Spend More On education, Less On Weapons

                      This post is a summary of three articles. The first with the incomplete title above was published in December 2021 at https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/pope-francis-2022-peace-message-spend-more-education-less-weapons. The second was published in December 2021 at  https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/pope-francis-2022-peace-message-spend-more-education-less-weapons. The third was published in April 2021 at  https://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2021/world-military-spending-rises-almost-2-trillion-2020 

                     Pope Francis urged global leaders to spend more money on education and devote fewer resources to weapons in his 2022 World Day of Peace message. "It is high time, then, that governments develop economic policies aimed at inverting the proportion of public funds spent on education and on weaponry," the pope writes in a message released on December 17th. "The pursuit of a process of international disarmament can only prove beneficial for the development of peoples and nations, freeing up financial resources better used for healthcare, schools, and so forth," he continued. In his introduction to the three-page text, the pope laments that despite efforts aimed at fostering the conditions for peace, "the deafening noise of war and conflict is intensifying. The pope continues by offering a grim assessment of the state of world affairs. "Diseases of pandemic proportions are spreading, the effects of climate change and environment degradation are worsening, the tragedy of hunger is increasing, and an economic model based on individualism rather than on solidary sharing continues to prevail," he writes. Francis goes on to argue that education must be viewed as an investment, rather than an expenditure, which he says is vital for promoting integral human development. Such investment, the pope says, "make individuals more free and responsible, and they are essential for the defense and promotion of peace." Greater educational training, he continues, will help facilitate more dignified employment opportunities in the labor market, which he says will also help counter the rise of violence and crime around the globe.                                                                                                                                         Teaching and education are the foundations of a cohesive civil society capable of generating hope, prosperity and progress. Military expenditures, on the other hand, have increased beyond the levels at the end of the cold war and they seem certain to grow. It is my hope that investment in education will also be accompanied by greater efforts to promote the culture of care, which, in the face of social divisions and unresponsive institutions, could become a common language working to break down barriers and build bridges. The Covid-19 pandemic has negatively affected the labour market, which was already facing multiple challenges. In a particular way, the impact of the crisis on the informal economy, which often involves migrant workers, has been devastating. Many of the latter are not even recognized by national legislation. Currently only one third of the world's population of working age enjoys a system of social protection. The answer to this is an expansion of dignified employment opportunities. In light of this, there is a need to promote, welcome and support initiatives that, on all levels, urge companies to respect human rights, raising awareness not only on the part of institutions, but also among consumers. Here, politics is called to play an active role by promoting a fair balance between economic freedom and justice. As we seek to combine our efforts in order to emerge from the pandemic, I renew my thanks to all those who continue to work with generosity in the areas of education, safety and protection of rights.                                                                                                 Total global military expenditure increased 2.6% from 2019, according to new data published by Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). The five biggest spenders in 2020, which together accounted for 62% of global military expenditure, were the U.S., China, India, Russia and the U.K. Military spending by China grew for the 26th consecutive year. "We can say with some certainty that the pandemic did not have a significant impact on global military in 2020. It remains to be seen whether countries will maintain this level of military spending through a second year of the pandemic." Said Diego Lopes, Researcher with the SIPRI. In 2020 U.S. military expenditure reached an estimated $778 billion, representing an increase of 4.4% over 2019. As the world's largest military spender, the U.S. accounted for 39% of total military spending. China's military expenditure, the second highest in the world, is estimated to have totalled $252 billion in 2020. This represents an increase of 76% over the decade 2011-20. Nearly all members of the NATO saw their military burden rise in 2020. France, for example, the 8th biggest spender globally, passed the 2% of its GDP on its military for the first time since 2009. The U.K. became the 5th largest spender in 2020. The U.K.'s military spending was 2.9% higher than in 2019. Germany increased its spending by 5.2% in 2020, making it the 7th largest spender in 2020. Military expenditure in South America fell by 2.1% to $43.5 billion in 2020. The decrease was largely due to a 3.1% drop in spending by Brazil, the South America's largest military spender.

Human Rights Day - 2021

                 This post is a summary of four articles. The first was published at   https://www.un.org/en/observances/human-rights-day. The second was published at https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/rest-of-the-world-news/human-rights-day-2021-date-theme-significance-famous-quotes-and-all-you-need-to-know.html. The third was published at https://www.ninodelacaridad.com/why-should-we-celebrate-human-rights-day/. The fourth was published at https://humanrightshouse.org/we-stand-for/human-rights-defenders    

                                              This year'sHuman Rights Day theme relates to 'Equality' and Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights (UDHR) - "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." The principles of equality and non-discrimination are at the heart of human rights. Equality is aligned with the 2030 agenda and with the U.N. approach set out in the document. This includes addressing and finding solutions for deep-rooted forms of discrimination that have affected the most vulnerable people in societies. Pervasive inequalities and discrimination are human rights violations and among the greatest global challenges of our time. Addressing them effectively requires measures grounded in human rights, renewed political commitment and participation of all, especially those most affected. We need a new social contract which more fairly shares power and opportunities and sets the foundations of a sustainable human rights-based economy. Human rights have the power to tackle the root causes of conflict and crisis, by addressing grievances, eliminating inequalities and exclusion and allowing people to participate in decision-making that affect their lives. Societies that protect and promote human rights for everyone are more resilient societies and better equipped to weather crises.                                                                                                                                                                                  Every year across the world, Human Rights Day is observed on December 10 to increase awareness about the fact that every person on the planet has fundamental rights. The day is marked to promote the individuals rights. Amid the COVID pandemic crisis, Human Rights Day has become significantly important to urge for erradication of exacerbated poverty, increased inequality, and other societal evils. The U.N. also encourages governments throughout the world to establish equal opportunity for all individuals on this day and to protect their rights. The humanitarian agencies also have the authority to investigate and offer suggestions in cases of human rights breaches. "human rights are not privileged conferred by the government. They are human being's entitled by virtue of their humanity,"  said Mother Teresa.                                                                                                                                                                          Human Rights Day is celebrated every year on December 10th, it was established in 1948, as a way to commemorate that we need to continue striving towards making sure that everyone across the globe is granted fundamental human rights. Now you may be wondering how you can celebrate this day, as it isn't one that we can celebrate in a traditional way. Despite this inability to celebrate it like a normal holiday, there are many ways that we can celebrate this day, such as acknowledge the rights that we have in our country that others may not have, looking at the work that charitable organizations do in our community to help better the lives of others. The next thing that we can do to help celebrate this day is help to make a change. Get involved in a movement, whether it be something small in your community or something larger like participating in a protest for something you care about. Nothing we do on this day has to be large and impacting the entire world, but everything we do has an impact on the world around us, and everything help to promote the celebration on this day.                                                                                                                                                                                                            Human rights defenders work to improve societies and contribute to peace and democracy. They are agents for positive change and development. They are key in protecting against human rights violations. Anyone, regardless of their occupation, can be a human rights defender, they are identified primarily by what they do rather than by their profession. Some human rights defenders are professional, lawyers working on human rights cases, journalists or media workers, etc. Other human rights defenders are not earning revenue from their work in favour of human rights. "I deeply admire the courage and sacrifice of human rights defenders. These individuals and organisations are our eyes and ears and conscience," said U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres. Threats, intimidation, attacks, and restrictions against human rights defenders are increasing in many parts of the world. The context is that while the situation has deteriorated for defenders, international standards have been strengthened in recent years. The U.N. adopted, by consensus, a 2017 resolution aimed at celebrating the essential role and work of human rights defenders. These trends are of course connected: The more threats and restrictions, the greater the need for a response from the international community. 

50th Birthday of Julian Assange

                   A little more than 5 months ago, precisely on July 3rd, the founder of Wikileaks completed 50 years-old. This post is a tribute to him. Unfortunately this week we had a bad news about him, he can be extradite to U.S. I am his fan since 2010. Like me, he did an activism for transparency for governments and privacy for individuals. In May 2011, I put in this blog an interview he gave to a Brazilian magazine, you can read it here  https://thepeopleteacher.blogspot.com/2011/10/jump-to-democracy.html. We all have to fight against his prison. His crime was to publish at Wikileaks serious violations of human rights, and corruption evidences, something that we all should do. Instead of prison, he deserves a compensation for his unfair incarceration. This post is a summary of the article published at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange

                    Julian Paul Assange is an Australian editor, publisher and activist who founded Wikileaks in 2006. Wikileaks came to international attention in 2010 when it published a series of leaks provided by U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning. These leaks included the Baghdad airstrike collateral murder video (April 2010), the Afghanistan war logs (July 2010), etc. After the 2010 leaks, the U.S. government launched a criminal investigation into Wikileaks. In November 2010, Sweden issued an international arrest warrant for Assange over allegations of sexual misconduct. Assange said the allegationswere a pretext for his extradition from Sweden to the U.S. over his role in the publication of secret American documents. He took refuge in the Embassy of Ecuador in London in June 2012. Swedish prosecutors dropped their investigations in 2019. During the 2016 U.S. election campaign, Wikileaks published confidential Democratic Party emails, showing that the party's national committee favoured Hillary Clinton over her rival Bernie Sanders in the primaries. In April 2019, Assange's asylum was withdrawn following a series of disputes with the Ecuadorian authorities. He was found guilty of breaching the Bail Act and sentenced to 50 weeks in prison. The U.S. government unsealed an indictment against Assange, related to the leaks provided by Manning. Editors from newspapers, including The Washington Post and The New York Times, as well as press freedom organisations, criticised the government's decision, characterising it as an attack on the freedom of the press. On December 2021 Britain's court of Appeal ruled that Assange can be extradited to the U.S. to face the charges. Assange has been confined in Belmarsh prison in London since April 2019. Julian Assange was born in Townsville, Queensland, to Christine Ann Hawkins and John Shipton, a builder. The couple separated before he was born. When he was a year old, his mother married Brett Assange, an actor with whom she ran a small theatre company and whom Julian regards as his father. By the time he reached his mid-teens, he with his mother and a half-brother settled in Melbourne. In 1987, aged 16, Assange began hacking under the name "Mendax". In September 1991, Assange was discovered hacking into the Melbourne terminal of Nortel, a Canadian telecommunications corporation. In December 1996, he pleaded guilty to 24 charges and he was ordered to pay reparations and was released on a good behaviour bond. Assange studied programming, mathematics and physics at University of Melbourne, but did not complete a degree. In 1993, Assange used his computing skills to help the Victoria Police to prosecute individuals responsible for publishing and distributing child pornography. In 1996, he moderated the AUCRYPTO forum, a website "giving advice on computer security" that had 5,000 subscribers. In 1998, he co-founded the company Earthmen Technology. Assange registered the domain Leaks.org in 1999, but didn't do anything with it. He published a patent granted to the N.S.A. in August 1999, for voice-data harvesting technology: "This patent should worry people. Everyone's overseas phone calls are or may soon be tapped, transcribed and archived in the bowels of an unaccountable foreign spy agency." he said. Assange and others established Wikileaks in 2006. From 2007 to 2010 Wikileaks published internet censorship lists, classified media from anonymous sources. These including revelations about drone strikes in Yemen, corruption across the Arab world, extrajudicial executions by Kenyan police, 2008 Tibetan unrest in China, and the Petrogate oil scandal in Peru. The material Wikileaks published between 2006 and 2009 attracted various degrees of international attention, but after it began publishing documents supplied by U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, Wikileaks became a household name. Also Wikileaks published a quarter of a million U.S. diplomatic cables, known as the "Cablegate" files, in November 2010. The files showed U.S. espionage against U.N. and other world leaders, and exposed corruption in countries throughout the world as documented by U.S. diplomats. Since his arrest in April 2019 in London, after examining Assange, Nils Melzer, from U.N. concluded that  "in addition to physical ailments, Assange showed all symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture, including extreme stress, chronic anxiety and intense psychological trauma. In a later interview, Melzer criticised the termination by Ecuador Assange's asylum status and citizenship without any form of due process and he said that the U.S. and U.K. were trying to make an example of Assange. He also accused some journalists of "spreading abusive and distorted narratives." In September 2020, an open letter in support of Assange was sent to Boris Johnson with the signatures of two current heads of state and approximately 160 other politicians. The following month, U.S. Representatives Tulsi Gabbard and Thomas Massie, introduced a resolution opposing the extradition of Assange. In December 2020, German human rights commissioner Barbel Kofler cautioned the U.K. about the need to consider Assange's psysical and mental health before deciding to extradite him. In July 2016, artist and activist Ai Weiwei, musicians Patti smith, Brian Eno, and PJ Harley, scholars Noam Chomsky and Yanis Varoufakis and filmmaker Ken Loach were amongst those attending an event in support of Assange. In January 2021, Australian journalist John Pilger stated that were Assange to be extradited "no journalist who challenge power will be safe."

Policy Priorities to Overcome the Middle-Income Trap in Latin America

            This post is a summary of the book published in September 2017 with the incomplete title above at  https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/development/no-sympathy-for-the-devil_26b78724-en#page2. The second was published at  https://www.periodicos.unimontes.br/index.php/economiaepoliticaspublicas/article/view/4063/3973

             The middle-income trap, whereby GDP growth slows down once a country approaches an intermediate level of development, is particularly persistent in Latin America. Latin American countries have been unable to reduce significantly the income gap with advanced economies and reach high-income status. The few regional exceptions are Chile and Uruguay. This paper joins a crucial debate on development and policy prioritisation. What is holding back some countries which have been middle-income since the 1950s: weak productivity, high inequality, bad governance? A challenging aspect of growth in emerging markets has been the lack of progress in productivity. The economic literature links the prevalence of growth slowdowns to the difficult of adjusting the economy to the sources of growth that become more important after reaching middle-income levels. Growth in low-income countries arises essentially through labour reallocation from low- to high-productivity activities. On the other hand, arriving at middle-income levels usually requires new engines of economic growth. Economies that are successful in transitioning to these activities have a set of requirements: large pool of skilled labour, favourables rates of investment, a system of national innovation and a macroeconomic and institutional environment conducive to entrepreneurial activity, that are not easy to achieve, much less to co-ordinate. The empirical literature on development coined in the mid-2000s the term "middle-income trap", as developing economies struggle to adjust to new sources of growth after reaching middle-income levels. This "trap" represents a challenging scenario for Latin America. Our results show that countries interested in reaching the high-income range should focus on the following areas: governance (rule of law and political stability), education (quality of secondary education and tertiary education attainment), investment, capabilities, finance (liquidity in the stock market and domestic credit) and taxation.                                                                                                                                                                       A country falls into the middle-income trap by raising its per capita income ( and their labor costs) without, however, increasing proportionally its productivity. When it reaches this stage, production costs become high to compete with low-income countries in markets of intensive hand labor. On the other hand, it does not organize its supply side based on productivity gains, higher added value and higher technological content to compete with more developed countries. Squeezed between these two poles, the economy in question is threatened by stagnation or regression in its level of industrialization. For a poor country to reach the middle-income level is relatively easier than jumping on the stage of middle-income to high-income. To achieve a higher level of income this country should incorporate new skills in its work force, which requires a higher level of qualification, better infrastructure and social cohesion around a national development project. Looking at the experience of countries that have fallen into the trap of middle-income, it appears that Latin America is the region in which this phenomenon manifests itself most dramatically. The lack of competitiveness of the Brazilian economy is not the work of a government, it is a reflection of the structural problems. The poor quality of Brazilian education, it is not only related to lack of investment, which does not cease to be true, but a culture that was created in the midst of unsophisticated production processes, such as large-scale tropical agriculture. Brazil has a percentage well below the OECD average in terms of the amount of people with higher education. The absence of Brazilian companies in segments of greater technological complexity. It is clear that more effort in science and tech education can mean an improvement in the levels of productivity of a country. However, when the effort of management training does not occur simultaneously to a planned development process, the economy tends to waste their human resources. Spending on R&D in Brazil are only 1% of GDP, against 4.4% in Israel, 3.7% in South Korea, 3.6% in Japan and 2.7% in the U.S.A. By now, only 12% of the population between 25 and 34 have a university degree, compared with 63% in Korea, 56% in Japan and 40% in the U.S.A. The percentage of engineers in the total of graduates is only 4%, compared to 23% in Korea. Most public schools in Brazil are poorly equipped and require investments to receive students on a full-time basis. Only 0.6% has science lab and 15% have library and I.T. classroom. Another problem that hampers the competitiveness of Brazilian enterprises is the tax system. The Brazilian tax system is one of the most complicated in the world. A company in Brazil spends on average 2.600 hours per year with tax red tape, against 243 in India and 318 in China. It is not easy to a country become a rich nation. It is difficult to overcome the middle-income trap without great efforts. We can change the future but it is impossible to get rid of the past. To make matters worse the national elites have never had a clear project of independent development of the country, behaving almost always as minority partners from outside interests. To overcome the middle-income trap is necessary a strong industry that produces manufactured innovative products with higher added value, demand better educated workers, and creates better jobs in the industry.     

Brazil's Lost Decade - Part II

               The last decade 2011-2020 was not easy to the Brazilian people. Governments after governments in Brasilia only gave us disappointment. We all Brazilians must fight for a better country because this country has everything to become a prosperous place: one of the largest area of cultivable land of the world, one of the largest potential of renewable energy of the world, one of the 5 biggest  world's productors of: iron ore, niobium, manganese, tantalum, tin, bauxite, one of the most peaceful relationships with others nations of the world (no need to spend money in arms), one of the largest tax revenue of the world (around 33% of GDP, the government has money to spend), the tenth-largest oil-producing country in the world. So, we all should agree that what Brazil need is more investment in education and in projects that can release its potential of development. We know it is not easy to overcome the middle income trap, but we can't accept low GDP growth and Brazil stuck decades in this social and economic situation. This post is a summary of four artcles. The first article was published in May 2017 at file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/ANDRE-NASSIF-BRAZILIAN-KEYNESIAN-REVIEW-3-1-1st-SEMESTER-2017.pdf. The second was published at     https://www.bloombergquint.com/politics/brazil-risks-a-lost-decade-without-fiscal-reforms-oecd-says. The third was published at https://blogs.iadb.org/ideas-matter/en/another-lost-decade-for-latin-america-and-the-caribbean/. The fourth was published at   https://www.scielo.br/j/rep/a/bdcXKRCLxyR54pRRkQsXjNs/?lang=en

               The Brazilian economic recession was considered the deepest in Brazil's economic history. Between 2015 and 2016, Brazil accumulated a contraction of 7.5% in its real GDP, representing a dramatic accumulated fall in its per capita income of 9.2% in just these two years. It is not surprising that such an economic downturn has severely worsened social indicators in Brazil. The roots of the current Brazilian crisis are associated with both structural and shor-term causes. The main structural cause is related to the premature deindustrialization of the Brazilian economy, from 2005 to 2016, the share of the manufacturing sector in total GDP was reduced from 15.3% to 9.8%. Most brazilians economists agree with the importance of a long-term fiscal adjustment, believing it to be an important instrument not only for restoring confidence, but also for augmenting the room to maneuver so that Brazil's Central Bank can bring high real interest rates to lower levels compatible with international standards. The main pressure on the increase in public sector gross debt in Brazil after 2015 has been coming from the jump in interest rates payments. In an environment of recession, the best option to quickly reduce unemployment rates as well as reactivate private aggregate demand would have been an increase of public investment in infrastructure.                                                                                                                                                                                          With debt levels soaring following the government's pandemic-driven aid package, sustained growth hinges on fiscal adjustments and compliance with public expenditure rules, the OECD warned in an economic survey of Brazil.  Speaking from Paris, OECD Secretary General Angel Gurria, cautioned that the challenge ahead was "spending better, rather than spending more." President Jair Bolsonaro's economic stimulus program is widely credited for saving Brazil from a deeper recession and driving poverty down while the coronavirus raged. But pushed public debt to over 94% of GDP, has left markets on edge as the leader has tried to extend part of the aid. The OECD cited concerns with productivity, efficiency in spending, corruption and rising inequality. The report also called on Brazil to increase efforts to combat deforestation. "Many of Brazil's institutional and policy settings were made for a world that is very different from the challenges of today," the report said.                                                                                                                                   The Covid-19 pandemic has unleashed a health and economic crisis. Countries are providing exceptional support to families and firms. Debt ratios are rising. Getting fiscal policy right and maintaining financial stability will be key to ensuring a return to growth. Indeed, most countries are caught between the objectives of providing relief and maintaining economic recovery, and the need to adjust to halt the rise in debt due to exceptional spending and a fall in revenues. A V-shaped recovery would help, reversing revenue losses. The next years are going to be challenging as countries seek to boost growth and maintain fiscal sustainability. The risks are very real. The war against the virus is not yet won. Getting the fiscal policies right and maintain financial stability will be critical for a health recovery.                                                                                                                                                                               The Brazilian economy has shown low resilience to grow since the 2015-2016 recession. The cumulative decline in the biennium is far from being offset by the 1.1% growth rate observed in 2017 and in 2018. Besides, these disapponting results have a direct impact on the labor market. The year 2018 registered more than 12 million unemployed in the country with increasing precariousness in the creation of new jobs. In this paper, we will argue that in order to understand the difficulty of the recovery of the Brazilian economy one must take into account the process of premature deindustrialization observed in the 1990s and 2000s. The loss of importance of the manufacturing sector in the productive structure has important implications for the economy's aggregate productivity performance, because it limit the positive spillovers of productivity gains from the manufacturing industry throughout the economy. In the absence of these sustained gains, long-term growth is jeopardized. 

Brazil's Lost Decade

                      This post is a summary of the article with the incomplete title above published in August of 2021   https://www.jacobinmag.com/2021/08/brazil-lost-decade-economy-capitalism-neoliberalism-far-right-politics. The second was published in July 2020 at   https://atalayar.com/en/content/brazil-heading-lost-decade. The third was published in May 2019 at  https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48386415

                    In Brazil's worst decade in more than a century, unemployment, precarious and informal work, poverty, and inequality are all on the rise. A recent issue of the Economist magazine dedicated a long special feature to Brazil's economy and it termed its "dismal" performance over last decade. Among the root causes of the country's current predicament, the article argued, was the recent governments' inability to enact adequate neoliberal reform. The diagnosis from a magazine known as a champion of free-market liberalism, is by no means surprising, but does the analysis hold under scrutiny? While, indeed, the last decade in Brazil has seen tragic economic decline, this is by no means due to a lack of neoliberal orthodoxy. The last ten years should be seen as another "lost decade" for the country, the first having occurred in the 1980s. Over the course of the last decade alone, Brazil has experienced two recessions, one from 2014 to 2016, and another beginning in 2020. Between 2011 and 2020, Brazil's GDP grew by an average of just 0.27% a year. Data from 2020 shows that the country's GDP is 6.4% lower than it was in 2014 and its GDP per capita has decreased by 10.8 % in the same period. Brazil is significantly poorer than it was ten years ago. Brazil is de-industrializing at a rapid rate. At its peak in 1985, manufacturing accounted for 36% of GDP. After the blows of the past decade, industrial production is 12.4% lower than it was in 2011. As of 2020, only 11.3% of GDP is derived from the manufacturing sector. The proportion of high and medium-high tech in Brazil's industrial exports has also regressed from 43% in 2000 to only 32% in 2019, the lowest point since 1995. By contrast, exports in general have doubled since 2000, with China as the main buyer. For the most part, it is "agribusiness" that accounts for these exports. Technologically advanced, agribusiness has meant a massive spike in migration from rural to urban areas. Data shows that underemployment has leaped from 14.9% in 2014 to 28.7% in 2020. All this is occurring at a time when Brazil's wealthy are growing richer. Between 2010 and 2019, the annual profits of the four major banks combined more than doubled, jumping from 38.91 to 81.51 billion reais. In the context of such a debilitated economy, progressives in Brazil are in search of a solution. Developmentalists make the case for the "return of the state"; that is, a return of the state's capacity to intervene forcefully in the economy. But despite the good intentions, this argument is often based on diagnoses that understimate some of the deeper causes of the economic situation. Developmentalists of all stripes cab be prone to paying insufficient attention to the structural problems of Brazil's economy: its subordinate position in the international division of labor and production, its chronic shortage of public and private investments, its stagnant productivity and low-skilled labor force.                                                                                                                                                           Brazil, the giant with a bright future that never arrives, will close in 2020 the worst decade in more than a century, after spending seven years trapped in a maze of political and economic crises currently aggravated by the pandemic. The South America giant will have its second "lost decade" in the last 40 years, after that of 1981-1990, despite having huge hydrocarbon reserves and having one of the most thriving agricultural sectors on the planet. A t the beginning of the decade, Brazil, then governed by Lula, aspired to become a world power. Like other emerging countries, the country hardly felt the global crisis of 2008, its economy adavanced by 7.5% in 2010 thanks to the boom in raw materials. Between 2011 and 2013 growth was more moderate, with a real average rate of 3% per year, but in 2014, the economy began to show signs of weakness. The economic meltdown came in 2015 and 2016, when GDP collapsed by 7%, while in the following three years the recovery has been slow and gradual, with growth of about 1% per year. The world, meanwhile, grew between 2011 and 2020 an annual average of nearly 3% thanks to the emerging economies, led by China. Latin America will close 2020 with a average growth rate of 0.4% over the period. "The weak performance of Latin America is linked to the poor performance of Brazil, whose weight in the region's economy has been 34.5% in the decade", said the economist Marcel Balassiano from FGV.                                                                                                                                      In the previous decade, Brazil was lauded, along with India and China, as one of the emerging economies with fast rates of growth that would surpass developed economies by 2050. The economic performance of this decade, however, suggest Brazil does not belong in that league. A crippling two-year recession in 2015 and 2016 saw the country's economy contract by almost 7%. Economic recovery has been sluggish. In 2017 and 2018, the economy grew at a meage pace of 1.1% a year. And there is still more bad news: Brazilian workers are the ones paying the prices. The number of unemployed people has increased from 7.6 million in 2012 to 13.4 million this year. The official unemployment survey shows that 28.3 million people are underutilised, which means they are either not working or working less than they could. Wages are barely keeping up with inflation. Since the beginning of Brazil's recession in 2015, prices have gone up by 25%. So why is Brazil in such a mess in the first place? The main consensus among market analysts, is that the country started spending too much money around 2013. Since then, one of the main thermometers of Brazil's economy has been the fiscal deficit. During the boom years, Brazil had a debt which was 51% the size of its economy. The growing fiscal deficit raised the debt level to 77.1%. The government says that if nothing is done, the country's debt will be the size of its entire economy by 2023.

Democracy and Human Rights: A Pathway to Peace and Development

                                 This post is a summary of the book with the title above published at https://um.fi/documents/35732/48132/democracy_and_human_rights_a_pathway_to_peace_and_development.pdf/0b5b0d3a-a251-92a7-8113-14ca88603d01?t=1560450252015. And an article published at  https://www.weduglobal.org/wcontent/uploads/2016/02/SUU_KYI_CULTURE_OF_PEACE_AS08.pdf

                       The most important and best known document which concerns human rights is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948. The declaration has led to the conclusion of a host of international human rights agreements. Its core message is that human rights are inherent to all people and neither the state nor any other can take them away from an individual. The UDHR covers the principal human rights: the civil and political rights and so-called economic, cultural and social rights. Civil rights safeguard all persons their personal sphere of freedom, in which the public authorities may not interfere. Political rights ensure individuals the right of participation in voluntary political and social activities. The principle of the universality and integral nature of human rights was confirmed in the Human Rights World Conference in Vienna in 1993. A number of countries treat their citizens unequally. Freedom of speech, for example, may be restricted or some are prevented from participating in elections. It is typical of undemocratic systems to suppress the activities of NGOs, to restrict the freedom of the press and to conduct unfair elections. It may thus be very hard to exercise one's power of influence in society. Democracy lays a foundation for social stability and equilibrium. Stable and peaceful conditions, for their part, consitute a prerequisite for economic growth and development. Free elections and other democratic ways of action do not, however, as such, guarantee an improving economy. For the developing countries to manage to break out of the poverty trap, more equitable world trade and support from rich nations are required. Elections represent a vital part of the democratisation process of a country. Fair and genuinely elections give citizens the chance to influence the future of their country and area of residence. In the developing countries. outside elections observers are often used to ensure fair elections. The U.N. and its special development agencies represent a significant channel of development cooperation assistance. The promotion of human rights and democracy plays a major role in the operation of the U.N. system. According to the U.N. Development Programme, U.N.D.P., respect for human rights and promotion of good governance are essentially instrumental to development. Respect for individuals' human rights is traditional practice of the E.U., and democracy is an integral part of their decision-making procedures. All framework agreements related to development cooperation made by the E.U. include a statement which requires compliance with the principles of democracy, human rights and good governance. Cooperation can be suspended in case of a grave infringiment of the principles of the statement. The E.U. can also influence the developing countries' human rights policies through trade policy measures, since it is possible to take human rights issues into account when customs relief is granted to the developing countries by the E.U. Such benefits can be cancelled on account of continuing and flagrant human rights violations.                                                                                                                               The question of empowerment is central to both culture and development. It decides who has the means of imposing on a nation or society their view of what constitutes culture and development and who determines what practical measures can be taken. The more totalitarian a system the more power will be concentrated in the hands of the ruling elite and the more culture and development will be used to serve narrow interests. Culture thus is dynamic and broad. But when it is bent to serve narrow interests it become static and its exclusive aspects come to the fore and it assumes coercive overtones. The "national culture" can become a bizarre graft of selected historical incidents and distorted values intended to justify the actions of those in power. Many authoritarian governments wish to appear in the forefront of modern progress but are reluctant to institute genuine change. It is precisely because of the cultural diversity of the world that it is necessary for different nations and peoples to agree on those basic human values which will act as a unifying factor. In fact the values that democracy and human rights seek to promote can be found in many cultures. Human  beings the world over need freedom and security that they may be able to realize their full potential. Support for the desirability of strong government and dictatorship can also be found in all cultures. The desire to dominate and the tendency to adulate the powerful are also common human traits arising out of a desire for security. A nation may choose a system that leaves the protection of the freedom and security of the many dependent on the inclinations of the empowered few; or it may choose institutions and practices that will suffucuently empower individuals and organizations to protect their own freedom and security. The choice will decide how far a nation will progress along the road to human development. Governments must find news ways of enabling their people to participate more in government and allow them much greater influence on the decisions that affect their lives. Unless this is done, the tide of people rising aspirations will inevitably clash with inflexible systems, leading to anarchy. A rapid democratic transition and a strengthening of the institutions of civil society are the only appropriate responses. The basic requirement of a genuine democracy is that the people should be empowered to be able to participate in the governance of their country. Without this democratic institutions will be but empty shells incapable of reflecting the aspirations of the people and unable to withstand the encroachment of authoritarianism.

Day of Fighting Injustice - 2021

                Two months ago, precisely on 23rd of August was celebrated in Brazil, the day of fighting injustice. We all must defend justice, because when there is some injustice happening for so long, a dangerous precedent can happen, destroying democracy, undermining rule of law and fundamental human rights. So, the public trust in our institutions is severely harmed. Besides, when there is not justice, the abuses tend to grow and spreading and affecting many more people. So if you have witnessed any violation of human rights, record it and help fight injustice. You should help to do justice, because if not you can be the next victim.  I have been fighting for justice, democracy and human rights for so many years and intend keep this work for more years ahead. I'll never give up to make Brazil a better country, more democratic, fairer, and where human rights are truly respected. The systematic violations, the impunity, the daily bullying in the mainstream media, the threats online and offline exist to do the victims give up to fight for their rights and reparations. Besides the violations, the systematic abuses, the daily humiliation and the impunity can have a dehumanizing effect in the population, trying us accept what can not be accepted, do not let this happen to you, the solidarity and the emphaty are the essence of the human beings. We all should recognize who have courage to defend our human rights including our political rights. Because always there are costs to do this, so help who is losing to defend your right.  This post is a summary of three articles. The first was published at https://www.hrc.org/news/we-are-stronger-together-fighting-injustice-takes-a-united-front. The second was published at https://www.scmp.com/yp/discover/your-voice/opinion/article/3059862/dont-underestimate-or-dismiss-power-social-media. The third was published at   https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2019/09/human-rights-in-age-of-social-media-big-data-and-ai

                Six inspiring Americans, each with their own unique story and reason to speak out, have combined their voices to create a united video message of hope. Gold Star father Khizr Khan, transgender Sarah McBride, dreamer Astrid Silva, "Mother of the Movement" Lucia McBath, disability rights activist Anastasia Somoza, and Karla Ortiz, the 12-year-old of undocumented parents who shared her fears of her family's separation and deportation. Their messages of courage and compassion in the face of adversity stood out. There is a need to remember their voices of resilience, and find strength in their calls for solidarity. "We are seeing difficult times that many of us never expected", said Silva. Nevertheless, Silva's desire to defend immigrant rights and join others fighting for equality eclipses her fears and desire to give up. Never be disheartened because the majority of Americans stand with us. The goodness and decency of America is many fold greater than hate and prejudice displayed by a few." said Khan. McBath echoes Khan's optimism despite the state of uncertainty faced by many groups fighting for their rights. As an anti-gun violence advocate and mother of Jordan Davis, the 17-year-old boy fatally shot simply for playing loud music, McBath gains strength through other gun violence survivors and thousands of fellow activists fighting against injustice. "I believe in the power of people to stand up for their freedoms, for justice and equal opportunities. Never forget how valuable you are in your own struggle." said McBath. McBath, like the other six other activists featured in the video, believes that no matter the cause, it is important for all those advocating for justice to unite and come together as one. "The fight for justice for all only happens when our sleeves are rolled up and hands extended to others that are needed to fortify the movement. We are stronger together." said McBath.                                                                                                                    Many people are critical of social media, but they should acknowledge the benefit it has brought to society. Social media can reach a large audience in a short period of time, for instance. Because of this, much unjust suffering around the world have been brought to light. In October 2017, reality star Kim Kardashian retweeted a post that detailed the story of Alice Marie Johnson, a woman sentenced to life in prison after she was convicted of drug trafficking. (many felt the sentence was far too harsh for the crime, considering she wasn't the leader of the operation, and it was her first offence.) She had spent more than 20 years behind bars by the time Kardashian had retweeted the post. In May 2018, Kardashian approached U.S. President Donald Trump to ask him to grant Alice clemency. This was granted in June 2018, and she was finally released. This case is indicative of the power of social media. Sceptics ought to have faith in our generation's ability to judge the information that is presented to them. Don't assume everything you read is real, and look for reputable sources before share a story. Others might argue that we should not try to interfere with the judicial system. The case of Alice Johnson became known because the justice system failed her. Professional advice was sought before Kardashian met Trump regarding Alice Johnson, whose case was reviewed thoroughly before clemency was granted. Social media is important in helping to uncover injustice. There are, however, many cases that have not had the attention they deserve. What, or who, determines which case gets brought to light? Buzzfeed News said that the British Home Office, which is responsible for immigration, security, law and order, often only fast track cases that attract negative publicity to authorities. How is that fair to people in similar situations who don't get any attention? Until the proper solution happens, we will have to rely on social media to fight, one case at a time. It might seem like a small step but it can bring giant changes to someone's life.                                                                                                                                                  In just a few years, digital tech have allowed faster mobilization in response to humanitarian crises, better documentation of crimes, and more accessible platforms for organizing peaceful demonstrations around the world. However, while social media and big data can be powerful tools for anticipating, analyzing, and responding to human rights concerns, these tech also pose unprecedented challenges. Social media has been weaponized to spread disinformation and promote and incite violence. And websites and apps are continuously collecting data on their users. Often without them being aware of it, or of how and where their personal information is being used or stored. "Human rights provides a basis for restraining the worst intrusions and violations of the digital world, and promoting its best," said U.N. Special Rapporteur on the protection of the right to freedom of expression and professor of law at the University of California in Irvine, David Kaye. He adds, "not in some kind of vague... sense of what human rights might be, but in the specifics of human rights law. Although Americans tend to think of rights as guaranteed by the constitution, international treaties bind countries around the world to uphold rights such as privacy, freedom of expression, and nondiscrimination. How do we get from holding states accountable to holding digital companies accountable? There is a huge space to work in this foundation of human rights thinking to make it relevant to the companies, to make it relevant to governments, who regulate companies." The proliferation of cell phones around the world has also empowered civil rights advocates to record and report instances of abuses and advocate for change. Despite the good that digital tech can bring to human rights work, they can interfere with this work as well. Governments and private surveillance comapnies hired by adversaries are employing digital tools and data collection to thwart human rights activists. We have a lot of hard work ahead to articulate in a compelling way how digital governance applies with respect to freedom of expression and right to privacy. It's going to be a cross-disciplinary and multi-stakeholder process.

Understand Corruption and How to Curb It

               This post is a summary of the book with the title above published in 2021 at   https://www.u4.no/publications/understanding-corruption-and-how-to-curb-it.pdf

               The cost of corruption greatly exceeds the sum of bribes paid, funds misappropriated, and taxes avoided. Corruption hampers development. It increases inequality, impedes growth, undermines the legitimacy of governments, and weakens the public's trust in democracy. It impacts everything from learning outcomes in schools to climate change. Yet billions of people live in highly corrupt societies, with more than two-thirds of countries scoring below 50 points on Transparency International's 2020 Corruption Index. Over the past decades, the focus on corruption has steadily increased. Academic research on corruption has taken off as development actors have made tackling corruption an explicit policy objective. Protests and polls show that corruption is also a major concern for citizens. Yet significantly and sustainably reducing corruption has proved difficult. According to collective action theory, when corruption is widespread and accepted, the practice will persist due to lack of trust, misperceptions, and free riding. Individuals will continue to participate in corruption if they expect that others will do so as well. Collective action problems can also stop people from demanding change or holding powerful figures to account for acts of corruption. Unless individuals can trust that enough people will take a stand together and that genuine change is possible, they are unlikely to act. When a collective action problem is present, technical anti-corruption solutions will not be enough. People's expectations and levels of trust need to be altered. Coordination and cooperation will also be key. In some cases, corruption is not only widespread, but systemic. Systemic corruption is generally characterised by three dimensions: 1) Multi-actor organisation - Systems require coordination among multiple actors. In the case of corrupt systems, each corrupt act is perpetuated not only by two individuals but by a set of actors often connected in a network. The level of organisation can be loose or tight, and the scale of coordination will also vary. 2) Partial institutionalisation - The functioning of a system is not reinvented for each action but is underpinned by rules that can be explicit or implicit. Systemic corruption means that each act reflects informal rules that define how corrupt actors interact. 3) A broader rationale - A key quality of systems is that they tend to have some internal reinforcement mechanism that sustains them, or at least prevents quick disintegration. In corrupt systems the purpose of corruption may be, in part, to serve political functions rather than only private gains. Corruption becomes deeply rooted and self-reinforcing. In contexts of systemic corruption, all drivers of corruption will, to varying degrees, likely be present. Curbing corruption is immensely difficult. It also takes time. The instiutions, laws, practices, and norms of the world's least corrupt countries evolved over decades. An assessment of impact also needs to consider the context in which anti-corruption efforts are being implemented. It is far more difficult to reduce corruption in fragile states and in countries where corruption is not only high but systemic. Those who benefit from corruption have an incentive to both enhance their gains and undermine anti-corruption efforts. Quantitative and qualitative studies of countries, cities, ministries, and sectors that have achieved significant reductions in corruption have identified some potential pathways to success. The feasibility of reform is determined in part by whether there is an enabling environment. In many cases, the focus need to be on laying the groundwork for future anti-corruption efforts. In regimes where leaders are unwilling to address corruption, interventions that build demand for good governance, empower citizens, strengthen civil society and the private sector are potential entry points. When corruption is deeply entrenched or systemic, it has to be recognised and dealt with as such. Treating corruption as if it were individual bad acts will not work. The system underpinning corruption needs to be understood and either altered, co-opted, or countered. Changing from a high- to a low-corruption society takes time. The process is never complete. There is always a potential for backsliding and backlash. Maintaining the momentum is crucial. Momentum is essential for both simple and complex changes. The passage of a freedom of information law, for example, may lead to an increase in transparency. But over time there is a risk that bucreaucrats find ways to block unwanted inquiries. Citizen demand for good governance and a well-functioning judiciary are a necessary complement. Human agency and political will are essential factors for reform. Many of the contemporary anti-corruption success cases were spearheaded by top politicians, among others, the current president of Rwanda, Paul Kagane, the former prime minister of Estonia, Mart Laar, and the former mayor of La Paz, Ronald MacLean Abaroa. Committed groups inside and outside the government have an important role in pressing for change. They may pay a high price for their commitment, however. Reformists can be fired, transferred, arrested, threatened, and even in extreme cases, killed. A combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches to anti-corruption may be the most sustainable path to reform. Grassroots and civil society were behind the right to information legislation in India and the 'clean record' bill in Brazil. Quantitative studies indicate that anti-corruption tools such as party finance legislation, autonomous anti-corruption agencies, whistle-blower protection, supreme audit institutions, and laws criminalising corruption as a special offence have, on their own, little impact. Adequate law is the starting point, not the end. Top- down approaches are more likely to be effective when there is a commitment from those in power to address corruption. To tackle corruption, we need to understand it. The identification needs to be broad and deep, as well as context-specific and feasibility-sensitive. Such an inquiry involves exploring collective determinants of corrupt behaviour, the legal and institutional frameworks and practices. The identification should also identify possible entry points and map which stakeholders are for or against reform, why they hold those positions. An understanding of political will and power dynamics is also essential. Encouragingly, there is a trend towards more robust analysis of corruption. Political analyses may identify a lack of political will without digging more deeply into the many layers of incentives, rules and constraints that characterise the host country's institutional make-up. An anti-corruption intervention should: 1) be sufficient anchored and led by local stakeholders, including powerful individuals where possible. 2) Be based on a strong theory of change, including an understanding of the complexity of corruption and anti-corruption. 3) Be based on a deep, context-specific understanding of the drivers and enablers of corruption, as well as the wider political economy. 4) Draw on local knowledge, including marginalised voices. 5) Make use of the anti-corruption literature. 6) Employ a tailored, multi-faceted, multi-stakeholder approach. 6) Complement ongoing efforts and strategies. 7) Foster collaboration and coordination. 9) Contribute to addressing the underlying causes of corruption. 10) Employ a realistic time horizon and reslistic goal. 11) Anticipate unintended consequences and backlashes. 12) Allow for continuous adjustment while the intervention is underway. 13) Be implemented and funded by stakeholders genuinely committed to reform.

50 Ways to Take Action

                 This post is a summary of an article published in 2020 at https://www.amnestyusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/50-Ways-to-Take-Action.pdf

                Art and movements have supported each other for as long as human beings have suffered through and fought against oppression. From struggles of indigenous uprising and the civil rights movement to current struggles against human rights abuses, people have used creativity to subvert censorship and the limitations placed upon them. Creative actions help us tell a story, raise awareness about a issue, and inspire others to join us. Use this guide to inspire you.   1) BANNER HANG - Hang a large banner in a prominent area of your city to disrupt the visual landscape.    2) CREATIVE BANNER DISPLAY - Utilize visuals that catch the eye and leave the passerby thinking about the message behind the visual.   3) VIDEO/IMAGE PROJECTION - You can turn the side of a building into a huge advertisement for your cause.    4) OCCUPY SPACE - Sit-in occupy a prominent area to push a target to act on the issue at hand. This also attract attention to the issues that you want to bring to light.    5) CREATIVE DISRUPTION - Disrupt spaces with large numbers of people wearing the same colored clothing.    6) THE POWER OF SYMBOLISM - Take one item and place many of the same in a public area.    7) PORTABLE MURALS - Create a mural on a makeshift wall made from cloth and a wooden frame. Place the mural in a prominent area and distribute leaflets while engaging in conversation.    8) FLASH MOB - Organizing mass action on short notice.    9) POLITICAL THEATRE - Stage an enactment of injustice in a prominent area in your area.    10) CREATIVE VIGIL - Bring people together in interactive actions.    11) CREATIVE PETITION DELIVERY - Give an abstract issue a physical and visual presence.    12) CHALKING - Get creative with messaging and bold, insightful visuals.    13) PREFIGURATIVE IMAGINATION - Collectively imagine/plan how it would be to live in a world you want to live in.    14) WALKING TOUR - Plan a walking tour around key sites.    15) COSTUMED LEAF-LETTING - Dress in symbolic wear and utilize short powerful messaging.    16) CAMPAIGN FOR A CITY/STATE RESOLUTION.    17) WORK WITH REPORTERS TO WRITE A HUMAN RIGHTS STORY.    18) ORGANIZE A PANEL DISCUSSION. 19) PUBLIC SPEECH ON A SQUARE.    20) FILM SCREENING.    21) HUMAN RIGHTS CONCERT.     22) ORGANIZE OR ATTEND A DEMONSTRATION     23) CALL OR SEND EMAILS TO ELECTED OFFICIALS.    24) VISIT YOUR LEGISLATORS.    25) PRESSURE GOVERNMENT TO TAKE POSITIONS.     26) HOST A WRITE-A-THON.     27) WRITING COMPETITION WITH LOCAL SCHOOLS.     28) WRITE SOLIDARITY AND SUPPORT LETTERS.     29) CANVASS FOR SIGNATURE IN A PUBLIC PLACE.    30) CO-SPONSOR EVENTS WITH PARTNERS AND BUILD RELATIONSHIPS WITH LIKE-MINDED GROUPS.    31) HOST A COMMUNITY DISCUSSION AND INVITE ELECTED OFFICIALS.     32) HOST A TECH-IN TO PROVIDE EDUCATION ON THE ISSUE.     33) PARTICIPATE IN OR ORGANIZE A TWEET-IN.     34) CREATE A DIGITAL HUMAN RIGHTS SERIES SPECIFIC TO YOUR ISSUE. 35) CREATE A PODCAST OR FILMED NEWS FEATURE.

Protecting Survivors and Witnesses

               This post is a summary of the article published in 2016 with the title above at   https://www.newtactics.org/conversation/protecting-survivors-and-witnesses

               Protecting survivors and witnesses of human rights violations is crucial to effective human rights work. Protection is important because when victims and witnesses fear further persecution, they are unlikely to report their experiences, making redress and accountability much more difficult. The state is formally responsible for providing protection, but it is the state that is often the greatest source of perceived risk amongst witnesses and survivors. Under Article 13 of the U.N.Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), the State have an obligation to ensure that victims and witnesses are protected against "all ill treatment and intimidation as a consequence of his complaint or any evidence given." On Article 14 of UNCAT states that the States have the obligation to ensure victims obtain rehabilitation through a State-run facility. Civil society has an important role to play in ensuring protection of survivors and victims through civil society groups. As victims are inclined to approach NGOs for protection, NGOs ought to be equipped with good protection practice. At times, NGOs who work directly with the victims of human rights violations become themselves witnesses and victims and need protection. One way of protecting witnesses and victims is by recognizing the suffering of these victims and educating civil society to understand the value of these efforts on society. The media plays a significant role in this. The international community can play a vital role in applying pressure on governments to provide adequate protection. Broader alliances need to be built between different sectors of civil society.  Sometimes networks are crucial in terms of providing victims a safe house or to flee to another location within the country or to another country. Communication between human rights defenders and victims is equally important to give an assurance of protection. The importance of documentation of human rights abuses is essential. Documentation would assist in analyzing the 'trend of cases' to prepare wider 'advocacy strategy' to deal with the security concerns of victims and witnesses. The importance of support from international NGOs to human rights defenders, victims and witnesses is also essential. The types of risk can be categorized broadly into three types of risk, physical, phychological and digital. Economic risk could also be added. It is important to ensure that victims and witnesses have as much information as possible so that they are in the best position to assess their own risk. Hope, honor and dignity must put forward as a way to manage risk and to empower victims. The risk of vicarious trauma and the importance of self care must also be discussed. The role of international organizations such as U.N. and the E.U. in protecting victims were raised. But the State has the ultimate responsibility in providing protection but often it is the primary source of threat. This is where the role of civil society organizations play an important bridging role between the State and the victims by advocacy when States fail to meet their obligations. Recommendations that the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights provide to their Human Rights Office (HROs) when they travel to different countries to investigate violations provide useful suggestions. Protective measures by HROs can include: 1) Strengthening the cooperation person's capacity for self-protection; 2) Supporting or establishing community-level protection networks; 3) Using visibility strategies with a deterrent effect; 4) Seeking the support of international mechanisms, such as NGOs, diplomatic missions, U.N. agencies; 5) Mobilizing efforts to directly or indirectly provide physical protection to the person at risk, including through relocation; 6) Limiting the capacity of the source of the threat to carry out an attack by reducing the vulnerability factors of the person at risk; 7) Intervening to influence or requesting an influential person to intervene with the source of the threat; 8) Increasing the political and social costs to the source carrying out the threat through, for instance, public advocacy in partnership with national and international networks. The costs of carrying out the threat should outweigh the benefits; 9) Advocacy and engagement with national authorities, stressing their human rights obligations, including their duty to protect those at risk and to prosecute offenders; 10) Capacity-building and technical cooperation directed at developing or improving national witness protection capacities, as well as accountability mechanisms.       When weighing the pros and cons of the different protective measures, HROs should consider the following: 1) the effectiveness of such measures in guaranteeing protection; 2) Their promptness in responding to the security needs of the person at risk, including emergencies; 3) Their sustainability, particularly for protective measures that envisage long-term changes; 4) Their adaptability to new circumstances, such as deteriorating security conditions; 5) Their reversibility when the risk disappears (for example, in case of relocation, the person being able to return home).

International Day of Democracy - 2021

             Last Wednesday, 15th September, all over the world was celebrated the democracy. Democracy and human rights are closed related. This post is a summary of three articles. The first was published at https://nationaltoday.com/international-day-of-democracy/. The second was published at https://www.un.org/en/observances/democracy-day. The third was published at https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/international-day-of-democracy-2021-why-is-it-observed-2540655

                    International Day of Democracy allows the opportunity to celebrate and appreciate our democratic society. It is very easy for people who live in a free society to take their freedom for granted. Yet, when freedom is absent, life includes unimaginable challenges that are often incomprehensible. Today, let's reflect on the history of democracy around the world, thank those who influenced the development, and look for opportunities to promote and protect our own nation's democracy. From democracy's birth in ancient Greece to today, the foundation of a democratic society is the ability of its people to participate in the decision-making process of their nation. Democratic activities include: 1) Get involved in politics.  2) Learn about political candidates.  3) Exercise your rights, thanks to digital advancements, it's now easier than ever to advocate for causes and make a difference. Why we love democracy: 1) It gives power to the people, leading to a world of innovation and improvement.  2) It's based on change. A cornerstone of democratic societies is that they have the power to make change when necessary.  3) It's based on equality, equal rights under the law are central to democratic governments.                                                                                                                                                                                    The theme this year, "Strengthening Democratic resilience in the Face of Future Crises." The unprecedented COVID-19 crisis has resulted in major social, political and legal challenges globally. As states around the world adopt emergency measures to address the crisis, it is critical that they continue to uphold the rule of law, protect and respect international standands and basic principles of legality, and the right to access justice, remedies and due process. The crisis raises the question how best to counter harmful speech while protecting freedom of expression. Sweeping efforts to el iminate misinformation or disinformation can result in purposeful or unintentional censorship, which undermines trust. The most effective response is accurate, clear and evidence-based information from sources people trust. Around the world civil society organizations have answered the U.N.'s call to action to address and counteract the wide range of ways the COVID-19 crisis may impair democracy and increase authoritarianism, by: 1) developing media literacy and digital safety, more critical than ever as activism is forced online, so as to address the risk of suppression, interference and closing of civic space.  2) fighting misinformation and hate speech, which have mushroomed in the crisis.  3) training journalists remotely to report on the impact of the pandemic with in-depth, fact-checked coverage.  4) empowering women against gender-based violence, which has surged amid lockdowns, quarantines, and economic pressures.  5) helping to highlight the challenges of inequality and weak service delivery made worse by the crisis, with specific focus on the needs and rights of the population, so as to help hold governments to account.  The values of freedom, respect for human rights and the principle of holding period and genuine elections by universal suffrage are essential elements of democracy. In turn, democracy provides the natural environment for the protection and effective realization of human rights. These values are embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which enshrines a host of political rights and civil liberties underpinning meaningful democracies.                                                        The U.N. General Assembly celebrates the Day of Democracy on September 15 to encourage governments around the world to strengthen and consolidate democracy. This day marks an opportunity to review the state of democracy around the world. It is also an opportunity to raise awareness and educate the public about their democratic rights, to highlight the important role of parliaments, their capacity and mandate to deliver justice, peace, development, and human rights. Many organisations hold debates and conferences and launch public campaigns to mobilise political will and public support for reinforcing democratic values. The Inter-Parliamentary Union ((IPU), the global organisation of national parliaments, says its support for this day stems from the core belief that democracy requires the participation of all citizens.

Paths to Inclusive Political Institutions

                       This post is a summary of the essay with the title above published in 2016 at   https://economics.mit.edu/files/19640

              In this paper we present a thinking about the circumstances under which inclusive political institutions, consisting of a state with a capacity and a broad distribution of political power, emerge. What makes a society economically successful? Most social scientists would argue that the critical factor are the economic institutions, the rules that create patterns of incentives and opportunities in the economic sphere and which shape saving, investment and innovation. We argued that economic institutions have to be thought of as an outcome of political choices which are shaped by political institutions which influences are aggregated by those who exercise power. In this case, lying behind economic institutions are political institutions. Two very successful historical instances of inclusive institution building, Classical Athens, and Early Modern England. In both cases, the historical evidence suggests that popular pressure and involvement was absolutely critical in the emergence of inclusive political institutions. Elite interests were at play too, but they had to find an equilibrium with those of society. In terms of democratization there is currently a great deal of consensus that democratization comes as a result of pressure from below rather than something that is willingly created by elites. Other arguments in the literature suggest that democracy emerges when elites give away power either because autocratic elites split, or because democracy can be a way of resolving conflicts between differents factions of elites, or because democracy solves a commitment problem that elites can not otherwise solve. These arguments may certainly apply in some cases. For example, many Latin America countries adopted democratic political institutions and held elections in the 19th century. Yet these were typically riven with fraud and malpractices and far from representing the broad distribution of power. Modern democracy emerged only in the 20th century and typically in the context of mass mobilization and demands for the excluded for political rights. The issue of where political pluralism comes from has been much less studied. Putnam (1993) is perhaps the most important empirical study of pluralism which is closely connected to his characterization of Northern Italian society having high levels of social capital or a very dense 'associational life'. Putnam traces the roots of this to the medieval organization of Northern Italy with its free communes, city states and mercantile political dominance. We argued that pluralism emerges from contestation with civil society playing an active role in demanding political change but only in the context where a 'broad coalition' makes these demands. In this essay we have advanced the hypothesis that the broad coalition is itself part of a co-evolution of state and society. In this essay we have argued that under some circumstances there is a basin of attraction where the two dimensions of inclusive political institutions are highly complementary. Indeed, they feed on each other to create a particular dynamic which leads to inclusive political institutions with a pattern of mutually reinforcing feedback. We argue that understanding this basin of attraction is a key to understanding the emergence of inclusive political institutions. Though in general the parameter space is multi-dimensional in this essay we have focused on one type of distinction which we believe is critical for determining the potential of different societies to move inside the basin of attraction: the strength and nature of social norms and informal institutions. The sequencing view we critique is similar to the one argued against by Tocqueville in "The Old Regime and the French Revolution", when he claimed that the French reformers of the 18th century, such as the Physiocrats, were mistaken when they sought reforms before political liberties. Rather political liberties are a critical complement to reforms and building the state, and one can not rely on automatic processes such as modernization to subsequently bring liberty. The Physiocrats, like many modern scholars, proposed that one should rely on education to make sure that state promoted social interests. The ideas proposed in this paper help to clarify just where the broad coalition comes from. In the classical Athenian and Early Modern English case, the answer presented here is that it came from social norms and informal institutions which facilitated not just the formation of the state, but also led to a distinct strengthening of civil society. Such argument may be though unsatisfying in the sense that it pushes the explanation for differences in political and economic development paths further back in time. Nevertheless, as we argued, divergent development historically is the result of institutional differences which start out small but acumulate over time. England did not experience the industrial revolution because of some huge shock to the society in the 18th century. It did so because of a long process of institutional change in which both the state and the society coevolved and entered into a virtuous circle ultimately leading to the broad coalition. England did not get onto this path because it was a radically different society from other Western European societies, but small differences mattered and it was inside a basin of attraction which turned out to have profound consequences.

The Right to Reparation in International Human Rights Law

             This post is a summary of the article with the incomplete title above published at   https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1191&context=bjil

              The evolution of international law towards a system capable of promoting "global justice" has been accompanied by a growing consensus that states bear an obligation both to punish wrongdoers and to act on behalf of victims in the wake of systematic human rights abuses. In fact, U.N. General Assembly Resolution 60/147, set forth "existing," complementary international legal obligations of states in this arena without introducing new obligations. The right to a remedy is premised on three core rights: 1) the right to "equal and effective access to justice"; 2) "the right to adequate, effective and prompt reparation for the harm suffered"; 3) "the right to truth." It is important to recognize the two different ways in which the term "reparations" is used. Within the context of international law, the term connotes the array of measures available to redress the different harms that a victim may have suffered due to certain crimes. Therefore, under international law, reparations may include restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, and guarantees of nonrecurrence. Such measures, which include material and moral undertakings by a society in individual or collective form, seek to restore the victim to the status quo ante by expressing a society's "recognition, remorse and atonement for harms inflicted." Material reparations may include monetary compensation, service packages providing healthcare or counseling to promote rehabilitation, restoration of property rights, or a pension. Moral reparations focus on allowing the victim's story to be told and promoting a sense of justice, and may include official apologies, rehabilitation, and the creation of memorials or other acts of remembrance. The existing international legal framework for reparations to victims of human rights violations is inadequate as evidenced by the current situation in Bahrain. At least in the short term, legal recognition of a victim's right to reparations without an effective enforcement mechanism at the international level ultimately perpetuates the cycle of victimization for those whom the pronouncement of such principles seeks to protect. The implementation of a "comprehensive and coherent reparations program" is ultimately in the best legal, moral, and political interests of any regime. National courts are supposed to serve as the gateway for victims seeking reparations for violations of human rights.In fact, an individual lacks standing to even bring a claim before most international bodies until he or she has exhausted available domestic remedies. However, experiences has repeatedly proven the ineffectiveness of relying on national courts for such a purpose because the courts are "almost always... inoperative" during the conflict periods in which systematic human rights violations usually occur, and because "it takes quite some time for courts to assume an independent stance capable of finding powerful forces ( usually the government itself ) liable for violations. As a result, many victims of human rights violations have had more success pursuing their claims in foreign courts. The universality principle recognizes that certain crimes are so reprehensible that any nation may act on behalf of the international community to prosecute and punish those responsible, regardless of where the crimes were committed. A national court may thus exercise universal jurisdiction only over those crimes regarded as serious violations of international law.  Reparations, by their very nature, require the state to acknowledge its wrongful conduct by recognizing and compensating the victims. Some governments has proved tremendously reluctant to acknowledge and accept responsibility. Instead, it has offered only blanket condemnation for the "situation" combined with limited progress. Such reluctance is undoubtedly tied to the fact that "programs of reparation are part of a more general human rights agenda". Therefore, any program of reparations in Bahrain is inextricably tied to the access and exercise of power. This connection helps to explain the reticence exhibited by the Bahraini political elite in addressing the past and why the ruling regime has taken only carefully calculated measures designed to ease pressure without producing any fundamental changes to the power structure and its hold on power. Both the story of victim's rights under international law and the story of Bahrain's transitional justice experience are far from written. Efforts to close the gap between the rhetoric of human rights and the enforcement of such rights must remain a top priority. U.N. General Assembly's adoption of the 2006 Basic Principles marks an important step in the evolution of human rights law towards a more "victimcentric" framework, but the doctrine must be translated into action in order to protect "the inherent dignity... of all members of the human family" on which freedom, justice and peace in the world is based. In Bahrain, recent human rights developments serve as a reminder that there are many obstacles to overcome in guaranteeing respect for essential human rights at the domestic level. Nevertheless, there are also positive signs that some degree of justice may be forthcoming for Bahrain victims of state abuse. In 2007, eleven Bahraini human rights organizations took the unprecedented step of forming a reconciliation group to lobby the government for the creation of a truth and reconciliation committee to address human rights abuses committed by the government.

Social Injustice in Surveillance

                 We all have to fight injustice, so if you know about any human rights violation or privacy violation, record. We can't allow violations and injustices remain unpunished, even more when they are systematically and repeatedly done, affecting many victims, democracy, the rule of law, etc. This post is a summary of the article with the incomplete title above published at   https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326613806_Social_Injustice_in_Surveillance_Capitalism

                 The digital platforms of the web, retail and e-commerce, mobile telecommunications, and smart infrastructure systems produce vast amounts of detailed data about users, their preferences as consumers, their spatial and temporal patterns and behaviours, their hopes, beliefs, and desires. Huge economic value is generated for the corporations that control these digital architectures since the data are produced without financial compensation to users. The use of personal data in advertising, strategic marketing, and client management is nothing new, however a new era of personal data analytics is upon us, defined by a new logic of accumulation that Shoshana Zuboff has called 'surveillance capitalism'. Knowability and visibility in surveillance is wildly asymmetrical however, power is sharply concentrated in the hands of the small number of companies and data brokers. Long recognized by surveillance scholars as a primary mechanism for social manipulation and control in the information age. Yet, early warnings about the harms of data surveillance at the dawn of the information age have thus far failed to result in sufficient public awareness or the development of satisfactory laws and regulations to counter the threats. This paper draws on normative political theory to demonstrate how these practices are specifically threats to social justice, towards an expanded conceptual vocabulary for challenging the range of potential harms that can occur when people and their data are separated. The rapid acceleration of surveillance has been enabled by exploitative agreements between data subjects and controllers, in which the data subjects have no ability to negotiate the terms of the agreement and often insufficient knowledge of the full extent or legalities of personal data collection and use. Public knowledge and concern about threats to privacy and data security are growing. Privacy is an internationally protected human right, providing a foundation for freedoms such as freedom of speech and freedom of association, and is thus a unifying narrative in democratic societies and a key concept invoked to challenge escalating practices of dataveillance. In addition to privacy harms, corporate personal data practices also threaten a diverse range of intersecting values and rights including autonomy, fairness, equality, democratic sovereignty, and property. The initial injustice of personal data maldistribution can lead to sociocultural misrecognition, which occurs when personal data are subjectto algorithmic processing and classification, as well as political misrepresentation, which renders people voiceless to challenge any misuse of their personal data. In identifying the injustices of specific practices inherent to the current mode, the paper calls for more explicit conceptual development of the social impacts of dataveillance, and attends to the requirements needed to intervene in these practices, which could reconfigure data as an agent of social equality rather than oppression. Nancy Fraser suggests that decentring the erstwhile 'what' of justice enables non-economic forms of injustice to be rendered visible, providing the possibility of broader, multivalent understandings of justice. The problem is that a stable framework is required to enable diverse justice claims to be recognized and addressed, but when the 'what', 'who', and 'how' are in dispute, overcoming injustice is immensely more challenging. This understanding of justice provides the basis for recognizing heterogeneous justice claims and the means to overcome injustice through the identification and removal of obstacles that prevent some individuals from participating as equals in social life. Fraser considers three obstacles to parity of participation that can serve as focal points for social justice struggle. The first obstacle, maldistribution, the second obstacle, misrecognition and the third obstacle, misrepresentation, that occurs when political subjects are not able to control their own representation or when voiceless subjects are unable to access democratic institutions. Beyond the growing concerns about state surveillance or the loss of sensitive personal details in data, the inability of data subjects to access their personal data creates significant injustices of maldistribution in which corporations are able to accumulate vast stockpiles of economically valuable personal data. Injustices of personal data maldistribution are enable further injustices of sociocultural misrecognition via algorithmic data processing, classification, and predictive analytics. The initial injustice of maldistribution is also leading to further injustices of misrepresentation, and the focus here, exposes meta-political injustices which, arises when a polity's boundaries are drawn in such a way as to wrongly exclude some people from the chance to participate in its authorized contests over justice. A rapidly accelerating phase of capitalism based on asymmetrical personal data accumulation poses significant concerns for democratic societies. A diverse range of economic, social, political and legal consequences must be fully interrogated, yet the frameworks for challenging practices of corporate dataveillance are underdeveloped. This article has argued that the recent, surprising acceleration of surveillance capitalism situates these personal data practices as important threats to social justice. This article draws on Nancy Fraser's theory of abnormal justice to make explicit how three core data practices inherent to surveillance should be viewed as threats to parity of participation in social life, and therefore targets of social justice reparations. This article illustrates how asymmetrical accumulation of personal data leads to injustices. This data maldistribution then lays the foundation for further injustices to take place. Recognizing the focused nature of this account of social harms specific to corporate personal data practices, there is clearly a need for more conceptual development of the threats of dataveillance as well as empirical research that exposes further examples of unjust data practices occurring within the broader assemblage of state and corporate surveillance. A focus on data justice is also of high priority, due to the inequalities baked directly into data. A central objective here should be to provide data subjects with ownership or at least meaningful access to their data as a necessary first step towards addressing the lag in social evolution, which has enabled the surveillance capitalists to normalize asymmetrical data accumulation and conduct further unjust data practices under cover of secrecy and under the protection of out-dated legal frameworks.