ReportWire

Tag: Opinion

  • With house prices this high, boomers may want to become renters

    With house prices this high, boomers may want to become renters

    [ad_1]

    If you’re a retiree and you’re trying to square the circle of rising costs, longer lifespans, more expensive medical care and turbulent markets, don’t be afraid to run the numbers on your biggest investment.

    That would be your home — if you own it.

    U.S. house prices are now so high that it is almost impossible for seniors not to ask themselves the obvious question: “Should we cash in, invest the money, and rent?”

    Right now the average U.S. house price is nearly $360,000. That’s about a third higher than just a few years ago, before the COVID-19 pandemic. The lockdowns, the panic, the stimulus checks and 2.5% mortgage rates have all passed into history. But the sky-high prices remain — for now.

    After several years of double-digit percentage increases, apartment-rent growth is falling for only the second time since the 2008 financial crisis. WSJ’s Will Parker joins host J.R. Whalen to discuss.

    At these levels, analysts at Realtor.com — which, like MarketWatch, is owned by News Corp.
    NWSA,
    +1.13%

    say that in 45 out of 50 major U.S. metropolitan areas it is cheaper to rent than it is to buy a starter home. The Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank says national housing affordability is abysmal — about where it was in 2006 and 2007, during the big housing bubble.

    There is a similar story for seniors. Federal data show that the average U.S. house price is now nearly 17 times the average annual Social Security benefit — an even higher ratio than it was in August 2008, just before Lehman Brothers collapsed. At that juncture, the average house price was 15 times higher.

    U.S. National Home Price Index vs. average rent of primary residence in U.S. city, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Indexed: January 1987=100.


    S&P/Case-Shiller

    Our simple chart, above, compares average U.S. home prices with average U.S. rents, going back to 1987. (The chart simply shows the ratio, indexed to 100.) The bottom line? House prices are very high at the moment compared with rents — again, prices are about where they were in 2006-07.

    And the two must run in tandem over the long term, because the economic value of owning a house is not having to pay rent to live there.

    If there are times when, in general, it makes more financial sense for seniors to rent than to own, this has to be one of those.

    Seniors who own their own homes may think high interest rates on new mortgages don’t affect them. They most likely either already have a mortgage at a lower, older rate or they’ve paid off their home loan. But if you want to sell, you’ll almost certainly be selling to someone who needs a mortgage.

    If borrowing costs drive down real-estate prices, seniors who hold off on selling may miss out on gains they may never see again. After the last housing peak, in 2006, it took a full decade for prices to recover fully. Those who sold when the going was good had the chance to buy lifetime annuities at excellent rates or to invest in stocks and bonds that overall rose about 80% over the same period.

    As I mentioned recently, there is a broad basket of real-estate trusts on the stock market that are publicly traded landlords. You can sell your home and invest in thousands at a click of a mouse.

    But should you?

    Incidentally, there is also an exchange-traded fund that invests in residential REITs, Armada’s Residential REIT ETF
    HAUS,
    -0.53%
    ,
    though in addition to single-family homes and apartment-complex operators, about 25% of the fund is invested in companies involved in manufactured-home parks and senior-living facilities.

    For each person, the math will be different, and there are a number of questions you need to ask. Where do you want to live? How much would you get if you sold your house? How much would you pay in taxes? How much would it cost to rent the right place? Do you want to leave a property to your heirs? And what would be the costs of moving — both financial and emotional?

    The conventional wisdom is that you should own your home in retirement.

    “I would advise any and all retirees against renting if at all possible,” says Malcolm Ethridge, a financial planner at CIC Wealth in Rockville, Md. “You need your costs to be as fixed as possible during retirement, to match your income being fixed as well. If you choose to rent, you’re leaving it up to your landlord to determine whether and by how much your No. 1 expense will increase each year. And that makes it very tough to determine how much you are able to allocate toward everything else in your budget for the month.”

    A key point here, from federal data, is that nationwide rents have risen year after year, almost without a break, at least since the early 1980s. They even rose during the global financial crisis, with just one 12-month period where they fell — and then by only 0.1%.

    “My general advice for clients is that owning a home with no mortgage in retirement is the best scenario, as housing is typically the highest cost we pay monthly,” says Adam Wojtkowski, an adviser at Copper Beech Wealth Management in Mansfield, Mass. “It’s not always the case that it works out this way, but if you can enter retirement with no mortgage, it makes it a lot easier for everything to fall into place, so to speak, when it comes to retirement-income planning.”

    “Renting comes with a lot of risk,” says Brian Schmehil, a planner with the Mather Group in Chicago. “If you rent, you are subject to the whims of your landlord, and a high inflationary environment could put pressure on your finances as you get older.”

    But it’s not always that simple.

    “With housing costs as high as they are now though, renting may be a viable solution, at least for the moment,” says Wojtkowski. “We don’t know what the housing-market trends will be going forward, but if someone is waiting for a housing-market crash before they move, they could very likely be waiting for a long time. We just don’t know.”

    “Any decision comes with pros and cons,” says Schmehil. “Selling when your home values are historically high and renting allows you to capture the equity in your home, which is usually a retiree’s largest or second-largest financial asset. These extra funds allow you to spend more money on yourself in retirement without having to worry about doing a reverse mortgage or selling later in retirement, when it may be harder for you to do so.”

    Renting also allows you to be more flexible about where you live, for example nearer your children or grandchildren, he adds.

    And as any experienced property owner knows, renting also brings another benefit: You no longer have to do as much work around the house.

    “Renting is great in that you don’t need to maintain a residence,” says Ann Covington Alsina, a financial planner running her own firm in Annapolis, Md. “If the dishwasher breaks or the roof leaks, the landlord is responsible.”

    Wojtkowski agrees, noting that many people no longer want to spend time mowing the lawn or shoveling snow in retirement. “Ultimately, one of the things that I’ve seen most retirees most concerned with is eliminating the general upkeep [and] maintenance of homeownership in retirement,” he says.

    Several planners — including Covington Alsina and Wojtkowski — note that one alternative to selling and renting is simply downsizing. This can free up capital, especially when home prices are high, like now, without leaving you exposed to rising rents.

    Many baby boomers have been doing exactly that. 

    Meanwhile, I am reminded of my late friend Vincent Nobile, who — after a long and fruitful life owning homes and raising a family — found himself widowed and alone in his 80s. He rented a small cottage on a New England sound and said how glad he was that he never had to worry about maintaining the roof or the appliances, or fixing the plumbing or the heating, or any one of a thousand other irritations. Or paying property taxes — which go down even more rarely than rents.

    When the regular drives to Boston got too onerous, he moved into the city and rented there. And he was glad to do it. The money he had made was all in investments — a lot less hassle both for him and his heirs.

    I once asked him if he would prefer to own his own home. He shook his head and laughed.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How to enjoy retirement without busting your budget

    How to enjoy retirement without busting your budget

    [ad_1]

    The goal of many (or most) savers and long-term investors is to achieve financial independence. The combination of building up a nest egg, paying down debt and eventually receiving Social Security payments or another source of retirement income might put you in a comfortable position, but even people who have worked together to achieve financial independence may disagree on what to do after their careers end.

    Quentin Fottrell — the Moneyist — heard from one couple who are facing a quandary. They have been financially responsible, but as they near retirement, the wife wishes to be very careful with their combined investment portfolio, while the husband wants to begin spending a significant portion of it. They both make reasonable arguments. Here’s what they should do.

    From the Help Me Retire column: My 57-year-old husband works three shifts and is burned out. Can he retire?

    You have to get there first

    A behavioral study finds a correlation between having one specific type of conversation and taking action to build wealth.


    Getty Images

    Doing this even once might help encourage you or someone you know to begin saving and investing for the long term.

    The ‘Magnificent Seven’ stocks may not remain at the top

    Salesforce is among the companies passing a Goldman Sachs screen for growth of sales and earnings.


    Getty Images

    Even an index that includes hundreds of stocks can be heavily concentrated. Large technology-oriented companies have led this year’s 16% rebound for the S&P 500
    SPX,
    -0.29%
    ,
    following last year’s 18% decline (both with dividends reinvested). But the index is weighted by market capitalization, which means the “Magnificent Seven” — Apple Inc.
    AAPL,
    -0.59%
    ,
    Microsoft Corp.
    MSFT,
    -1.19%
    ,
    two common share classes of Alphabet Inc.
    GOOGL,
    -0.52%

    GOOG,
    -0.65%
    ,
    Amazon.com Inc.
    AMZN,
    +1.11%
    ,
    Nvidia Corp.
    NVDA,
    +0.95%
    ,
    Tesla Inc.
    TSLA,
    -0.76%

    and Meta Platforms Inc.
    META,
    -0.50%

    — make up 27.9% of the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust
    SPY,
    -0.25%
    .

    In the Need to Know column, Barbara Kollmeyer lists companies that might turn out to be among the next Magnificent Seven, based on a Goldman Sachs screen.

    Getting back to the current Magnificent Seven, you may be surprised to see which of the stocks is cheapest — by far — per one commonly used valuation metric.

    Related: Top investment newsletters aren’t bullish on tech, Tesla or Meta Platforms. Here’s what they do like.

    A thrill ride for EV makers

    An electric Rivian R1S.


    Rivian

    There has been a lot of news in the electric-vehicle space this week. Here are lists of coverage organized by topic.

    Rising unit sales among EV makers:

    Legacy automakers report sales increases, including a tremendous increase in EV unit sales for Ford
    F,

    :

    Reaction from analysts and investors:

    In other news, Mullen Automotive Inc.
    MULN,
    -12.97%

    has started to deliver electric vehicles. Further developments for the company this week included the announcement of a stock-buyback plan and possible action against naked short sellers.

    A changing job market

    The employment numbers for June from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics showed the lowest level of job creation since late 2020. Then again, the demand for labor in the U.S. remains high, despite the Federal Reserve’s efforts to slow economic growth.

    If you are looking to make a career change, what does all this mean to you? Andrew Keshner points to a development in the employment market that may have you thinking twice about jumping ship.

    Threads and Twitter

    Meta’s Threads app has signed up as many as 50 million users in its first two days of operation, some reports say.


    AFP via Getty Images

    Meta rolled out its new Threads service on Wednesday to compete directly with Twitter and has already signed up 50 million users, according to some reports.

    Twitter CEO Linda Yaccarino was quick to respond.

    More reaction:

    Consumer spending may spike

    U.S. shoppers have been taking it slow during a period of high inflation, but the overall economy has been stronger than expected even as the Federal Reserve continues tightening its monetary policy.

    The coming flurry of July sales events at Amazon, Walmart Inc.
    WMT,
    -2.30%

    and Target Corp.
    TGT,
    -0.60%

    could signal a turnaround for consumers, as James Rogers reports.

    Financial crime

    Lukas I. Alpert writes the Financial Crime column. Have you ever wondered how you might steal a lot of cash from a company that is likely to have rather tight accounting controls in place? This week Alpert explains how the manager of an Amazon warehouse managed to scale the heights of criminal achievement to collect $10 million — and a 16-year jail sentence.

    Also read: Silver dealer ordered to pay $146 million in case of 500,000 missing coins

    Want more from MarketWatch? Sign up for this and other newsletters to get the latest news and advice on personal finance and investing.

    [ad_2]

    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

    “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.

    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

  • The Grand Narrative of Private Finance: Over-Reliance on Attracting Investment is Undermining Change at World Bank

    The Grand Narrative of Private Finance: Over-Reliance on Attracting Investment is Undermining Change at World Bank

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Bhumika Muchhala, Maria Jose Romero (new york / brussels)
    • Inter Press Service

    Unfortunately, the false narrative that the only way to fill this gap is to ‘leverage’ more private finance also persisted. The resulting Paris Agenda for People and Planet stated: “meeting global challenges will depend on the scaling up of private capital flows.” This should be achieved in large part by revamping the role of multilateral development banks (MDBs).

    Last December, the World Bank Group (WBG), the biggest MDB, launched its so-called “evolution” process, with the support of G7 governments. This set the institution to work on increasing its lending by deepening its reliance on the financial market.

    The dogged reliance on private capital as saviour appears to be steeped in capitalist realism. It is believed to be implausible for the public sector to deliver the scale of financing needed to address the climate and development crisis.

    Private capital, which can be leveraged using public money, securitised and reproduced is favoured as the pragmatic choice. However, while the financing gap to deliver on the sustainable development goals is very real, the neat narrative buttressing private capital obscures two empirical realities.

    First is the absence of rich countries’ political will to deliver on agreed commitments, from the 0.7 per cent of Gross National Income in development aid made in 1970 to the US$100 billion per year climate financing agreed in 2009.

    Second, the ongoing systemic wealth drain from developing to rich countries. Since 1982, developing countries as a whole have transferred an estimated US$4.2 trillion in interest payments to global north-based creditors, far outstripping aid flows and concessional lending during the same period.

    Additionally, tax-related illicit financial flows cost countries hundreds of billions of dollars in lost tax income every year. Debt servicing is draining approximately 25 per cent of total government spending in developing countries as a whole, hijacking both climate and SDG (Sustainable Development Goals) financing.

    The allure of private finance

    Last month, in a new attempt to ‘leverage’ private capital, the WBG launched the Private Sector Investment Lab, a partnership with the private sector that aims to “rapidly scale solutions that address the barriers preventing private sector investment.”

    Furthermore, it announced “an expanded toolkit for crisis preparedness, response, and recovery” that includes providing “new types of insurance” to backstop private sector projects. This follows a not-so-new pattern articulated in the WBG’s Evolution Roadmap draft published in April

    While the WBG is set to expand its mandate to incorporate “sustainability” considerations, the approach is still rooted in a heady cocktail of de-risking instruments such as risk guarantees, blended finance and first-loss positions by governments, and in tweaking national regulatory frameworks to enable a business-friendly environment.

    The goal is as singular as the solution: to make investment more profitable for the private sector. The (optimistic) rationale: ‘incentivising’ private capital will ‘crowd in’ economic growth and climate, biodiversity and development financing. This assumes that it is possible to equate commercial goals and the public interest, which is not always the case without creating financial barriers that undermine access to public services, such as user fees.

    It also ignores that risks are transferred from private to public actors, further increasing debt vulnerabilities, and the developmental dilemma posed by prioritising private profits over distributive goals and state sovereignty.

    In ongoing discussions about the Roadmap, it is yet to be seen if the WBG will incorporate sufficient provisions within its plans to ensure the recipient state’s right to regulate in the public interest for a rights-based economy that upholds distributive justice. That is, economic, climate and gender equity.

    Solutions with legitimacy

    The largest coalition of developing countries in the United Nations (known as the “Group of 77”), representing 134 nations, have been calling for reform of the international tax, debt and financial architecture for many years.

    These calls, enshrined in resolutions adopted by the UN General Assembly, includes establishing a multilateral legal framework that would comprehensively address unsustainable and illegitimate debt, including through extensive debt restructuring and cancellation, and agreeing on a UN Tax Convention with equitable participation of developing countries to address tax abuse by multinational corporations and other illicit financial flows.

    As was made clear last month in several developing countries’ calls, a reform agenda should not be limited to merely boosting MDBs’ coffers – via financial innovation techniques – but rather include governance reform that meaningfully augments the voice and vote of developing countries in macroeconomic decision-making, which is the litmus test for legitimate and democratic economic governance.

    Furthermore, for many in civil society, for the WBG to “evolve” in a credible way it must also seek to independently evaluate the development impact of its policy prescriptions for developing countries over recent decades. Civil society organisations are stating this again in official feedback on the Evolution Roadmap submitted to the Bank this week.

    The ways in which the mythology of the private financier is construed dangerously omits the concrete reforms for historical economic justice, and state sovereignty, that the global south are demanding. This disjuncture calls for a clear-eyed questioning of the allure of private finance. Here lies the difference between new forms of extraction as opposed to change towards redistributive justice.

    https://www.eurodad.org/civil_society_calls_for_rethink_of_world_banks_evolution_roadmap

    Bhumika Muchhala is Political Economist and Senior Advisor at Third World Network
    and María José Romero is Policy and Advocacy Manager at the European Network on Debt and Development (Eurodad)

    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

  • Guatemala Clings to Democratic Promise

    Guatemala Clings to Democratic Promise

    [ad_1]

    Credit: Silvia Rodríguez/AFP via Getty Images
    • Opinion by Ines M Pousadela (montevideo, uruguay)
    • Inter Press Service

    But an unexpected development brought some hope: Bernardo Arévalo, leader of the progressive Movimiento Semilla, made it to the runoff.

    Arévalo’s promise to fight against systemic corruption and bring back the numerous justice operators – people such as judges, prosecutors and public defenders – currently in exile to help clean up institutions is causing great concern for those who profit from the current state of affairs. The fact that Arévalo could become Guatemala’s next president has made the election results an instant object of contention.

    Corruption and democratic decline

    Guatemalan electoral processes aren’t pristine, but that isn’t where the most serious problems lie. Civic freedoms are steadily deteriorating and state institutions have been weakened by predatory elites and coopted by organised crime. Transparency International finds evidence of strong influence by organised criminals over politics and politicians, with some criminals themselves in office.

    No wonder Guatemalans have a low level of confidence in state institutions. In the latest Latinobarómetro report, the church was by far the most trusted institution, winning the trust of 71 per cent of people, followed at some distance by the armed forces and police. But only nine per cent of people trust political parties, and trust is also very low in Congress, electoral bodies and the judiciary.

    At 25 per cent, satisfaction with the performance of democracy is extremely low – as is the number of people who think the country is ruled for the benefit of all rather than just elites.

    The run-up to the vote

    Those denouncing corruption, collusion, illegal private sector practices and human rights abuses have increasingly been subjected to smear campaigns, surveillance, harassment and criminalisation by state authorities. Many have been pushed into exile. Rising violence against journalists and human rights defenders, including killings – the latest being that of journalist Orlando Villanueva – recently led the CIVICUS Monitor to downgrade its civic space rating for Guatemala to the second-worst category, repressed.

    Restrictions on civic freedoms increased in the run-up to elections, ranging from smear campaigns to criminalisation. On 14 June, José Rubén Zamora, head of the newspaper elPeriódico, which had exposed more than 200 corruption cases, was sentenced to six years in prison for alleged money laundering. Zamora had been subjected to harassment and intimidation for years and had survived an assassination attempt.

    An observation mission carried out by Reporters Without Borders and others ahead of voting warned that the absence of basic press freedoms made it impossible to guarantee a legitimate electoral process.

    The process was indeed marred by multiple irregularities, starting with the disqualification of several contenders, including Indigenous leader Thelma Cabrera and her running mate, Jordán Rodas Andrade, the only left-wing candidacy polls showed stood a fighting chance. The candidate who led opinion polls, conservative business leader and TikTok star Carlos Pineda, was also disqualified.

    What happened on 25 June

    With two dozen candidates competing in the presidential race, it was no surprise that none reached the 50 per cent threshold required to avoid a runoff. What was unexpected was Arévalo’s good performance.

    The front-runner, Sandra Torres of National Unity of Hope, is a political insider, Guatemala’s first lady between 2008 and 2011. Now standing for the third time in a row, she received 16 per cent of the vote. If elected, she would become Guatemala’s first female president. But she’s by no means a champion of women’s rights: she’s a vocal anti-abortion activist and her running mate is an evangelical pastor.

    Runner-up Arévalo is an unusual politician at the head of an unusual party. Originally an academic with social-democratic views, he’s currently a member of Congress, where he leads a five-member progressive caucus. His running mate, low-key feminist Karin Herrera, is a microbiology researcher and university professor.

    Unlike many Guatemalan parties, Arévalo’s party wasn’t created as a vehicle for someone’s presidential ambitions or corrupt interests: it was the creature of a group of concerned people that grew out of mass anti-corruption protests that broke out in 2015. In 2019, its presidential candidate was disqualified. But it found its footing among middle class groups, young people and women, particularly in Guatemala City.

    The aftermath

    Opinion polls had placed Arévalo eighth or ninth among the many contenders, so his performance caught elites off guard.

    There’s no guarantee he’ll win the run-off. He’d have to gain the votes of the many who abstained or cast blank and invalid votes. But the fact that Arévalo might win has galvanised those who currently profit from the corrupt status quo, and they’re trying to push him out of the race. A majority of pro-establishment parties, including Torres’s party, have submitted complaints demanding a recount. Their supporters converged outside the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE), quickly pushing further and calling for a rerun.

    While various incidents were recorded on election day – including instances of vote buying, mostly by parties linked to the ruling alliance – international and domestic observers alike concluded that the results were valid and the gap of more than 200,000 votes between Semilla and the next contender, the outgoing president’s party, was insurmountable.

    Mirador Electoral, a civil society platform, denounced pressures on the TSE as an attempted ‘electoral coup’. The European Union’s observer mission and the Organization of American States have called for the will of voters to be respected. Arévalo condemned it all as an intimidatory manoeuvre and called for the TSE, the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court to act quickly and responsibly.

    Instead, the Constitutional Court ordered the TSE to suspend official certification of results until complaints are resolved. Some fear an attempt to annul the elections will come next.

    Guatemala stands at a crossroads. On the eve of voting it seemed on the verge of autocracy. An unexpected result hinted at the possibility of a much brighter path – one that fills many with hope but scares those who see their wealth and power endangered. The coming days and weeks will witness an arm-wrestling match between the past and the future, with three potential outcomes.

    In the worst-case scenario, the runoff continues to be delayed by legal appeals and the task of appointing a president ultimately falls to Congress. In the second-worst scenario, a vote-by-vote recount is conducted instead of a simple cross-check of tally sheets, fraud occurs along the way and the ruling party’s candidate takes Arévalo’s runoff spot. Either way, the past wins.

    Only if the recount is properly conducted, the results are corroborated and the runoff is held on 20 August will the future have a fighting chance. The corrupt establishment may still beat Arévalo – but this decision belongs to no one but the citizens of Guatemala.

    Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Senior Research Specialist, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

    © 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

    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

  • After the riots, Macron must fix a broken France

    After the riots, Macron must fix a broken France

    [ad_1]

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    PARIS — France is slowly catching its breath after days of large-scale urban unrest but a greater challenge looms for President Emmanuel Macron: How to tackle the root problems the riots have exposed.

    Macron has walked a thin line between showing empathy and sending out a message of toughness after a police officer shot and killed teenager Nahel M. last week, leading to days of riots. He flooded the streets with police officers in an effort to contain the violence.

    This weekend there were fewer arrests than on previous nights and the unrest appears to be waning, at least temporarily.

    But the series of incidents have fanned the flames around police brutality and the treatment of racial minorities into a broader, violent rejection of French institutions.

    Overnight on Saturday, attackers rammed a car into the house of the local mayor in L’Haÿ-les-Roses, a suburb south of Paris, injuring the official’s wife as she tried to flee with her young children.

    Elsewhere in France, the violence triggered by the teenager’s death has targeted many symbols of the French Republic: schools, police stations, libraries and other public buildings.

    “An unprecedented movement has hit territories that were not previously affected [by violence]. Public buildings were damaged which was not the case during the last wave of protests in 2005,” said a French government official, who was granted anonymity to discuss sensitive issues more openly, referring to an outbreak of violence that rocked France’s banlieues for weeks in 2005.

    Over the past few days, Macron has sought to strike a delicate balance between showing compassion and resolve. He has described the shooting of 17-year-old Nahel M. as he was fleeing the police last week as “inexcusable” and “inexplicable.” But Macron has slammed the riots as “the unacceptable manipulation of a death of a teenager,” as well.

    On Tuesday, he is expected to meet mayors from more than 200 towns and cities hit by violence. The aim of the meeting is to gather first-hand accounts from local officials, work on solutions and relay that the government is backing local officials.

    “The president wants to listen,” the French official said.

    After cutting short his visit to a European summit last week, Macron tried to show he is at the helm of the country, regularly calling crisis cabinet meetings, and issuing orders to his prime minister and ministers. On Saturday, he called off a long-planned state visit to Germany.

    Permanently in crisis mode

    The roster of meetings at the Elysée Palace is a familiar sight and a sign that the government is in crisis mode — once again.

    The French president has barely emerged from a deep political crisis over pension reforms this spring and his government now is faced with more turmoil. Macron’s first term was equally rocky, as he faced Yellow Jackets protests, the COVID-19 pandemic and the ever-present threat of terrorism in France.

    Macron has accumulated “difficult, painful crisis situations” that have “perplexed” the outside world, said Bruno Cautrès, a politics researcher with the Sciences Po institute.

    “It’s as if France was a pressure cooker, [each crisis] reveals tensions, a conflict in society, tensions over the respect owed to our institutions … Our country is constantly invoking Republican values, but it appears entire segments of the population don’t feel this matters to them,” he said.

    The outpouring of shock and anger over the death of Nahel M., who was of North African descent, has also forced many in France to do some soul-searching over issues of discrimination, integration, and crime in immigrant-heavy suburbs around French cities.

    Public pressure to more closely examine French policing practices and allegations of racism in the security forces beyond re-examining rules of engagement is mounting. In 2017, for example, police officers were given the right to shoot in several hypothetical scenarios, including when a driver refuses to stop and is deemed a risk to life.

    Beyond alleged discrimination by the police, fixing the growing rift between the suburbs’ disadvantaged youth and French institutions will likely require more money for policies aimed at addressing root causes and reducing social inequalities in areas such as education and social housing.

    But addressing issues in the banlieues is difficult at a time when the government is attempting to reduce spending. After resisting calls to back down in the face of peaceful protests over his flagship pensions reforms, Macron reaching for the checkbook shortly after the recent days’ protests might be seen as rewarding rioters.

    The need to reconcile the country and embody law and order at a time when his margins for maneuver are limited after losing a parliamentary majority last year is no small task for Macron.

    He will have to keep a sharp eye on opposition parties as crime, identity and immigration — long issues the far-right has campaigned on — take center stage. If far-right leader Marine Le Pen has held back from fueling a backlash against rioters, sticking to her strategy of embracing mainstream politics, her trusted lieutenant Jordan Bardella has led the charge against “criminals” who owe “everything to the Republic.”

    The recent unrest had exposed “frailties” that could “encourage a populist discourse,” the same government official admitted.

    “[Our] political response must be a reasonable one, that addresses the reality and daily lives of the French,” he added. That’s easier said than done.

    [ad_2]

    Clea Caulcutt

    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

    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.

    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

  • Gender-Based Violence: Why Victims Do Not Leave

    Gender-Based Violence: Why Victims Do Not Leave

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Esther Nantana (windhoek, namibia)
    • Inter Press Service

    These can include the nature of the relationship, the sense of responsibility, the sporadic nature of violence, fears and uncertainty.

    A significant part of the complexity of GBV lies in the fact that it is committed by someone with whom the victim is in a relationship and thus someone they deeply love and care about.

    Trying to reconcile how someone you love can hurt you in that way is usually only the initial shock. But it keeps victims trying to figure out what went wrong in the relationship.

    BLAME-SHIFTING

    Victims have been known to take on a sense of responsibility for the violence they face. Some tend to believe they provoked or caused the problem.

    This is usually a result of blame-shifting by the abuser. Society also contributes to this when they subject victims to questions like “what did you do to aggravate him?”

    This engenders a sense of guilt and an accompanying sense of responsibility to prevent further violence.

    This is wrongfully placed on victims when the abusers are at fault. Also, no level of “instigation” warrants physical aggression or abuse. Physical violence is unacceptable even when it only occurs once in a relationship.

    And in most cases, when it happens once, it is often likely to reoccur. It may not even happen frequently, but it will.

    And those moments when it’s not happening pull the victim back into the relationship – thinking the last time it happened was the last time it would happen.

    ASSUMPTIONS

    When we try and picture an abusive relationship, we tend to assume it’s violent all the time. This is not always the case.

    Abusive relationships are usually filled with other moments. Even happy moments. The abuser who gets upset and violent is the same person making grand gestures and declaring their love daily.

    Abusers beg and cry, showing remorse and regret, just to try prove they are still “good people”. They tend to play on the emotions of the victims because of the close nature of intimate relationships. This eventually makes it easy for the abuse to reoccur in cycles.

    It takes the victim quite a few times before they can confidently say they want to break out of the cycle. Regrettably, even after deciding to leave, issues of safety are paramount.

    Statistics show the most dangerous time is when victims attempt to leave the relationship. In some cases, it can end fatally.

    As abusive partners try to maintain power and control, they can become more violent, threatening to end the lives of their partners and even threatening the lives of other loved ones involved.

    CHALLENGES

    Victims wanting to leave abusive relationships face enormous challenges. Where do they get adequate support? Do they know where to go? How do they survive economically? Where will they live?

    Then there are fears of not being believed or supported. Or having their reports and accounts invalidated. They are also pressured by family and friends to remain in relationships for the sake of the children and to maintain the facade of a good family image.

    These are only some of the issues involved with trying to leave. It’s difficult, and it is challenging, and it cannot happen overnight.

    So next time you hear about a person who stayed in an abusive relationship, treat them and the situation with grace and understanding. It takes a lot of courage to report abuse the first time and even more courage to keep reporting it and trying to get out.

    Our loved ones in these situations need empathy, support, and love. This gives them the strength to leave eventually.

    Esther Nantana is currently a project coordinator for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) in Namibia. Previously, Esther co-led the Women and Youth Development/Capacity Building cluster at the African Union. She graduated from the Indrani Fellowship in May 2023. She is also a public health and gender advocate and a blogger; website esthernantana.com

    Source: The Namibian

    IPS UN Bureau

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

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Mobilizing Private Capital for Adaptation: the Silent Climate Need

    Mobilizing Private Capital for Adaptation: the Silent Climate Need

    [ad_1]

    Investment requirements for adaptation are huge, and they are growing every day as rising emissions are increasing adaptation needs. Credit: Isaiah Esipisu/IPS
    • Opinion by Philippe Benoit, Gareth Phillips (washington dc)
    • Inter Press Service

    To meet this challenge, large amounts of private capital are once again needed — and this will require climate finance innovation targeted at adaptation, specifically.

    The journey from this month’s Paris climate finance summit to COP 28  hosted later this year by the United Arab Emirates – and where financing is likely to be a prominent subject — provides opportunities to raise the profile of this often overlooked need to fund adaptation.  While there is relatively little discussion of this topic, it is nonetheless a key to achieving the dual climate goals of reducing emissions while also preparing for the impacts of climate change that are now unavoidable and projected to increase.

    Annual funding needs for mitigation have been estimated at around $600 billion by 2030 in emerging economies for energy alone, with private capital providing three-quarters of the required amounts. The reported needs for adaptation are relatively smaller, albeit still only partially identified. For example, annual adaptation needs for developing countries have been estimated at $160-$340 billion by 2030, including more than $50 billion for Africa. These adaptation amounts are beyond any reasonable estimate of the funding capacity of their governments, especially when added to the requirements for mitigation.

    There have been various innovative financing mechanisms developed to mobilize private capital for climate but they tend to be focused on mitigation. The best known is probably the carbon markets in which investors are compensated for funding projects that reduce or otherwise avoid emissions.  Article 6 of the 2015 Paris climate agreement establishes a resource mobilization mechanism, but once again, expressly for mitigation action. Similarly, the Energy Transition Accelerator presented by U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry at COP 27, targets private capital to fund clean power sources.

    When it comes to adaptation, the discussion is often focused on public sector funds. For example, the Green Climate Fund, a multi-government facility, looks to provide funding for adaptation at levels that match mitigation. Generally, adaptation projects have been seen as providing public goods and, accordingly, have looked to funding approaches reliant on public sector resources, frequently in the form of grants. This greatly limits financing options and amounts.

    Yet, the investment requirements for adaptation are huge, and they are growing every day as rising emissions are increasing adaptation needs. This will require more than just public sources; private capital is needed. But in order to unlock this capital, more attention and creativity must be directed to developing new mechanisms for adaptation.

    In considering private funding for adaptation, there are three distinct but interrelated major groups of actors.

    • The first are companies exposed to climate-related risks in their operations. This includes a variety of agri-businesses, electricity network enterprises, port operators, tourism industry actors and construction companies. The issue here is largely encouraging these companies to spend more on adapting their businesses to climate change.
    • A second potential source is the producers and consumers of fossil fuel products whose previous activities have fueled climate change we must adapt to. For example, just as companies have customer programs to raise finance to offset their emissions (e.g., airlines), consumers might also be motivated to support investments to address the impacts of their emissions.
    • The third and critical source is third-party private capital, including commercial banks and private equity investors. This constitutes a massive potential source of funding (the bond market totals in the trillions), and it is the focus of the discussion that follows.

    The existing mitigation carbon markets provide a potentially fertile precedent for raising third-party private capital. It is important to recognize that the genesis of carbon markets was governments creating regulatory frameworks that gave value to emissions reductions — governments set targets and created mechanisms that offered both financial incentives and flexibility to meet those targets through capital spending.

    This also helped lay the groundwork for the parallel non-governmental voluntary markets. Under these types of structures, investors are incentivized to pay for carbon avoidance which makes projects financially attractive — thereby providing project sponsors with access to capital for investments in activities, sectors and regions that were otherwise unbankable.

    A similar approach could be taken for adaptation; namely, the creation of a regulatory or voluntary framework in which payments to projects that provide genuine adaptation benefits are recognized and valued.

    Eligible adaptation actions might include climate-resilient agriculture goods and services, investments in cold storage, improved treatment and reuse of wastewater, coastal protection, conservation of biodiversity to protect nature’s ability to adapt and actions to mitigate forest fires, a topic that has received increased attention recently. Importantly, this isn’t just a musing.

    The African Development Bank, where one of us is the manager of climate and environment finance, has been developing such a facility: the Adaptation Benefits Mechanism. The ABM mechanism creates a financial product for third-party investors (private capital, donors, consumers) to fund project developers in return for Certified Adaptation Benefits, which attribute a value to lowering or avoiding the negative impacts of climate change on agriculture, people’s health, biodiversity, buildings, businesses and other assets.

    The ABM product is designed to be priced at a level that enables the developer to fund what would otherwise be an unbankable adaptation investment. Significantly, it provides these developers with access to new capital sources that can make more adaptation projects a reality.

    Other mechanisms are being explored and deployed, such as adaptation impact bonds. Many of these programs are designed to attract third-party private capital to adaptation activities, while additional ones address other barriers and constraints to private investment.

    Notwithstanding these efforts, there remains a general shortage of instruments and proposals to attract more private capital to adaptation. Overcoming this lack will require putting more intellectual and creative resources into adaptation finance, including by the world’s leading financial centers. The private sector has more to contribute to this area, but unleashing its power will require financial innovation.

    With this month’s Paris climate finance summit now completed, the current lead-up to COP 28 to be held later this year is an opportunity not to be missed to advance the effort to raise more private capital for adaptation.

    (First published in The Hill on June 14, 2023).

    Philippe Benoit is research director for Global Infrastructure Analytics and Sustainability 2050 and has over 20 years of experience in international finance and sustainability, including management positions at the World Bank. He is also adjunct senior research scholar at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy.

    Gareth Phillips is the manager of climate and environment finance at the African Development Bank Group.

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

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Can the coming AI boom help Micron outrun negative China effects?

    Can the coming AI boom help Micron outrun negative China effects?

    [ad_1]

    Micron Technology Inc. could be approaching a big new semiconductor cycle as it predicts a huge boost from artificial intelligence, but there could be a roadblock in the path.

    Micron
    MU,
    +0.42%

    reported a third-quarter loss and a 57% drop in revenue Wednesday, after the chip industry’s oversupply hit the memory-chip maker hard. On the bright side, Micron Chief Executive Sanjay Mehrotra said he believed the memory industry “had passed its trough” and that the company’s margins should improve as the supply-demand balance is gradually restored.

    Another big issue for the stock right now, though, is China’s decision to recommend that “operators of critical information infrastructure in China should stop purchasing Micron products.” Mehrotra told analysts on the company’s conference call that the decision will impact about 50% of its products sold in China.

    “We currently estimate that approximately half of that China-headquartered customer revenue, which equates to a low double-digit percentage of Micron’s worldwide revenue, is at risk of being impacted,” Mehrotra said on the call. “This significant headwind is impacting our outlook and slowing our recovery.”

    More from Therese: AI has given a big boost to stock of this lesser-known Silicon Valley computer maker

    He said Micron will work with its long-term customers who are not impacted by China’s decision, and hopefully will increase its share with those customers.

    On the plus side, Micron expects to see a substantial boost to its memory business as a result of companies gearing up to run generative AI on their own servers or clouds. “Generative AI [is] becoming a big opportunity and we look at it for 2024 as a big year for AI and for memory and storage, and Micron will be well-positioned,” in the data center with its products, Mehrotra said. He added that it is “very, very early innings for AI,” which is really pervasive. “It’s everywhere.”

    Full earnings coverage: Micron CEO calls bottom in memory-chip market, but weak PC, smartphone forecasts cut into expected AI gains

    He said it will be in both cloud and enterprise server applications, and due to confidentiality of data, enterprises will be building their own large language models, adding that the DRAM (dynamic random access memory) content required for AI in servers is driving higher demand for memory and storage in servers. In super cluster configurations, for example, the DRAM content can be as much as 100 times higher.

    Investors appeared to maintain some caution about when the AI impact will kick in, even as some analysts have forecast that AI demand will lead to a general supercycle for many hardware companies. Micron’s shares see-sawed in after-hours trading Wednesday, ending the extended session up about 3%.

    See also: Will generative AI complete the cloud transition? One prominent executive thinks so.

    In a note ahead of the company’s earnings, Raymond James analyst Srini Pajjuri said that the impact from China “should be short-lived given the commodity nature of Micron’s products.”

    Right now, it’s too early to say how long China may be a drag for Micron, but if Mehrotra is right, investors should take heart that the company is going to be another beneficiary of the coming AI boom.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The banking crisis has eased but a credit crunch still threatens the U.S. economy

    The banking crisis has eased but a credit crunch still threatens the U.S. economy

    [ad_1]

    Financial disruptions in 2008 contributed to the deep economic downturn that came to be known as the Great Recession. Could recent bank failures similarly lead to a broad U.S. recession?

    The $532 billion of assets of the three banks that failed in March and April 2023 exceed the inflation-adjusted value of $526 billion of assets of the 25 banks that failed in 2008. Yet the current situation differs in many ways from the underlying economic circumstances at the outset of the Great Recession.

    Still, that experience, as well as others, show how financial distress can lead to macroeconomic weakness which then contributes to further financial distress, resulting in a downward spiral during which credit becomes tight, investment is curtailed and growth stalls.

    Bank distress can have adverse consequences for borrowers and the broader economy. One source of recent U.S. bank vulnerabilities is the rapid increase in interest rates. Banks take in deposits that can be withdrawn in the short term and use them to make loans and invest in securities at interest rates that are fixed for some time.

    As interest rates rise, the value of banks’ existing portfolio decreases as new investments at higher rates are more attractive. By one estimate, the U.S. banking system’s market value of assets is $2.2 trillion lower than suggested by their book value of assets accounting for loan portfolios held to maturity.

    These book losses are realized if banks have to sell those assets to cover withdrawals from depositors. At the same time banks face challenges in maintaining deposit levels, depositors are less willing to place their money in low-return checking and savings accounts as higher-interest opportunities become increasingly available. 

    Banks that failed in 2023 have had specific weaknesses that made them particularly vulnerable. Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), for example, was particularly exposed to risk from rising interest rates as it had heavily invested in longer-term government bonds which lost market value as interest rates rose and its management failed to hedge against this risk.

    SVB was also especially vulnerable to a run by depositors because over 90% of the value of its deposits exceeded the $250,000 amount guaranteed by the Federal  through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Depositors holding accounts in excess of this guaranteed amount, both individuals and companies (whose accounts were used for making payroll, among other reasons) are only partially protected in case of bank failure so they have an incentive to withdraw funds at the first sign of trouble.

    Moreover, depositors were connected to each other through business and social groups, so news traveled quickly seeding the conditions for a classic bank run at Twitter speed. Signature Bank also had about 90% of its assets uninsured and its portfolio was heavily concentrated in crypto deposits. Both banks grew rapidly with inadequate risk and liquidity management practices in place and, while regulators had raised concerns about these risks, they had not taken more forceful actions to address them, according to a GAO report. Meanwhile, First Republic Bank, catered to wealthy depositors and for this reason also had a high share of uninsured deposits that made it more vulnerable to a bank run as its bond assets lost value amidst rising interest rates.

    Commercial banks reduce lending when their deposits fall or when they otherwise cannot meet regulatory requirements. Deposits represent an important source of banks’ ability to lend. As a bank’s deposits decrease, it has less resources available for lending since other sources of funds are not as easily obtained.

    A bank may also cut lending in an effort to satisfy regulations such as meeting or exceeding the Capital Adequacy Ratio. Regulators require banks to have enough capital on reserve to handle a certain amount of loan losses. The Capital Adequacy Ratio decreases when loans fail and the bank sees its loan loss reserves decline. The bank can then increase its Capital Adequacy Ratio by using funds that would otherwise be devoted to commercial loans or by shifting from loans to other assets that are less risky (such as government securities).

    There is evidence that this effect contributed to the cutback in bank lending in New England in the 1990-1991 U.S. recession when there was a collapse in that region’s real estate market. A bank may choose to reduce lending if there are concerns about solvency even if it is not yet hitting up against the formal capital adequacy ratio requirement. 

    Read: San Francisco at risk of more falling ‘dominos’ as $2.4 billion of office property loans come due through 2024

    A credit crunch occurs when borrowers who would otherwise receive loans are precluded from doing so because of a restriction on the supply of loans by banks. But a reduction in bank lending could also reflect a decrease in borrowers’ demand for loans.

    Researchers have used a variety of methods to identify when there is a credit crunch rather than just a lower demand for loans. For example, a credit crunch could be identified through looking for differential borrowing, employment, and performance patterns by bank-dependent companies as compared to those that have access to financing through bond or equity markets. Bank-dependent companies are typically smaller than those that have access to other types of financing.

    Credit crunches due to bank distress can undermine investment and economic growth. An early and influential analysis by Ben Bernanke, who went on to chair the Federal Reserve and served during the 2008 Great Financial Crisis, analyzed the effects of bank failures during the Great Depression. He found that bank failures had a particularly strong effect in reducing the amount of borrowing by households, farmers, and small businesses in that period, which contributed to the severity and duration of the Great Depression.

    The U.S. banking system has been made more resilient since that time, but there is still evidence of the effect of a credit crunch on regional U.S. economies. The April 2023 IMF Global Financial Stability Report argued that a credit crunch in the United States could reduce lending by 1%, which would lower GDP growth by almost 0.5 percentage points.

    Michael Klein is the executive editor of EconoFact. He is the William L. Clayton Professor of International Economic Affairs at The Fletcher School at Tufts University.

    This commentary was originally published by EconoFact: Banks, Credit Crunches, and the Economy.

    More: Justice Department to weigh updating banking competition rules

    Also read: Senators make headway on clawing back pay from failed banks’ CEOs, as key committee advances bill

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The Common Good, or Transactional Religion?

    The Common Good, or Transactional Religion?

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Azza Karam (new york)
    • Inter Press Service

    All to name but a few. I still feel amused when some of those I trained among the UN staff and the faith-based NGO community, quote something I said, in public – albeit without even being aware they are quoting (I am trying to be kind here) – such as: “we should not be talking about whether religions matter, but how they matter”.

    In 2007, while at UNDP, I was told, more than once, “we do not do religion”. By the time I left the UN in 2020, after building two bodies – an Interagency Task Force on Religion and its Multi Faith Advisory Council – it was clear that almost all UN entities were competing to ‘do religion’. In fact, some UN entities are competing for religious funding.

    While I have not lost that faith in faith itself, over the last years, I have grown increasingly incredulous of those who would speak in the name of ‘religion’. It is hard not to feel distinctly bemused, when versions of ‘if religious actors/leaders are not at the table, they will be on the menu]’, are being told in one gathering after another.

    Often by the same kinds of speakers, among the same kinds of audiences, albeit meeting more and more frequently – and often more lavishly — in different cities around the world.

    The reason for bemusement, is not disillusion with the unparalleled roles that various religious institutions and communities of faith play. Far from it. These roles are, in short, vast. In fact, they are as impossible to quantify, as they are implausible to assume full comprehension of.

    After all, how do you accurately measure the pulse of our individual spiritualities – let alone our collective sense thereof? Religious leaders, religious institutions, faith-based and faith-inspired NGOs (FBOs) – let alone faith communities – are massive in number, and permeate all the world’s edifices, peoples and even languages. Faiths, and expressions of religiosity, are likely as numerous as the hairs on an average head (not counting those who may be lacking vigour in that department).

    No, the reason for bemusement is disillusionment with the trend of commercialisation of religion, the business of ‘doing religion’. The emerging marketplace of “religion and ” is reminiscent of not too many decades ago, when so many academics, consultants, think tanks, NGOs, worked on the business of democracy and/or good governance and/or human rights. Then, as now, projects, programmes, initiatives, meetings, and more meetings, were hosted.

    A global emerging elite of ‘experts’ in the above (or variations thereof) permeated the four and five-star hotel meeting rooms, gave business to caterers and conference centres as they traipsed the ‘conference circuits’ from north to south, populated proposals to governments, philanthropists and various donor entities.

    They defined the missions of for-profit consultancies claiming to enable the strategic capabilities, to inform the media presences, to refine the narratives, to provide the leadership coaching, to jointly express the common values, to uphold the good in public service… And so on.

    We are not living in better democracies now, in spite of all that business. Will we have more faithful societies? Will people pray more, for one another and serve more selflessly now that ‘religion’ is in? Somehow, I doubt it.

    By the time we realised the extent of the commercialisation of democracy and human rights, the commercial nature had corrupted much of the sagacity – and the necessary courage – there was. Even autocrats bought into the business of doing democracy and human rights, and used the narratives to enhance their respective agendas.

    Few democratic actors worked together, and even fewer collaborated to serve – and save – the whole of humanity. As with any business venture, the motive of profit – and power – of some, dominated.

    And rather than a consolidated civil society effort holding decision makers accountable for the sake of the most vulnerable, and collectively and successfully eliminating the tools of harm, we are living in the era where money, weapons – including nuclear ones – control over resources, and war (including war on this earth), dominate.

    Today, some of the most authoritarian and self-serving regimes, and some of the most power-seeking individuals, and their retinues, are vested in the business of ‘religion’. And why not? It is among the most lucrative domains of financial, political and social influence.

    Decades of study, however, point to some simple questions to ask, to distinguish the transactional nature of ‘religious affairs’ claiming to be for the good of all, from those actually serving the common good.

    The questions include the following:

    How many of those engaged in the work of religion (whether as religious or secular actors) actually give of or share, their varied resources, to/with one another (including those from other/different religions, entities, age groups, countries, races, etc.)?

    How many different religious organisations plan and deliver, jointly, the same set of services to the same set of needs, in the same neighborhoods or in the same countries?

    How many ‘religious actors’ actually partner with ‘secular’ civil society organisations to hold institutions of political and financial power equally accountable – if need be, at cost to their own welfare. In other words, how many stand on principle, irrespective of the cost?

    And, my personal favourite: what are these religious actors’ respective positions on women’s rights, on gender equality and/or on women’s leadership?

    The more diplomatic way to frame that is also one of the most powerful litmus tests: which human rights do these actors working on/with/for religion, value more? You see, those who are engaged in transactional practices wearing a religious garb, will invariably prioritise some rights, or some privileges, over others.

    The answer to this question therefore, will indicate the difference between a coalition of religious fundamentalists (including secular power seekers and some religious and political leaders), and a multilateral alliance dedicated to serving the common good – for each and all, barring none, especially in the most challenging of times.

    Azza Karam is a Professor of Religion and Development at the Vrij Universiteit of Amsterdam and served as a member of the UN Secretary General’s High Level Advisory Board on Effective Multilateralism.

    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

    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

    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

  • Are the robots coming for us? Ask AI.

    Are the robots coming for us? Ask AI.

    [ad_1]

    As we enter artificial intelligence’s brave new world, humans have naturally come to fear what the future holds.  Do computers like HAL from 2001: A Space Odyssey pose an existential threat? Or in an incident not from Hollywood fiction, an Air Force official’s recent remarks implying that a drone had autonomously changed course and killed its operator, only to be later declared a hypothetical, certainly raised alarm.

    Closer to home for most of us, the release of large language models like ChatGPT have renewed worries about automation, reminiscent of earlier fears about mechanization. AI has advanced far beyond rote data-storage tasks and can even pass the bar exam, or write news, or research papers, leading to fears of massive white-collar unemployment.

    But, as new research looking at data of job churn over the past two decades finds, the impact of automation on workers and industries is, in fact, pretty hard to predict given the complexity of the labor market, requiring carefully crafted policies that take these nuances into account.

    First, changes in exposure to automation are not intuitive: they do not easily mesh with “blue-collar” and “white-collar” jobs, as typically defined. Instead, automation is more closely linked to the tasks and characteristics of each job, such as repetitiveness and face-to-face interactions. That translates to the three most automation-exposed jobs: office and administrative support, production, and business and financial operations occupations.

    Meanwhile, the three least automation-exposed jobs are in personal care; installation, maintenance and repair occupations; and teaching. In other words, even with the Internet of Things controlling your HVAC system, it cannot fix itself when it needs new refrigerant, but its smart-panel interface can help the technician diagnose the problem remotely quickly and know what equipment to bring for a repair. But back-end accountants in that company may not fare as well in the AI jobs sweepstakes.

    While automation can displace workers, history suggests that new technology also tends to boost productivity and create new jobs. Consider the automobile: while horses and buggies are outdated, we still need humans to drive (at least until autonomous vehicles come to full fruition), and the assembly line helped automate manufacturing with entire new classes of jobs created for every part of a car and all its electronic systems, with almost 1 million U.S. workers in auto manufacturing today.

    But automation has continued in the auto industry over the decades, with robots helping to make hard and heavy physical labor tasks easier, without fully displacing workers.  So there is a push-pull with automation, and the relative sizes of these countervailing effects remains an area of active scholarly debate.

    It is rare for an entire job class to disappear overnight; changes mainly take place over generations

    Second, it is rare for an entire job class to disappear overnight; changes mainly take place over generations. The research shows that newer generations of workers, perhaps deterred by the job insecurity observed in earlier generations and lured by high wages in the technology sector, are less inclined to enter automation-prone jobs than those before them. However, after embarking down those career paths, workers tend to stay in their fields, even if the prospects of automation loom large, likely because reskilling is time-consuming and expensive. It is relatively easy for recent high school graduates to opt for tech-centric college degrees like computer science, but learning new skills like coding is more difficult for mid-career professionals in automation-susceptible fields like manufacturing.

    Adjustments to automation can be slow on the business side as well. Incorporating automated technology takes time because modern production tasks tend to be so intertwined that automating one part of a business can affect all other operations. For example, when AT&T, once the country’s largest firm, began replacing telephone operators with mechanical switchboards, they found that operators had become central to the complex production system that grew around them, which is why there are fewer operators today, but some still exist.

    Third, the research found that the share of workers in highly automation-exposed occupations tends to be clustered, ranging from about 25% to 36% across commuting zones. The least-exposed areas in the U.S. are across the Mountain West, thanks to the area’s high shares of workers in management, retail sales and construction (which hasn’t had much automation or productivity improvement in decades but additive manufacturing may be a game-changer), as well as those on the East and West coasts, with their more innovative finance and tech industries.

    On the other hand, those most exposed to automation tend to be located in the Great Plains and Rust Belt, namely due to agriculture. In spite of the fact that U.S. agriculture has been exposed to automation for over a century (more efficient machines and advances in biotechnology), it has become even more technology-driven recently, making ag workers more likely to be impacted by automation.

    Read: How artificial intelligence can make hiring bias worse

    So will the robots take over your job soon?  More likely, they will make our jobs easier and more efficient. Trying to slow the adoption of technology is both futile and counterproductive: taxing or overregulating tech adoption may backfire, especially given global competitiveness and other countries who may not pause. While the advent of a new era of automation is likely to be both gradually incorporated and result in complements to human labor rather than full replacement, thoughtful policies can help disrupted workers transition to new and better opportunities, ensuring we can harness the transformative power of automation and foster a future of work that benefits all.

    Eric Carlson is associate economist at the Economic Innovation Group; DJ Nordquist is EIG’s executive vice president.

    More: AI is ready to take on menial tasks in the workplace, but don’t sweat robot replacement (just yet)

    Also read: ‘Make friends with this technology’: Yes, AI is coming for your job. Here’s how to prepare.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Forus Civil Society Network Urges that Respect for Human Rights, Climate Justice and Accountability should be at the core of  the New Global Financing Pact

    Forus Civil Society Network Urges that Respect for Human Rights, Climate Justice and Accountability should be at the core of the New Global Financing Pact

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Marianne Buenaventura (paris)
    • Inter Press Service

    The summit, co-hosted by India, could help find common ground on finance that drives progress at key events later in 2023 and in 2024 – the G20 summit in New Delhi, the COP28 climate talks in Dubai, and the Finance in Common summit with public development banks in Cartagena.

    As part of the summit, Sarah Strack, Forus Director, is amplifying civil society’s voices at the high-level Finance in Common event in the presence of French President Emmanuel Macron and other leaders, to discuss and leverage the role of Public Development Banks in financing the SDGs, scaling up sustainable finance, and supporting inclusion. Forus has been engaging in the Finance in Common initiative since its inception in 2020 with the aim to ensure that a people-based approach to development is pursued.

    “If we want to have a chance to tackle the most pressing challenges and the multiple crises of our time in a way that really puts first the interests and needs of people, then a shift of mindset and a new financial framework are absolutely necessary. It is essential that civil society plays a central role in shaping this new paradigm at every stage. Let us not forget the wealth of knowledge and leadership present at the local level. By actively engaging and collaborating with communities, we can genuinely measure our progress and honor the commitments we have made to those most in need,” says Sarah Strack.

    Harsh Jaitli, CEO of the Voluntary Action Network India (VANI), is representing Forus as an official respondent in the Summit Roundtable “Power Our Planet: Act today. Save tomorrow”, co-hosted by Global Citizen and CISCO. The event seeks to rally for immediate action on economic, social, and climate justice, engaging both public and private sectors to catalyze renewable energy investment in climate-vulnerable countries to reduce energy poverty and accelerate the low-carbon transition.

    Harsh Jaitli of VANI states that the New Global Financial Pact will require improved partnerships and the building of trust.

    “Double standards have negatively impacted our collective capacity to deliver on effective development and climate related programmes. In some countries, multinational corporations respect human rights, fiscal and climate regulations, but in other countries decisions are made to violate them. Not only does this send the wrong message that some countries and populations are more important than others, but also jeopardizes our collective efforts to affect change. Multinational corporations should commit to respecting human rights, fiscal and climate regulations in all countries and in a consistent manner. When no strong regulations exist, this is the opportunity for multinationals to be proactive and to apply strong rules, which are coherent with their policies,”says Harsh Jaitli.

    Julien Comlan Agbessi, Coordinator of the Regional Coalition of West Africa (REPAOC) emphasizes the importance of multi-stakeholder cooperation. Agbessi explains that cooperation between the private sector and the civil society organisations is possible, since the private sector could leverage hugely on the experience and outreach of civil society. “Many poverty alleviation programs and projects with significant funding implemented over the past decades have failed to deliver for communities. Transformative investments in low-income countries and climate impacted countries require putting the needs of people first,” says Julien Comlan Agbessi.

    Lina Paola Lara Negrette, Coordinator of the Confederación Colombiana de ONG (Ccong), states that the New Global Financial Pact must incorporate stronger and more meaningful engagement with civil society.

    “Civil society has an important role to play in ensuring the accountability and transparency of both government and private sector actors. Civil society can work closely with governments and the private sector to ensure the delivery of social and environmental needs in all investments, which includes respect of human rights”.

    Olivier Bruyeron, President of the French platform of CSOs Coordination SUD, equally emphasizes the importance of partnerships with the public and private sector, “CSOs hold valuable knowledge and expertise on international solidarity needed to construct sustainable global solutions and to link them with local development” adds Olivier Bruyeron.

    Marianne Buenaventura is project coordinator at Forus.

    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

  • Myanmar: Military Junta Gets a Free Pass

    Myanmar: Military Junta Gets a Free Pass

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Andrew Firmin (london)
    • Inter Press Service

    Even humanitarian aid is restricted. Recently the junta refused to allow in aid organisations trying to provide food, water and medicines to people left in desperate need by a devastating cyclone. It’s far from the first time it’s blocked aid.

    Crises like this demand an international response. But largely standing on the sidelines while this happens is the regional intergovernmental body, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Its recent summit, held in Indonesia in May, failed to produce any progress.

    ASEAN’s inaction

    ASEAN’s response to the coup was to issue a text, the Five-Point Consensus (5PC), in April 2021. This called for the immediate cessation of violence and constructive dialogue between all parties. ASEAN agreed to provide humanitarian help, appoint a special envoy and visit Myanmar to meet with all parties.

    Civil society criticised this agreement because it recognised the role of the junta and failed to make any mention of the need to restore democracy. And the unmitigated violence and human rights violations are the clearest possible sign that the 5PC isn’t working – but ASEAN sticks to it. At its May summit, ASEAN states reiterated their support for the plan.

    A major challenge is that most ASEAN states have no interest in democracy. All 10 have heavily restricted civic space. As well as Myanmar, civic space is closed in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam.

    It wouldn’t suit such states to have a thriving democracy on their doorstep, which could only bring greater domestic and international pressure to follow suit. States that repress human rights at home typically carry the same approach into international organisations, working to limit their ability to uphold human rights commitments and scrutinise violations.

    Continuing emphasis on the 5PC hasn’t masked divisions among ASEAN states. Some appear to think they can engage with the junta and at least persuade it to moderate its violence – although reality makes this increasingly untenable. But others, particularly Cambodia – a one-party state led by the same prime minister since 1998 – seem intent on legitimising the junta.

    Variable pressure has come from ASEAN’s chair, which rotates annually and appoints the special envoy. Under the last two, Brunei Darussalam – a sultanate that last held an election in 1965 – and Cambodia, little happened. Brunei never visited the country after being refused permission to meet with democratic leaders, while Cambodia’s prime minister, Hun Sen, visited Myanmar last year. The first post-coup visit to Myanmar by a head of government, this could only be construed as conferring legitimacy.

    Indonesia, the current chair, hasn’t appointed a special envoy, instead setting up an office headed by the foreign minister. So far it appears to be taking a soft approach of quiet diplomacy rather than public action.

    Thailand, currently led by a pro-military government, is also evidently happy to engage with the junta. While junta representatives remain banned from ASEAN summits, Thailand has broken ranks and invited ASEAN foreign ministers, including from Myanmar, to hold talks about reintegrating the junta’s leaders. A government that itself came to power through a coup but should now step aside after an election where it was thoroughly defeated looks to be attempting to bolster the legitimacy of military rule.

    ASEAN states seem unable to move beyond the 5PC even as they undermine it. But the fact that they’re formally sticking with it enables the wider international community to stand back, on the basis of respecting regional leadership and the 5PC.

    The UN Security Council finally adopted a resolution on Myanmar in December 2022. This called for an immediate end to the violence, the release of all political prisoners and unhindered humanitarian access. But its language didn’t go far enough in condemning systematic human rights violations and continued to emphasise the 5PC. It failed to impose sanctions such as an arms embargo or to refer Myanmar to the International Criminal Court (ICC).

    Civil society in Myanmar and the region is urging ASEAN to go further. Many have joined together to develop a five-point agenda that goes beyond the 5PC. It calls for a strategy to end military violence through sanctions, an arms embargo and a referral of Myanmar to the ICC. It demands ASEAN engages beyond the junta, and particularly with democratic forces including the National Unity Government – the democratic government in exile. It urges a strengthening of the special envoy role and a pivoting of humanitarian aid to local responders rather than the junta. ASEAN needs to take this on board.

    A fork in the road

    ASEAN’s current plan is a recipe for continuing military violence, increasingly legitimised by its neighbours’ acceptance. Ceremonial elections could offer further fuel for this.

    The junta once promised to hold elections by August, but in February, on the coup’s second anniversary, it extended the state of emergency for another six months. If and when those elections finally happen, there’s no hope of them being free or fair. In March, the junta dissolved some 40 political parties, including the ousted ruling party, the National League for Democracy.

    The only purpose of any eventual fake election will be to give the junta a legitimising veneer to present as a sign of progress – and some ASEAN states may be prepared to buy this. This shouldn’t be allowed. ASEAN needs to listen to the voices of civil society calling for it to get its act together – and stick together – in holding the junta to account. If it doesn’t, it will keep failing not only Myanmar’s people, but all in the region who reasonably expect that fundamental human rights should be respected and those who kill, rape and torture should face justice.

    Andrew Firmin is CIVICUS Editor-in-Chief, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society 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 Rotenberg Files: A Guide on How Russian Oligarchs Dodge Sanctions

    The Rotenberg Files: A Guide on How Russian Oligarchs Dodge Sanctions

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Matti Kohonen (london)
    • Inter Press Service

    The “Rotenberg Files”, a mass leak of over 42,000 emails and documents, has showed how Russian oligarchs Boris and Arkady Rotenberg hid their assets and those of Vladimir Putin, using trusts and private equity investment funds, taking advantage of the lack of public beneficial ownership registries.

    Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and especially since 2022, sanctions on Russian oligarchs and legal entities linked to the Russian invasion of Ukraine include 12,900 designations against Russia. Some estimates say that Russian oligarch offshore wealth is over US$1 trillion, but sanctions so far have only frozen US$58 billion, due to difficulty in establishing ownership.

    Sanctions vary but have been mainly implemented by G7 countries and the European Union. Their effectiveness depends on setting up beneficial ownership registries that cover all possible legal vehicles, and the obligation to cross-check beneficial owners against sanctions regimes by a wide variety of professional enablers for due diligence purposes.

    This has largely not happened. Despite progress in establishing centralised beneficial ownership registries, a commitment made by nearly 100 countries, very few of them are open to public access and are ridden with loopholes. In reality, global South countries are now leading the way in establishing effective BO registries after the European Court of Justice ended public access to EU-wide BO registries in November 2022.

    This has allowed trusts to become the legal vehicle of choice by Russian oligarchs to hide their wealth. They are also very hard to detect as the presence of a trust deed can be kept at a lawyer’s office if there is no requirement to register the trust in a beneficial ownership registry. Many BO registries do require declaring trusts, but there are loopholes that allow for setting up trusts in jurisdictions that do not require registration of trusts or have loopholes regarding thresholds or exemptions. Only 65 countries require some form of registration of trusts.

    Eight of the 18 BVI companies mentioned in the Rotenberg leaks were ultimately dissolved, and two relocated to Cyprus. This implies that Cyprus has become a key location to use trusts and other instruments to conceal ownership. As a European Union member, Cyprus was obliged to create a central register of beneficial ownership in line with the EU’s fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive. Trusts based in Cyprus do come under this requirement, but the Rotenbergs used a loophole in the BO laws to conceal ultimate ownership that goes around the existing EU 5th Anti-Money Laundering Directive.

    They effectively created a complex ownership structure around different entities in order to be below the trigger points for reporting beneficial ownership (in most cases 25 percent of control), yet still retaining control through power through potential voting coalitions in the complex structure that were concealed elsewhere. The structure used by the Rotenbergs involved a US entity that is owned by entities elsewhere, including Italy, the UK, Luxembourg, Cyprus, Bahamas (four entities), the British Virgin Islands and Cayman Islands,

    Along with trusts, private equity firms have been revealed as another preferred vehicle to dodge sanctions. Investment vehicles called “closed mutual funds,” in Russian abbreviated as “ZPIFs,” held these assets. They are not considered legal entities under Russian law, and thus are not under obligations to reveal their shareholders to the authorities. The leaked files show that 13 ZPIFs were linked to the Rotenbergs.

    To evade questions about the true nature of the beneficial owners, the leaked files show that “there is a practice where the General Director of the Management Company is recognized as the ultimate beneficiary”. The ZPIF’s invested in Russian companies, Monaco real estate, and other assets where beneficial ownership checks do not take place. Companies where they owned minority stakes could do business relatively normally.

    Private equity and mutual funds are a global concern. According to a recent report, “Private Investments, Public Harm”, there are nearly 13,000 investment advisers in an $11 trillion industry with little or no anti-money laundering due diligence responsibilities in the USA, with the real possibility that sanctioned oligarchs use such vehicles to conceal their ownership. The US Enablers Act seeks to remove the exemption from due diligence checks from investment managers but the bill did not pass last December.

    Art is another way to conceal ownership, as art dealers are not under any reporting requirements for money laundering purposes. A July 2020 report by a U.S. Senate subcommittee detailed an elaborate scheme in which the Rotenberg brothers spent more than US$18 million on art purchases in the months after they were sanctioned by the U.S. in March 2014. They acquired several artworks, including a US$7.5 million René Magritte, through a web of offshore companies based in Cyprus and the British Virgin Islands.

    The tools to hide wealth used by Russian oligarchs to evade sanctions are exactly the same than the ones used by those behind natural resource crimes such as illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing, or indeed wealthy billionaires abusing laws to pay less than what they should in taxes. One cannot create a regime to just catch Russian billionaires. An overhaul of ownership transparency, from companies and trusts to art, vessels, aircraft and among other asset classes, including private equity and hedge funds, is required. Otherwise Russian oligarchs and kleptocrats around the world will continue dodging controls, keeping their shady money safely hidden.

    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

  • Addressing the Scandal of Invisibility in Asia & the Pacific

    Addressing the Scandal of Invisibility in Asia & the Pacific

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Tanja Sejersen – Nicola Richards – Victoria Fan (bangkok, thailand)
    • Inter Press Service

    These people often face challenges in accessing basic services, such as education and healthcare, in securing employment and social benefits, and in protecting their human rights. In addition, deficient civil registration and vital statistics (CRVS) systems lead to significant gaps and lags in up-to-date population and health data, crucial for designing and monitoring effective public policies and allocating resources.

    Recognizing its importance, countries reached agreement on the Asia Pacific CRVS Decade in 2014 and set out a vision to achieve universal civil registration in the region by 2024. An applied CRVS research agenda was launched to help meet this this challenge.

    Applied research on CRVS helps to generate and disseminate evidence on what strategies work, and what doesn’t, as well as how governments and partners can improve systems to better deliver on commitments to get everyone in the picture.

    By documenting experiences in communities, countries and regions, the potential benefits of successful interventions and innovations can be replicated and possible shortcomings addressed.

    Given the importance of applied research for improving CRVS, ESCAP organised the first ever Asia-Pacific CRVS Research Forum on 3-4 April 2023. With more than 30 speakers representing 15 countries, 24 research papers and almost 400 registered participants, the forum revealed many interesting facets of CRVS while opening eyes to the multitude of initiatives to ensure better and more inclusive systems across the region.

    Many presentations emphasized how different initiatives are making real-life impacts on individuals and communities. There was a clear emphasis on community engagement, equity and ‘reaching the hardest to reach’, such as integrating gender-equity in CRVS legal reviews, addressing barriers to civil registration for hard-to-reach populations in Pakistan and gender disparities in premature mortality in the Philippines.

    On-the-ground innovations were on display: a first-of-its-kind CRVS survey in Nepal that worked with both service providers and communities to understand barriers and enablers to registration; evidence from Fiji on the clear effectiveness of incentives on birth registration completeness; and the development of customized mortality audit and inquest systems in Thailand and Sri Lanka to improve the quality of cause of death data.

    Much more work is needed to drive CRVS systems forward in the face of increasing challenges, with research playing a key role. In particular, the forum identified a stronger focus on building inclusive and resilient CRVS systems, including in conflict and humanitarian settings where there is both an acute need for civil registration along with increased difficulties in providing services.

    As countries around the world adjust to competing government priorities during times of economic and social challenges, there is a critical need to maintain momentum on strengthening CRVS systems as the basis for realising human rights and ensuring access to basic social services including health and education.

    Further, CRVS systems are essential for generating timely mortality data whose importance for pandemic preparedness and response has been recently emphasized. As demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic, research is central to ensure continued innovation and improvement, and to provide opportunities to reflect and learn.

    We hope in the future to develop this work further to embed and develop critical applied research capacity within countries and at the implementation level – to ensure we can really get everyone in the picture.

    Tanja Sejersen is a Statistician; Nicola Richards is Consultant, ESCAP; Victoria Fan is Senior Fellow, Center for Global Development.

    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