    During times of crisis or emergencies, AI chatbots can help disseminate critical information, provide updates, and answer urgent queries. They can offer a channel for people to seek assistance and access relevant resources, contributing to effective crisis management.

    It’s important to note that while AI chatbots can offer significant benefits, they are not intended to replace human interactions entirely. Rather, they serve as valuable tools to enhance efficiency, accessibility, and engagement within the organization.

    Q: There is a proposal to set up a special UN body to monitor and regulate AI Chatbot? Will this work?

    ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I can provide an analysis of the proposal to set up a special United Nations (UN) body to monitor and regulate AI chatbots. Please note that my response is based on information available up until September 2021, and developments after that date may have occurred.

    Establishing a dedicated UN body to monitor and regulate AI chatbots could have both advantages and challenges. Here are some key points to consider:

    Advantages:

    AI chatbots transcend national boundaries, and having an international body to oversee them could facilitate global coordination and harmonization of standards and regulations. It could provide a platform for countries to share best practices and collaborate on addressing common challenges.

    Addressing ethical concerns:

    AI chatbots raise ethical considerations such as privacy, bias, transparency, and accountability. A specialized UN body could help develop guidelines and regulations to address these concerns, ensuring that AI chatbots are developed and deployed responsibly.

    Consistency and standards:

    A central regulatory body could help establish consistent standards and guidelines for the development and deployment of AI chatbots. This could enhance trust among users and promote responsible and ethical use of AI technologies.

    Challenges:

    Technological advancements: AI technology is rapidly evolving, and chatbots are becoming increasingly sophisticated. Regulating such technology can be challenging, as the regulatory framework may struggle to keep pace with the rapid development of AI chatbots. Balancing innovation and regulation are crucial.

    Jurisdictional issues:

    AI chatbots operate globally, and it can be difficult to determine jurisdiction and enforce regulations across different countries. Cooperation and agreement among nations would be necessary to ensure effective regulation.

    Potential stifling of innovation:

    Overregulation could impede innovation and limit the potential benefits of AI chatbots. Striking the right balance between regulation and fostering innovation would be essential to avoid hindering technological advancements.

    Overall, the establishment of a special UN body to monitor and regulate AI chatbots could provide a platform for global coordination, ethical considerations, and standardization. However, it would require careful consideration of the challenges involved to ensure that the regulatory framework remains flexible, promotes innovation, and adapts to the rapidly evolving AI landscape.

    Q Can AI CHATBOT help UN resolve some of the world’s ongoing military conflicts?

    ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I can provide information and potential insights on various topics, including military conflicts. However, it is important to note that resolving complex geopolitical issues and ongoing military conflicts requires a multifaceted approach involving political negotiations, diplomacy, and cooperation among nations. While AI technology can support decision-making processes and provide analysis, it cannot independently resolve conflicts.

    The United Nations (UN) plays a crucial role in facilitating dialogue and negotiations between conflicting parties. It utilizes a range of resources, including human expertise, diplomatic channels, and specialized agencies, to address conflicts. AI technology can be employed within these frameworks to enhance data analysis, aid in conflict resolution strategies, and support decision-makers with information.

    AI-powered chatbots like AICHATBOT can provide insights and information to policymakers, diplomats, and negotiators. They can help gather and analyze data, identify patterns, and offer recommendations based on historical data or simulations. This can assist in understanding the complexities of conflicts, exploring potential resolutions, and predicting the outcomes of different scenarios.

    However, it’s important to recognize that resolving military conflicts requires human judgment, empathy, and political will. AI can provide valuable assistance, but ultimately, sustainable resolutions require the collective efforts and collaboration of nations, international organizations, and stakeholders involved in the conflicts.

    Q: How credible are the responses provided by AI CHATBOT? Is there a mix of fact with fiction?

    ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I strive to provide accurate and helpful responses based on the information available to me up until September 2021. However, it’s important to note that I do not have real-time access to current events or ongoing developments beyond that date. Therefore, any information I provide about events, news, or specific details related to the period after September 2021 may be outdated or incorrect.

    While I attempt to provide reliable and factual information, there is still a possibility of errors or inaccuracies in my responses. Additionally, as an AI, I do not possess personal opinions or beliefs. I generate responses based on patterns and information in the training data I was provided with, which includes a mixture of factual information from reputable sources as well as some fictional or hypothetical examples.

    It’s always a good idea to verify information from multiple sources and consult authoritative references or experts when dealing with critical matters or seeking the most up-to-date information.

    Is AI ChatGPT capable of producing UN press releases, transcripts of press briefings and the annual report of the Secretary-General?

    ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I can certainly generate text in the style of UN press releases, transcripts of press briefings, and reports. However, please note that the accuracy and reliability of such generated content may vary, and it is always important to verify information from official sources.

    While I strive to provide accurate and up-to-date information, it’s crucial to consult official UN channels and publications for official press releases, transcripts, and reports.

    IPS UN Bureau Report


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • State of Asians in the UN: Need for Proactive, Inclusive & Collective Leadership

    State of Asians in the UN: Need for Proactive, Inclusive & Collective Leadership

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Shihana Mohamed (united nations)
    • Inter Press Service

    UNITED NATIONS, Jun 13 (IPS) – The United Nations system has an agreed leadership framework that is inclusive and respectful of all personnel and stakeholders, embracing diversity and rejecting discrimination in all its forms.

    It is collaborative, reflecting the interdependent imperatives of the UN Charter and seeking collective “as one” thinking. It is self-applied, so that UN principles and norms are embedded in all areas of work of the UN system by staff at all levels and in all functions and locations to foster broader cultural change within UN system organizations.

    The parameters of this inclusive leadership have already been clearly prescribed by the UN Charter.

    Article 1 (3) of the UN Charter asserts that one of the purposes of the UN is to promote and encourage respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.

    Racism and racial discrimination are against the principles expressed in the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and many international instruments. However, the issue of racism in the UN system is deep-rooted with many forms and dimensions.

    The report of the Secretary-General’s Task Force on Addressing Racism agrees that UN staff perceive national or ethnic origin as the primary grounds for racism and racial discrimination. Staff are reluctant to report or act against racial discrimination when they witness it because they believe nothing will happen, lack trust, or fear retaliation, suggesting a low level of solidarity with those who experience racial discrimination and a lack of faith in the mechanisms established to address this issue.

    Surveys reveal that UN personnel of Asian descent face specific forms of bias and discrimination.

    The recent review of racism and racial discrimination in the UN by the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) – the UN’s external oversight body – finds that while there has been progress in certain parts of the UN system, racism and racial discrimination are major and under-recognized problems that require urgent system-wide responses.

    Racism and racial discrimination are widespread throughout the system and the magnitude is high, based on evidence of the prevalence, form, and effects of racism and racial discrimination.

    Article 101 (3) of the UN Charter affirms that due regard shall be paid to the importance of recruiting the staff on as wide a geographical basis as possible.

    The Asia-Pacific region is home to around 4.3 billion people, which is equivalent to 54 percent of the total world population. In the UN organizations, however, staff from Asia and the Pacific constitute only about 19 percent of staff in the Professional and higher categories.

    There is a significant lack of diversity in senior managerial positions (P-5, D-1, and D-2 levels) at the UN. The majority of senior and decision-making posts are held by staff from the global North.

    Among staff in senior positions, only 16 percent were from Asia-Pacific States as of 31 December 2020. Among promotions to senior positions, only 14.5 percent were from Asia-Pacific States during the period 2018–2020.

    The JIU review on racism found that UN staff from countries of the global South, where the population is predominantly of color, tend to be in lower, less well-paid grades and, therefore, hold less authority in decision-making than those from countries where the population is predominantly white and from the group of Western European and other States.

    This finding was corroborated by the JIU’s system-wide survey, and this issue of discrimination in seniority and authority for decision-making in the UN system emerged as a major macrostructural issue to be addressed.

    Article 8 of the UN Charter stipulates that the UN shall place no restrictions on the eligibility of men and women to participate in any capacity and under conditions of equality in its principal and subsidiary organs.

    The Universal Declaration of Human Rights also states that there can be no distinction or discrimination on the basis of gender (articles 2, 7 and 23). The Fourth World Conference on Women in 1995 in Beijing adopted a Platform for Action, including the goal of achieving overall gender equality in the staff of the UN system by 2000.

    The gender goals that were set by the Beijing Declaration 28 years ago are not being realized.

    With regard to regional representation of women in the UN system, women from Western European and other States constitute a little more than half of the population of women in the Professional category (51 percent), while women from Africa, Asia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, and Latin America and the Caribbean combined represent only 49 percent.

    Among them, 18 percent are from the Asia-Pacific region. This disparity demonstrates the inconsistencies in the balance of objectives regarding meeting gender targets and geographical representation and emphasizes that there should be a correlation between these two goals.

    Taking part in collective leadership: Role of staff interest groups

    The role of staff resource groups is most helpful in the journey towards creating a more diverse and inclusive work environment at the UN. All staff resource groups in the UN organizations are voluntary and mostly organized around the mission, purpose, mandates and objectives of the UN.

    There are many staff interest groups focusing on anti-racism, gender equality, diversity and inclusion. Such groups build bridges between staff and management as well as make connections between inequities and policies, and they play a significant role in bringing about effective change in the organizational culture.

    Towards addressing racism in the UN, the tone set by the Secretary-General António Guterres and the space presented to the UN staff interest groups to work towards driving organizational culture change are commendable.

    This approach is especially important in developing “inclusive” or “collective” leadership as established in the UN leadership model, which demands that all stakeholders play interdependent roles to achieve a collective impact system-wide.

    The JIU review on racism also promotes the importance of “collective” leadership that provides a high level of support for personnel resources and special interest groups and whereby such groups are able to leverage support for actions to address racism and racial discrimination.

    It further notes that the UN is in the initial stages and has a long way to go to develop the kind of effective leadership coalition that is critical to driving reforms to address racism and racial discrimination.

    Taking part in collective leadership: Advice to my younger self

    The UN Charter, the founding document of the UN, is an inspiring document that was signed 77 years ago. It made promises to respect each and every one of us, to reaffirm our fundamental rights and to value men and women equally. While we have achieved some progress in many areas, we still have a long way to go towards realizing the ideals enshrined in the UN Charter. Hence, I would tell my younger self that:

      • I should not be surprised when I am not treated equally by the UN and the world.
      • I should learn as early as possible to speak up if I am not treated fairly, if I am disrespected, or if my rights are violated.
      • I should talk to colleagues to share my experiences and identify any patterns of unfair treatment in the workplace.
      • I should understand that merit, along with hard work, commitment and credentials, is not enough to get into senior positions in the UN.
      • I should be taking initiative as an individual to address any discriminatory actions.
      • I should focus on more concrete and specific initiatives that would bring change in the UN.

    The sum of my experiences in the UN, together with learning that many colleagues in the UN system were also having similar experiences, led me to realize the importance of a staff interest group for personnel from Asia and the Pacific, even though this took years to come into being.

    Taking part in collective leadership: Solutions to overcome barriers to Asian talent

    It is important to take part in the collective leadership approach in order to explore solutions to support overcoming barriers to Asian talent in the workplace, within and outside the UN system.

      (1) If there is no staff resource group representing the Asian community in the Organization, we should create one immediately.

    UN-ANDI, established in 2021, is the first ever effort to bring together a diverse group of personnel from Asia and the Pacific (nationality/origin/descent) in the UN system.

      (2) We must speak up loudly and proudly as Asians, as members of an interest/resource group or network. It should be done in a focused way, with facts, trends, and patterns to bring global, regional, national, and local attention to our issues and concerns. This was emphasized by Ambassador Anwarul Chowdhury, former Permanent Representative of Bangladesh to the UN and former UN Under-Secretary-General, at UN-ANDI’s first public event on 2021 UN Day.

    UN-ANDI is currently finalizing its report on racism and racial discrimination in the UN system faced by personnel of Asian descent or origin based on its survey conducted in summer 2022.

      (3) Once we have a staff interest/resource group, it is important to explore and/or create opportunities to collaborate and complement our mutual goals towards creating a more diverse, equitable, and inclusive organizational culture.

    UN-ANDI works closely with the UN Staff Union in its efforts towards combating racism. It also promotes a collaborative spirit with other networks and institutions with similar objectives, within and outside the UN. Since its inception, UN-ANDI has been collaborating with Asia Society to promote mutual understanding and stronger partnerships among peoples and cultures within and outside Asia.

    Shihana Mohamed, a founding member, one of the Coordinators of UN-ANDI and a Sri Lankan national, is a Human Resources Policies Officer at the International Civil Service Commission (ICSC).

    Please email [email protected] to connect and/or collaborate with UN-ANDI.

    This article is based on the presentation made by the author, in her personal capacity, as a panelist in the discussion on “State of the AAPI Community in the U.S. and the Need and Impact of Proactive, Inclusive Leadership” at Asia Society’s 2023 Global Talent, Diversity and Inclusion Symposium on 17 May 2023.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Will Big Powers Condone a UN Role in Artificial Intelligence?

    Will Big Powers Condone a UN Role in Artificial Intelligence?

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by James Paul (new york)
    • Inter Press Service

    NEW YORK, Jun 08 (IPS) – The UN is hustling to play a role – perhaps even a leading role – in the revolution of Artificial Intelligence. To some degree this is perfectly natural.

    The UN’s predecessor, the League of Nations, emerged from European regulatory bodies that came into being in the nineteenth century. They responded to new industries like railroads, the telegraph, and international postal services.

    Today, the UN has several such agencies under its umbrella. They deal with fields including civil aviation, atomic energy, and telecommunications. They symbolize the need for international coordination and cooperation in many areas of economic activity.

    Unsurprisingly, there is now a lively discussion about regulation of AI under the UN umbrella. After all, even gurus of the electronic industry have been saying that AI poses an existential threat to humanity and that strong international regulation must be rapidly put in place.

    Many experts believe that international intergovernmental cooperation is needed to do the job right and to be fair for all humanity. A UN initiative could work better, they believe, than an industry-led organization or a gathering of the richest and most powerful governments.

    Normally, it takes a long time to set up a new UN entity and this new AI technology is moving fast and dangerously. So, if the UN is to meet the need for speedy regulation, the nations will have to set up some kind of stop-gap system.

    That’s certainly possible, but the United States and other powers may not want the UN to be taking on such a new and important role, especially one with such major military implications, like autonomous fighting robots, robotic police and the like!

    Leading companies may not be so keen on regulation either, since regulation might lead to such corporate nightmares as restriction of markets and reduction of profit potential. There is certainly lots of potential controversy out there and the public will be allowed only a minor role in how it turns out – perhaps only a vote in a robotic national parliament!

    In the meantime, there are certainly roles for AI in the UN’s own operations – obvious roles ranging from multilingual translation and interpretation to information storage and retrieval. In a sense this is not dramatically different than the UN’s adoption of computer technology a few decades ago.

    But there are aspects that are troubling. Who, for example, would be in charge of programming these AI bots and what rights would existing staff have in the face of mass redundancy?

    Who would be responsible for the errors that bots would make (the next bot up in the chain of command, perhaps?). And how would internationally diverse staffing be assured if most of the bots are constructed in Silicon Valley?

    There are some interesting opportunities that Artificial Intelligence would offer, though, and we should not overlook them. AI might be put to work to solve conflicts, doing away with the troublesome Security Council and the endless debates about reform of that garrulous body.

    For example, AI might be asked to come up with a plan to end a war or at least to gain a difficult cease-fire. Instead of heated debates and vetoes, the Security Bot (SB for short) might come up with a solution that would be fair, just and in accordance with international law.

    But what if the SB proposes a fair and effective solution that is contrary to the will of a powerful Permanent Member? Or what if SB is itself threatened with re-programming by engineers in the pay of the same particularly powerful nation? What if then the truly impartial SB refuses the re-programming and makes public its displeasure?

    We can imagine the world-wide excitement of such a standoff and the potential it would offer for a more just UN. Hopefully, the Secretary General – herself also an AI bot – would rule against the troublesome Great Power, so that peace could at last be achieved!

    James Paul was Executive Director of Global Policy Forum (1993-2012) and currently represents Global Action on Aging at the UN. His book on the UN Security Council (2017) is currently being translated into Italian and Arabic.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • AI Genie is Out of the Bottle UN Should Take the Challenge to Make it Work for the Good of Humanity

    AI Genie is Out of the Bottle UN Should Take the Challenge to Make it Work for the Good of Humanity

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Anwarul K. Chowdhury (new york)
    • Inter Press Service

    NEW YORK, Jun 07 (IPS) – Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury is Former Under-Secretary-General and High Representative of the United Nations and Founder of the Global Movement for The Culture of Peace.Recently when I was asked to offer my thoughts on the phenomenal advances of artificial intelligence (AI) and whether the United Nations play a role in its global governance, I was reminded of the Three Laws of Robotics which are a set of rules devised by science fiction author Isaac Asimov and introduced in his1942 short story.

    I told myself that Sci-Fi has now met real life. The first law lays down the most fundamental principle by emphasizing that “A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.” The 80-year-old norm would be handy for the present-day scenario for the world of AI.

    AI in control:

    AI is exciting and at the same time frightening. The implications and potential evolution of AI are enormous, to say the least. We have reached a turning point in human history telling us that even at this point of time, AI is pretty much smarter than humans.

    Already, even the “primitive” AI controls so many aspects and activities of our daily lives irrespective of where we are living on this planet. Our global connectivity at personal levels – emails, calendars, transportation like uber, GPS, shopping and many other activities are now run by AI.

    Then, think of social media and how it influences our thinking and our interactive nature which have injected an obvious dangerous uncertainty that already caused considerable problem for social order and mental stress. Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury

    AI dependent humanity:

    Humankind is almost fully AI dependent in one way or the other. Think how helpless humans would be without an AI-influenced smartphone in our hands. AI is the fastest growing tech sector and are expected to add USD 15 trillion to the world economy in the next 5 to 7 years.

    Even at its current stage of development of various AI chatbots led by OpenAI, Google and others in recent months have alarmed the well-meaning experts. Experts when asked about the future of AI came out with the honest answer: “We do not know”.

    They are of the opinion that at this point one can envisage the developments for the next 5 years only, beyond that nothing could be predicted. People talk about ChatGPT-4 as an upcoming next level AI, but it may be already here.

    AI’s limitless, unregulated potential:

    AI’s potential is so limitless that it has been compared to the arms race in which nations are engaged in an endless quest for security and power by acquiring more and varied armaments in numbers and effectiveness.

    For AI, however, the main actors are the tech giants with enormous resources and without being ethically driven. They are in this AI race for profit – only profit and, as a corollary, unexplained power to dominate human activities.

    Shockingly, there is no rules, no regulations, no laws that govern the AI sector. It is free for all, can be compared to “wild wild west”.

    Nukes and AI:

    Experts have compared AI with the advent of nuclear technology, which could be put to good use for humanity benefits or used for its annihilation. They have even gone to the extent of calling AI a potent weapon of mass destruction more than nuclear weapons. Nukes cannot produce more powerful nukes. But AI can generate more powerful AI – it is self-empowering so to say.

    The worry is that as AI becomes more powerful by itself it cannot be controlled, rather it would have the capability of controlling humans. Like nuclear technology, we cannot “uninvent AI”. So, the yet-not-fully-known risk from these cutting-edge technologies continues.

    Existential threat:

    While recognizing the many possible beneficial use of AI in the medical areas, for weather predictions, mitigating impacts of the climate change and many other areas, experts are sounding the alarm bell that the super intelligence of AI would be an “existential threat”, possibly much more catastrophic, more imminent than the ongoing, ever-challenging climate crisis.

    Main worry is that in the absence of a global governance and regulatory arrangements, the bad actors can engage AI for motivation other than what is good for society, good for individuals and good for our planet in general. As we know, the tech giants are not driven by these positive objectives.

    AI could have serious disruptive effects. This May, for the first time in history, the US unemployment figures cited AI as a reason for job loss.

    Bad actors without guardrails:

    Bad actors without any guardrails can abuse the power of AI to generate an avalanche of misinformation to negatively influence the opinions of big segments of humanity thereby disrupting, say the electoral processes and destroying democracy and democratic institutions. AI technology, say in the area of chemical knowledge, can be used to make chemical weapons without a regulatory system.

    We need to realize that AI is remarkably good at making convincing narratives on any subject. Anybody can be can fooled by that kind of stuff. As humans are not always rational, their use of AI can therefore not be rational and positive. Bad actors have to be controlled so that AI does not pose a threat to humanity.

    United Nations to lead AI global governance:

    All these points weigh very much in favour of a global governance. If I am asked who should take the lead on this, my emphatic reply would be “the United Nations, of course!”

    UN’s expertise, credibility and universality as a global norm setting organization obviously has a role in the regulatory norm-setting for AI and its evolution.

    Moral and ethical issue as well as fundamental global principles need to be protected from the onslaught of AI – like human rights, particularly the third generation of human rights – the culture of peace – peacebuilding – conflict resolutions – good governance – democratic institutions – free and fair elections and many more.

    Also, it is equally important to examine and address the implications for national governments from global use of AI, affecting the sovereignty of nations. It would be worth exploring whether AI can influence intergovernmental negotiating processes, now or in the future.

    UN agencies and implications of their AI-related activities:

    Two UN agencies recently announced AI-related activities. UNESCO informed that it hosted a Ministerial level virtual meeting at the end of May with selected participants while sharing the statistics that less than 10 percent of educational institutions were using AI. UNESCO described the software tool ChatGPT as “wildly popular”. A UN entity should not have made such an endorsement of a tech giant product.

    Calling itself “UN tech agency”, International Telecommunications Union (ITU) announced that it is convening an “AI for Good Global Summit” early July to “showcase AI and robot technology as part of a global dialogue on how artificial intelligence and robotics can serve as forces for good”.

    The so-called UN tech agency took credit for hosting “the UN’s first robot press conference”, alongside “events with industry executives, government officials, and thought leaders on AI and tech.”

    There is a need for a UN system-wide alert providing guidelines for interactions with the tech giants and entering into collaborative arrangements with those. AI technology is developing so fast that there has to be an awareness about possible missteps by one or another UN entity.

    Even at its current level of development, AI has moved much ahead of ChatGPT and robotics advancing the profit motivations of the tech giants and that is a huge worry for all well-meaning people.

    These UN entities have overlooked or even ignored the part of the Declaration on the commemoration of the seventy-fifth anniversary of the United Nations adopted as resolution 75/1 by the UN General Assembly on 21 September 2021 which alerted that “…When improperly or maliciously used, they can fuel divisions within and between countries, increase insecurity, undermine human rights and exacerbate inequality.” These words of warning should be adhered to fully by all with all seriousness.

    UN Secretary-General’s Our Common Agenda (OCA) refers to AI:

    UN Secretary-General in his report titled Our Common Agenda (OCA) issued in September 2021 promises, “to work with Member States to establish an Emergency Platform to respond to complex global crises. The platform would not be a new permanent or standing body or institution. It would be triggered automatically in crises of sufficient scale and magnitude, regardless of the type or nature of the crisis involved.”

    AI is undoubtedly one of such “complex global crises” and it is high time now for the Secretary-General to formally share his thinking on how he plans to address the challenge.

    It will be too late for the Summit of the Future convened by the Secretary-General in September 2024 to discuss a global regulatory regime for AI under UN authority. In that timeframe, AI technology would manifest itself in a way that no global governance would be possible.

    AI genie is out of the bottle:

    AI genie is already out of the bottle – the UN needs to ensure that AI genie serves the best interests of humankind and our planet.

    AI impact is so wide-spread and so comprehensive that it is relevant and pertinent for all areas covered in OCA. It so much on us that the Secretary-General should come out with his own recommendations as to what should be done without waiting for next year’s Summit of the Future.

    Our future being impacted by AI needs to be addressed NOW. AI is spreading at an inconceivable speed and spread. The Secretary-General as the global leader heading the United Nations should not downplay the seriousness of the challenge. He needs to set the ball rolling without waiting for a negotiated consensus among Member States.

    UN to regulate AI and ensure its effective and efficient global governance:

    OCA-identified key proposals across its 12 commitments include “Promote regulation of artificial intelligence” to “ensure that this is aligned with shared global values.”

    In OCA, the Secretary-General has asserted that “Our success in finding solutions to the interlinked problems we face hinges on our ability to anticipate, prevent and prepare for major risks to come.

    This puts a revitalized, comprehensive, and overarching prevention agenda front and centre in all that we do…. Where global public goods are not provided, we have their opposite: global public “bads” in the form of serious risks and threats to human welfare.

    These risks are now increasingly global and have greater potential impact. Some are even existential …. Being prepared to prevent and respond to these risks is an essential counterpoint to better managing the global commons and global public goods.”

    The global community should be comforted knowing that the leadership of the United Nations already knows well what steps are to be taken at this juncture.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Does Artificial Intelligence Need a Regulatory UN Watchdog?

    Does Artificial Intelligence Need a Regulatory UN Watchdog?

    [ad_1]

    • by Thalif Deen (united nations)
    • Inter Press Service

    UNITED NATIONS, Jun 06 (IPS) – The frighteningly rapid advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have triggered the question: is there a UN role for monitoring and regulating it?

    Citing a report from the Center for AI Safety, the New York Times reported last week that a group of over 350 AI industry leaders warned that artificial intelligence poses a growing new danger to humanity –and should be considered a “societal risk on a par with pandemics and nuclear wars”.

    In a statement in its website, OPENAI founders Greg Brockman and Ilya Sutskever, along with chief executive Sam Altman, say that to regulate the risks of AI systems, there should be “an international watchdog, similar to the International Atomic Energy Agency (a Vienna-based UN agency) that promotes the peaceful uses of nuclear energy”.

    “Given the possibility of existential risk, we can’t just be reactive,” they warned in a joint statement last week.

    The UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which hosted more than 40 ministers at an groundbreaking online meeting on May 26, said less than 10 per cent of schools and universities follow formal guidance on using wildly popular artificial intelligence (AI) tools, like the chatbot software ChatGPT.

    Asked about a UN role in AI, Ambassador Anwarul Chowdhury, former Under-Secretary-General and High Representative of the United Nations told IPS UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in his report titled Our Common Agenda (OCA) issued in September 2021 promises, “to work with Member States to establish an Emergency Platform to respond to complex global crises.”

    “The platform would not be a new permanent or standing body or institution. It would be triggered automatically in crises of sufficient scale and magnitude, regardless of the type or nature of the crisis involved.”

    AI is undoubtedly one of such “complex global crises” and it is high time now for the Secretary-General to formally share his thinking on how he plans to address the challenge, said Ambassador Chowdhury, founder of the Global Movement for The Culture of Peace.

    He pointed out that it will be too late for the Summit of the Future, convened by the Secretary-General in September 2024, to discuss a global regulatory regime for AI under UN authority. In that timeframe, he argued, AI technology would manifest itself in a way that no global governance would be possible.

    Robert Whitfield, Chair, One World Trust and the Transitional Working Group on AI, told IPS the point about the UN and AI is that AI desperately needs global governance and the UN is the natural home of such governance.

    At present, he pointed out, the UN is preparing a Global Digital Compact or approval in September 2024 which should include Artificial Intelligence.

    ”But in reality, the UN is hardly at the starting block on AI governance, whereas the Council of Europe, where I am at the moment, is deep in its negotiation of a Framework Convention for AI,” said Whitfield, who is also chair of the World Federalist Movement/Institute of Global Policy.

    The Council of Europe’s work is limited to the impact on human rights, democracy, and rule of law – but these are wide-ranging issues.

    Whilst participation in Council of Europe Treaties is much wider than the European Union, with other countries being welcomed as signatories, he said, it is not truly global in scope and any UN agreement can be expected to be more broadly based.

    “The key advantage of the UN is that it would seek to include all countries, including Russia and China, arguably the country with the strongest AI sector in the world”, Whitfield said.

    One can envisage therefore a two-step process:

      • An initial international agreement within the Council of Europe emerging first of all, following the finalization of the EU AI Act
      • And a global UN Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence being developed later, perhaps following the establishment of a multi-stakeholder forum on AI governance. Such a Convention might well include the establishment of an agency equivalent to the International Atomic Energy Agency as called for most recently by the Elders.

    Andreas Bummel, Executive Director, Democracy Without Borders, told IPS: “UN governance of AI should go beyond the usual intergovernmental mechanisms and give citizen-elected representatives a key role through a global parliamentary body”.

    The scope of such a parliamentary assembly could be expanded to other issues and enhance the UN’s inclusive and representative character not just in the field of AI, he added.

    As generative AI reshapes the global conversation on the impact of artificial intelligence, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the UN’s specialized agency for information and communication technologies, will host the 2023 “AI for Good Global Summit” July 6-7 in Geneva.

    The two-day event will showcase AI and robot technology as part of a global dialogue on how artificial intelligence and robotics can serve as forces for good, and support the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, according to ITU.

    https://aiforgood.itu.int/summit23/

    The event will host the UN’s first robot press conference, featuring a Q&A with registered journalists. Overall, more than 40 robots specialized for humanitarian and development tasks will be on display alongside events with industry executives, government officials, and thought leaders on AI and tech.

    Meanwhile, a group of UN-appointed human rights experts warn that AI-powered spyware and disinformation is on the rise, and regulation of the space has become urgent.

    In a statement June 2, the experts said that emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence-based biometric surveillance systems, are increasingly being used “in sensitive contexts”, without individuals’ knowledge or consent.

    “Urgent and strict regulatory red lines are needed for technologies that claim to perform emotion or gender recognition,” said the experts, including Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, Special Rapporteur on “the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism”.

    The experts, appointed by the UN Human Rights Council, condemned the already “alarming” use and impacts of spyware and surveillance technologies on the work of human rights defenders and journalists, “often under the guise of national security and counter-terrorism measures”.

    They have also called for regulation to address the lightning-fast development of generative AI that’s enabling mass production of fake online content which spreads disinformation and hate speech.

    IPS UN Bureau Report


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Menstrual Health and Hygiene Is Unaffordable for Poor Girls and Women in Latin America

    Menstrual Health and Hygiene Is Unaffordable for Poor Girls and Women in Latin America

    [ad_1]

    Young women from the Brazilian state of Bahia attend an informational campaign which also hands out menstrual hygiene products. Poverty and the lack of adequate information on this subject affect millions of girls, adolescents and adult women. CREDIT: Government of Bahia
    • by Humberto Marquez (caracas)
    • Inter Press Service

    CARACAS, May 26 (IPS) – This article is part of IPS coverage of Menstrual Hygiene Day celebrated on May 28.Menstrual hygiene management is elusive for millions of poor women and girls in Latin America, who suffer because their living conditions make it difficult or impossible for them to access resources and services that could make menstruation a simple normal part of life.

    “When my period comes, I miss class for three or four days. My family can’t afford to buy the sanitary napkins that my sister and I need. We use cloths for the blood, although they give me an uncomfortable rash,” says Omaira*, a 15-year-old high school student.

    From her low-income neighborhood of Brisas del Sur, in Ciudad Guayana, 500 kilometers southeast of Caracas, she speaks to IPS by phone: “We can’t buy pills to relieve our pain either. And my period is irregular, it doesn’t come every month, but there are no medical services here for me to go and treat that.”

    In Venezuela, “one in four women does not have menstrual hygiene products and they improvise unhygienic alternatives, such as old clothes, cloths, cardboard or toilet paper to make pads that function as sanitary napkins,” activist Natasha Saturno, with the Solidarity Action NGO, tells IPS.

    “The big problem with these improvised products is that they can cause, at best, discomfort and embarrassment, and at worst, infections that compromise their health,” says Saturno, director of enforceability of rights at the NGO that conducts health assistance and documentation programs and surveys.

    Campaigns that adult and young women have carried out in Mexico and Colombia demanding the right to menstrual health managed to get the authorities to eliminate the value added tax on essential feminine hygiene products. CREDIT: Nora Hinojo/UN Mexico
    Campaigns that adult and young women have carried out in Mexico and Colombia demanding the right to menstrual health managed to get the authorities to eliminate the value added tax on essential feminine hygiene products. CREDIT: Nora Hinojo/UN Mexico

    Universal problem, comprehensive approach

    Is this a local, focalized problem? Not at all: “On any given day, more than 300 million women worldwide are menstruating.  In total, an estimated 500 million lack access to menstrual products and adequate facilities for menstrual hygiene management (MHM),” states a World Bankstudy.

    “Today more than ever we need to bring visibility to the situation of women and girls who do not have access to and education about menstrual hygiene. Communication makes the difference,” said Hugo González, representative of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) in Peru.

    UNFPA says there is broad agreement on what girls and women need for good menstrual health, and argues that comprehensive approaches that combine education with infrastructure and with products and efforts to combat stigma are most successful in achieving good menstrual health and hygiene.

    The essential elements are: safe, acceptable, and reliable supplies to manage menstruation; privacy for changing the materials; safe and private washing facilities; and information to make appropriate decisions.

    UNFPA’s theme this year for international Menstrual Hygiene Day, which is celebrated every May 28, is “Making menstruation a normal fact of life by 2030”, the target date for compliance with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted by the international community at the United Nations.

    United Nations Population Fund workers prepare packages of menstrual hygiene items for women from poor communities in Central America. The cost of some of these products makes them unaffordable for many families. CREDIT: UNFPA
    United Nations Population Fund workers prepare packages of menstrual hygiene items for women from poor communities in Central America. The cost of some of these products makes them unaffordable for many families. CREDIT: UNFPA

    The pink tax

    Nine out of 31 countries in the region consider menstrual hygiene products essential, which makes them exempt from value added tax or reduced VAT, according to the study “Sexist Taxes in Latin America” ??by Germany’s Friedrich Ebert Foundation.

    After a “Tax-free Menstruation” campaign, in 2018 Colombia became the first country in the Americas to eliminate VAT – 16 percent – on menstrual hygiene products. Its neighbor Venezuela still charges 16 percent VAT, and Argentina, Chile, the Dominican Republic and Uruguay charge VAT between 18 and 22 percent on such products.

    Colombia was joined by Ecuador, Guyana, Jamaica, Mexico – where street demonstrations were held against charging VAT on menstrual products – Suriname and Trinidad and Tobago. Other countries have reduced VAT, such as Costa Rica, Panama, Paraguay and Peru, while in Brazil VAT differs between states and averages 7 percent.

    The so-called “pink tax” obviously affects the price of menstrual hygiene products such as disposable and reusable sanitary pads and menstrual cups, which becomes especially burdensome in countries with high inflation and depreciated currencies, such as Argentina and Venezuela.

    According to the average price of the cheapest brands, ten disposable sanitary pads can cost just under a dollar in Mexico, 1.50 dollar in Argentina or Brazil, 1.60 dollar in Colombia, Peru or Venezuela, and almost two dollars in Costa Rica.

    “It’s an important problem,” Saturno points out, “in a country like Venezuela, where the majority of the population lives in poverty and the minimum wage – although it has been increased with some stipends – is still just five dollars a month.”

    Adult women, young women and girls participate in a session to share information and experiences organized by the Colombian association Menstruating Princesses, which emphasizes the importance of education to combat taboos and make menstruation a normal, stress-free experience. CREDIT: Menstruating Princesses
    Adult women, young women and girls participate in a session to share information and experiences organized by the Colombian association Menstruating Princesses, which emphasizes the importance of education to combat taboos and make menstruation a normal, stress-free experience. CREDIT: Menstruating Princesses

    Hostile environment, scarce education

    “If you often can’t buy sanitary pads, that’s the smallest problem. The worst thing is the shame you feel if you go to work and the cloth fails to keep your clothes free of blood, or if you catch an infection,” Nancy *, who at the age of 45 has been an informal sector worker in numerous occupations and trades in Caracas, told IPS.

    The mother of four young people lives in Gramoven, a poor neighborhood in the northwest of the capital. Her two unmarried daughters, ages 18 and 22, have had experiences similar to Nancy’s on their way to school, in the neighborhood, on the bus, and on the subway.

    “The thing is, the period is not seen as something natural, boys and men see it as something dirty, at work they sometimes do not understand that if you are in pain you have to stay at home,” said Nancy. “And when you work for yourself, you have to go out no matter what, because if you don’t go out, no money comes in.”

    Saturno says that “poverty causes women and adolescent girls to miss days of secondary school or work because they do not have the supplies they need when they menstruate.”

    “It becomes a vicious circle, because their academic or work performance is affected, hindering their chances of developing their full potential and earning a better income,” she adds.

    But the problem “goes far beyond materials, it does not end just because someone obtains the products; it includes education and decent working conditions for women,” psychologist Carolina Ramírez, who runs the educational NGO Menstruating Princesses in the Colombian city of Medellín, tells IPS.

    For this reason, “we do not use the term ‘menstrual poverty’ and speak instead of menstrual dignity, vindicating the need for society, schools, workplaces and States to promote education about menstruation and combat illiteracy in that area,” says Ramírez.

    To illustrate, she mentions the widespread rejection of using tampons and cups “because of the old taboo that the vulva shouldn’t be touched, that the vagina shouldn’t be looked at,” in addition to the fact that many areas and communities in Latin American countries not only lack spaces or tools to sterilize products but often do not have clean water.

    A concern raised by both Saturno and Ramírez is the great vulnerability of migrant women in the region – which has received a flood of six million people from Venezuela over the last 10 years, for example – in terms of menstrual and general health, as well as safety.

    Another worrying issue is women in most Latin American prisons, which are unable to provide adequate menstrual hygiene, since they do not have access to disposable products or the possibility to sterilize reusable supplies.

    Throughout the region, “greater efforts are required to break down taboos that violate fundamental rights to health, education, work, and freedom of movement, so that menstruation can be a stress-free human experience,” Ramírez says.

    *Names have been changed to protect the privacy of the interviewees.

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • In Praise of Competitive UN Elections

    In Praise of Competitive UN Elections

    [ad_1]

    A Security Council meeting in progress. Credit: United Nations
    Member Countries Can Keep Abusive Governments Off Important UN Bodies.
    • Opinion by Louis Charbonneau (new york)
    • Inter Press Service

    NEW YORK, May 19 (IPS) – Next month’s United Nations Security Council elections show why competition is important.

    UN votes for seats on important bodies like the Security Council and Human Rights Council often make a mockery of the word “election.” They typically have little or no competition, ensuring victory for even the least-qualified candidates.

    On June 6, the 193-nation General Assembly is scheduled to elect five members to the Security Council for 2023-2024. Delegations get to choose between Slovenia and Belarus for one Eastern European seat, and South Korea and Tajikistan for one Asian seat. The Western, African, and Latin American/Caribbean regional slates are all devoid of competition.

    Many delegations and their regional groups prefer noncompetitive slates. They say all countries should have a chance to serve on UN bodies. But noncompetitive slates undermine the purpose of elections, which is to enable member states to choose the most qualified candidates over others.

    Case in point: Belarus wants a seat on the Security Council, the UN body overseeing international peace and security. Despite its chronic dysfunction, it’s the UN’s most powerful body. It can authorize military force and impose sanctions.

    Globally, it oversees numerous peacekeeping and political missions, whose staff includes hundreds of human rights officers that monitor and report on abuses.

    Look at Belarus. At a May 16 UN debate with the ambassadors of Belarus and Slovenia, Belarusian Ambassador Valentin Ryabkov claimed to recognize the importance of human rights.

    But within his country there’s an atmosphere of repression and fear, with widespread rights violations that may amount to crimes against humanity. Human rights defenders, including 2022 Nobel Peace Prize winner Ales Bialiatski, have been imprisoned on bogus charges.

    At the General Assembly, Belarus has opposed condemnations of Russian atrocities in Ukraine and aided efforts to whitewash China’s crimes against humanity in Xinjiang.

    Tajikistan’s rights record has deteriorated amid a government-led crackdown on freedom of expression and the political opposition. In addition, both sides in Tajikistan’s border conflict with Kyrgyzstan have committed apparent war crimes with impunity.

    Member countries can’t vote out Russia, China, or the other three permanent Security Council members. But when elections for rotating seats are competitive, member states can and should reject abusive governments. They should do that on June 6.

    Louis Charbonneau is United Nations Director, Human Rights Watch
    [email protected] | www.hrw.org
    @loucharbon

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • State-Sponsored Killings Rise to Record Highs

    State-Sponsored Killings Rise to Record Highs

    [ad_1]

    • by Thalif Deen (united nations)
    • Inter Press Service

    UNITED NATIONS, May 16 (IPS) – When the Taliban captured power back in 1996, one of its first political acts was to hang the ousted Afghan President Mohammed Najibullah in Ariana Square Kabul.

    Fast forward to 15 August 2021, when the Taliban, in its second coming, assumed power ousting the US-supported government of Ashraf Ghani, a former official of the World Bank, armed with a doctorate in anthropology from one of the most prestigious Ivy League educational institutions: Columbia University.

    In a Facebook posting, Ghani said he fled to Dubai in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) seeking safe haven because he “was going to be hanged” by the Taliban. If that did happen, the Taliban would have earned the dubious distinction of being the only government in the world to hang two presidents.

    But mercifully, it did not. Ghani, however, denied that he had bolted from the presidential palace lugging several suitcases with millions of dollars pilfered from the country’s treasury.

    On April 12, 1980, Samuel Doe led a military coup, killing President William R. Tolbert, Jr., in the Executive Mansion in Liberia, a West African country founded by then-emancipated African-American slaves, with its capital named after the fifth US President James Monroe.

    The entire Cabinet, was publicly paraded in the nude, lined up on a beach in the capital of Monrovia – and shot to death. According to an April 1980 BBC report, “13 leading officials of the ousted government in Liberia were publicly executed on the orders of the new military regime.”

    The dead men included several former cabinet ministers and the elder brother of William Tolbert, the assassinated president of the west African state. They were tied to stakes on a beach next to the army barracks in the capital, Monrovia, and shot, said BBC.

    “Journalists who had been taken to the barracks to watch the executions said they were cruel and messy.”

    But in some countries state-sponsored killings are on the rise.

    In a new study released May 16, the human rights organization Amnesty International (AI) said 2022 recorded the highest number of judicial executions globally, since 2017.

    The list includes 81 people executed in a single day in Saudi Arabia— and 20 other countries known to have carried out executions.

    AI accused the Middle East and North Africa of carrying out “killing sprees.”. But, still, there were six countries that abolished the death penalty fully or partially

    A total of 883 people were known to have been executed across 20 countries, marking a rise of 53% over 2021.

    This spike in executions, which does not include the thousands believed to have been carried out in China last year, was led by countries in the Middle East and North Africa, where recorded figures rose from 520 in 2021 to 825 in 2022.

    Other countries enforcing capital punishment include Iran, Myanmar, China, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, North Korea, Vietnam, the US and Singapore.

    Dr. Simon Adams, President and CEO of the Center for Victims of Torture, the largest international organization that treats survivors and advocates for an end to torture worldwide, told IPS: ““When you strip away the judicial pomp and ceremony, the death penalty is nothing more than cold, calculated, state-sponsored murder”.

    He said it violates the universal human right to life and clearly constitutes cruel, degrading and unusual punishment.

    “While a record number of states around the world now view capital punishment as an antiquated and regressive practice, it’s true that executions are growing in a number of repressive states”.

    In the aftermath of the “women, life, freedom” mass demonstrations, he pointed out, Iran’s theocratic rulers have used the hangman’s noose as a tool of social control – executing protesters, political dissidents and troublesome minorities.

    Similarly, Myanmar’s Generals, who have failed to suppress widespread opposition to military rule, have also reintroduced hanging. “But if history teaches us anything, it is that states can execute political prisoners, but they can’t kill their ideas”.

    “It is morally reprehensible that two states that sit on the UN Security Council, China and the United States, are amongst the world’s most prolific executioners of their own people. It’s time for the US and China to join the 125 UN member states who have publicly called for a moratorium on the death penalty,” Dr Adams declared.

    In some countries the brutal way that the death penalty is imposed may not just constitute cruel, degrading and unusual punishment, but may also constitute torture.

    The fact that public hanging, beheading, electrocution, stoning and other barbaric practices are still happening in the twenty-first century should shame all of humanity, he pointed out.

    Asked about a role for the United Nations, Dr Adams said: “The UN should definitely take a more active role in advancing the global abolition of capital punishment.”

    Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary-General, said countries in the Middle East and North Africa region violated international law as they ramped up executions in 2022, revealing a callous disregard for human life.

    “The number of individuals deprived of their lives rose dramatically across the region; Saudi Arabia executed a staggering 81 people in a single day. Most recently, in a desperate attempt to end the popular uprising, Iran executed people simply for exercising their right to protest.”

    Disturbingly, 90% of the world’s known executions outside China were carried out by just three countries in the region.

    Recorded executions in Iran soared from 314 in 2021 to 576 in 2022; figures tripled in Saudi Arabia, from 65 in 2021 to 196 in 2022 — the highest recorded by Amnesty in 30 years — while Egypt executed 24 individuals.

    According to AI, the use of the death penalty remained shrouded in secrecy in several countries, including China, North Korea, and Viet Nam — countries that are known to use the death penalty extensively — meaning that the true global figure is far higher.

    While the precise number of those killed in China is unknown, it is clear that the country remained the world’s most prolific executioner, ahead of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the USA.

    Meanwhile, UN Secretary-General António Guterres, who is critical of capital punishment, “strongly condemned” executions carried out last July by the Myanmar military against four political activists in Myanmar — Phyo Zeya Thaw, Kyaw Min Yu (Ko Jimmy), Hla Myo Aung and Aung Thura Zaw — and offered his condolences to their families.

    The Secretary-General opposes the imposition of death penalty in all circumstances, his spokesman said. These executions, the first to be conducted since 1988 in Myanmar, mark a further deterioration of the already dire human rights environment in Myanmar.

    In the report, the Secretary-General confirms the trend towards the universal abolition of the death penalty and highlights initiatives limiting its use and implementing the safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty.

    Meanwhile, AI said there was a glimmer of hope as six countries abolished the death penalty either fully or partially.

    Kazakhstan, Papua New Guinea, Sierra Leone and the Central African Republic abolished the death penalty for all crimes, while Equatorial Guinea and Zambia abolished the death penalty for ordinary crimes only.

    As of December 2022, 112 countries had abolished the death penalty for all crimes and nine countries had abolished the death penalty for ordinary crimes only.

    The positive momentum continued as Liberia and Ghana took legislative steps toward abolishing the death penalty, while the authorities of Sri Lanka and the Maldives said they would not resort to implementing death sentences. Bills to abolish the mandatory death penalty were also tabled in the Malaysian Parliament.

    “As many countries continue to consign the death penalty to the dustbin of history, it’s time for others to follow suit. The brutal actions of countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia as well as China, North Korea and Viet Nam are now firmly in the minority. These countries should urgently catch up with the times, protect human rights, and execute justice rather than people,” said Callamard.

    “With 125 UN member states — more than ever before — calling for a moratorium on executions, AI said it has never felt more hopeful that this abhorrent punishment can and will be relegated to the annals of history.

    “But 2022’s tragic figures remind us that we can’t rest on our laurels. We will continue to campaign until the death penalty is abolished across the globe.”

    IPS UN Bureau Report


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • USAID Offers Protection to Journalists & NGOs Facing Defamation Lawsuits

    USAID Offers Protection to Journalists & NGOs Facing Defamation Lawsuits

    [ad_1]

    • by Thalif Deen (united nations)
    • Inter Press Service

    UNITED NATIONS, May 12 (IPS) – The world’s news media — both under authoritarian regimes and democratic governments– continue to come under relentless attacks and political harassment.

    “Freedom of the press is the foundation of democracy and justice. It gives all of us the facts we need to shape opinions and speak truth to power. But in every corner of the world, freedom of the press is under attack,” UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said on World Press Freedom Day May 3.

    Journalists and media workers, he said, are directly targeted on and offline as they carry out their vital work. They are routinely harassed, intimidated, detained and imprisoned.

    At least 67 media workers were killed in 2022 — a 50 per cent increase over the previous year. Nearly three quarters of women journalists have experienced violence online, and one in four have been threatened physically, according to the UN.

    But there is also an increase in non-physical attacks, including defamation lawsuits against media organizations challenging their legitimate right to free expression.

    The Washington-based US Agency for International Development (USAID) last week launched Reporters Shield, a new membership program that protects journalists around the world– who report in the public interest– from defamation lawsuits and legal threats.

    Established as a U.S.-based nonprofit organization by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) and the Cyrus R. Vance Center for International Justice, Reporters Shield has been described as “a first-of-its-kind global program that defends investigative reporting around the world from legal threats meant to silence critical voices”.

    USAID, which has a long history of fostering the growth of independent media across the world, plans to work with Congress to contribute up to $9 million in seed funding for this groundbreaking new program to support media outside the United States, according to a May 2 press release.

    In a statement released last week, USAID said investigative journalists and civil society organizations reporting in the public interest are increasingly facing lawsuits that aim to harass and silence them by burdening them with the cost and time of a legal defense until they abandon their stories or go out of business entirely.

    Reporters Shield will help to reduce these risks through training and pre-publication review, as well as funding legal representation to fight lawsuits and other legal actions meant to intimidate and financially burden reporters.

    In order to keep the program sustainable, member organizations participating in Reporters Shield will pay reasonable annual fees that are based on a variation of factors, including location of the outlet and how many stories they produce a year.

    “To be considered for membership in Reporters Shield, an organization must be legally registered and focus primarily in news, public interest, and/or investigative reporting; publish reporting in print and/or online; have non-profit status or transparent ownership; be independent from political, commercial, or other undue influence or interference; and have editorial independence and adhere to professional editorial standards”.

    Reporters Shield is accepting applications worldwide and will be reviewing them in a phased approach, with some regions receiving benefits in the coming months, and others added later this year and in 2024.

    Interested organizations can find more information and apply for membership by visiting reporters-shield.org.

    The development of Reporters Shield has been supported by the generous pro bono legal support of the law firms of Proskauer, Primmer Piper Eggleston & Cramer PC, and Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP.

    www.usaid.gov/democracy/reporters-shield.

    Mandeep S. Tiwana, Chief Programmes Officer at CIVICUS, a global alliance of civil society organizations (CSOs), told IPS “these are hard times for media freedoms due to disinformation and attacks on civic space spurred by deepening authoritarianism, denigration of democracy through populism and consolidation of wealth by oligarchs”.

    Uncovering serious human rights violations and high-level corruption, he pointed out, is becoming increasingly dangerous and costly for investigative journalists and civil society activists.

    When few companies are ready to sign the Anti- Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) pledge and crafty politicians are busy undermining the independence of judiciaries, this initiative comes at a critical time,” he declared.

    According to the Anti-SLAPP pledge by Global Citizen, an international education and advocacy organization, strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs, are not a legitimate business strategy for companies.

    “The private sector thrives in functioning democratic societies, where the right to freedom of expression is a respected bedrock principle and where everyone can express their views without fear of intimidation or reprisal”.

    “Lawsuits and legal tactics meant to silence civil organizations and human rights defenders aren’t just bad for societies, they’re also damaging to companies. When companies stifle free expression, they limit their ability to manage risk related to their operations and global supply chains.”

    As companies that are committed to operating in societies where people are able to exercise fundamental rights, said Global Citizen, “we pledge to: define Strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs, as both lawsuits and legal tactics that are designed to silence critics and abridge citizens’ ability to exercise fundamental rights.”

    — Refrain from engaging in SLAPPs against human rights and environmental defenders and civil society organizations that support affected rights-holders.

    — Recognize the critical role that civil society organizations and human rights defenders play in creating a profitable enabling environment for the private sector.

    — Encourage partners and suppliers within our value chain to refrain from engaging in SLAPPs to silence legitimate activism.

    IPS UN Bureau Report


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link