E.U. Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy 2020-2027

             The Action Plan was originally adopted for 2020-2024 but was extended by the Council to 2027 with the ain to align it with the EU budget cycle. The EU monitors its implementation in the form of the Annual Report on Human Rights and Democracy in the World. If you want to read more about this extension access this link, https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/eu-extends-its-action-plan-human-rights-and-democracy-until-2027. We all must help reinforce democratic and humanitarian values around the world. And of couse demand respect for all 30 rights of the UDHR, including political rights for all and justice and reparations when there are human rights violations, even more if these violations are happening for decades. In Brazil we need a more inclusive, transparent and egalitarian electoral system. This post is a summary of the book with the title above published https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/fil/eu_action_plan_on_human_rights_and_democracy_2020-2024.pdf

             EU leadership on human rights and democracy is needed more than ever. Autocracies grow in strength and in numbers around the world, many have faced litle pressure to curb their abuses. At the same time, new challenges are obliging us to update our thinking and policies. For instance, the speed with which surveillance and Artificial Intelligence technology is proliferating among the world's worst violators is staggering. Defending human rights and democratic principles is a collective exercise. No country, no matter how powerful can match the credibility of the international community acting through its institutions. The EU needs to live up to its ideals. Doing so will take significant work. It is clear that an EU foreign policy firmly grounded on human rights greatly benefits EU security and prosperity. Data demonstrates that governments that respect human rights are more reliable allies, stronger trading partners, and better stewards of regional peace and long-term international stability. The crucial question then is how can the EUstrengthen its leadership on human rights and democracy? This Action Plan proposes 5 lines of action, ranging from holding human rights abusers to account by sharpening the human rights toolbox through a new global sanctions regime, to protecting and empowering human rights defenders and ensuring that new technologies such as Artificial Intelligence promote and do not hinder human rights. In sum, this new Action Plan is about specific priorities to advance human rights and democracy around the world. These actions are meaningful and achievable and we must follow closely the progress we make. Implementing these actions will leave Europeans safer and our alliances more durable. Throughout its history, the EU has served as a champion of human rights. Now is the time to build a post-Covid world where the rights and freedoms of people are protected globally. In Europe, we have long learned that when the rights of one person come under attack, the rights of others are vulnerable and it diminishes us all. Today, the need for effective, coherent, strong collective action on human rights and democracy is even more imperative. This action plan sets out overaching priorities and objectives which will translated and implemented in the next five years at all levels. In operational terms, the 5 lines of action will be implemented on the ground in partner countries.  1) Protecting and Empowering Individuals - It means ensuring that everyone can enjoy civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. Empowering all people involves enabling them to realise their full potential as equal active members of society. Respect for human rights are the cornerstone of societal cohesion, solidarity and trust between the state and citizens.  2) Building Resilient, Inclusive and Democratic Societies - Such societies are built on transparent and accountable institutions, representative parliaments and engaged citizens, and provide s safe and enabling environment for civil society, and independent media to voice concerns, influence policies, and monitor decision-makers. Human rights and democracy are interdependent and mutually reinforcing.  3) Promoting a Global System for Human Rights and Democracy - Promoting a global system for human rights and democracy is at the core of the EU's commitment to strengthening multilateralism. Strengthen the role of the UN Human Rights Council in upholding universal respect for human rights, including by addressing situations of violations of human rights. Support the International Criminal Court as a cornerstone in fighting impunity for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community.   4) New Technologies: Harnessing Opportunities and Addressing Challenges. - New technologies can contribute to the protection and promotion of human rights and democracy, including by making public participation easier and more effective, facilitating the documentation of violations and abuses, and supporting online activism. However, these technologies can also have a negative impact, such as spreading disinformation and hate speech, enabling new forms of violence, and violations of the right to privacy, facilitating access to specific illegal content including child exploitation, widespread surveillance limiting freedom of expression and reducing civil society space, reinforcing discrimination and structural inequalities. This possible negative impact must be prevented and countered.  5) Delivering by Working Together - The EU institutions and Member States will work together to inplement it in a joined-up approach, and with exchange of good practice and knowledge. The EU Special Representative for Human Rights is a key political actor and will play a central role in guiding implementation of the action plan in order to deliver sustainable progress. The European Parliament has a distinct role and importance in contributing to the promotion of human rights and supporting democracy.

120th Birthday of Jean Paul Sartre

                  Almost two months ago, precisely on 21st of June, the French philosopher and writer Jean Paul Sartre would complete 120 years, so this post is a tribute to him. He wrote about the importance of freedom to democracy, human rights, dignity, justice. The text below was written by ChatGPT, despite I researched and read some texts about his existentialism I didn't find one so straithforward related to the theme of democracy and human rights like one done by IA. So I hope you enjoy reading more about the importance of democracy and human rights, now together with the ideas one of the greatest philosopher of 20th century.  Few times in the history a human rights defender was so harmed, humiliated and bullied, but now all the world is demanding justice. Join us in this worlwide movement for justice, democracy, human rights and my  political rights. This worldwide movement has became so huge, intense and prevalent in the last five years that nobody can deny its existence. Since 2020,  I have a YouTube channel, here is the link.  https://www.youtube.com/@lucianofietto4773/videos. Since the creation of this channel its visualization counter doesn't work, the same has been happening with the counter of this blog since its creation in 2010.

                Jean-Paul Sartre was one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century, and his ideas played an important role in shaping modern conceptions of democracy and human rights. As the leading figure of existentialism, Sartre argued that human beings are radically free and responsible for their choices. This notion of individual freedom is directly connected to the principles of democracy, which depends on the recognition of every person as a free agent capable of participating in political life. For Sartre, freedom was not a luxury, but the very essence of human existence, and any system that denied it was unjust. Sartre’s philosophical work emphasized responsibility as the necessary companion to freedom. He believed that when individuals make choices, they do not act only for themselves, but also influence the conditions of society as a whole. This awareness of collective responsibility has deep implications for human rights: it underlines the idea that citizens are not passive beneficiaries of rights but active participants in the creation of a just and equal society. A democracy cannot survive if individuals remain indifferent to oppression or injustice. Sartre’s writings remind us that freedom is meaningful only when it is shared and defended collectively. In addition to his theoretical contributions, Sartre was deeply engaged in political and social struggles. He spoke out against colonialism, particularly the French war in Algeria, denouncing it as a violation of the rights and dignity of oppressed peoples. His support for anti-colonial movements reflected his conviction that freedom and equality must extend beyond Europe, applying universally to all human beings. By doing so, Sartre connected the philosophical defense of human rights to real-world political activism, showing that intellectual work has moral and practical consequences. Sartre also criticized systems of economic and political domination that limited human potential. He saw authoritarian regimes, censorship, and social inequality as threats to authentic human freedom. His commitment to democracy did not mean blind support for existing institutions, but rather a continuous demand for deeper participation, transparency, and respect for human dignity. In this way, he helped expand the modern understanding of democracy as something more than elections—it must be a system that protects and empowers individuals to live freely and responsibly. The importance of Jean-Paul Sartre to democracy and human rights lies, therefore, in both his philosophy and his activism. He provided a vision of freedom that was universal, inseparable from responsibility, and opposed to all forms of oppression. His legacy continues to inspire the defense of human dignity, reminding us that democracy and human rights are not static achievements but ongoing projects that require constant commitment and struggle. Through his thought and his actions, Sartre demonstrated that the fight for freedom is at the heart of human existence and the foundation of a just society.

Understanding Evil: Communism, Fascism and the Lessons of the 20th Century

                   For the last two decades my life has been a daily struggle to raise awareness about the importance to defend justice, democracy, human rights, political inclusion, truth and freedom of speech. We all must fight evil, any kind of authoritarism, injustice, any kind of censorship, bullying, violations of human rights, humiliation, any kind of extreme speech, hipocrisy, lies and dehumanization. We must use our voice, our connection to internet to broaden our activism for what really matters. Few times in the history a human rights defender was so harmed, humiliated and bullied, but now all the world is demanding justice. Join us in this worlwide movement for justice, democracy, human rights and my  political rights. This worldwide movement has became so huge, intense and prevalent in the last five years that nobody can deny its existence. Since 2020,  I have a YouTube channel, here is the link.  https://www.youtube.com/@lucianofietto4773/videos. Since the creation of this channel its visualization counter doesn't work, the same has been happening with the counter of this blog since its creation in 2010. This post is a summary of the article with the title above published at https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/241-understanding-radical-evil-communism-fascism-and-the-lessons-the-20th-century

                  The comparison between Fascism and Communism is justified on both moral and scholarly grounds. French historian Francois Furet, inhis correspondence with German historian Ernst Nolte, insisted that there is something absolutely evil, both at: the level of original intention and the implementation of the utopian goals in Nazi practice. But can one compare the two ideologies by examining their essentially different visions of human nature, progress and politics without losing axiological distinctions? Or was the centrality of the concentration camps the lone common denominator between Commnism and Fascism? Fascism (in its radicalized Nazi form) was a simple reincarnation of counter-revolutionary thinking and action. Nazism was something brand new, an attempt to renovate the world by getting rid of the bourgeoisie, parliaments, parties and all the other "decadent, Judeo-plutocratic" elements. Clarifying these issues is vital for understanding the political, moral and cultural stakes of the post-cold war. The war between liberalsm and its revolutionary opponents is not over, and new varieties of extreme politics remain. In the novel "La Condition Humaine", published in the early 1930s, Andre Malraux captured the dream of communism. In China during the failed communist insurrection of 1926, a communist militant is asked what he finds so appealing in the cause he fights for. The answer is:"Because communism defends human dignity." "And what is dignity?" Asks the tormentor. "The opposite of humiliation," replies. The party as the incarnation of historical defender of human digity, the revolutionary avant-garde endowed to lead the otherwise lethargic masses into the communist paradise, was the hallmark of the communist intervention in the political praxis of the 20th century. The myth of the party more than the myth of the leader explains the longevity and endurance of the Leninist project. By contrast, the Fascists, while invoking the commands of historical providence, invested the center of power not so much in the institutions as in the "genius" of the leader. "The Black Book of Communism," which documents communist atrocities, was very well received upon publication in France in 1997. This book succeeds in demonstrating is that communism was from the outset of inimical to the values of individual rights and human freedom. In spite of communism's overblown rhetoric on emancipation from oppression, the leap into freedom turned out to be an experiment in social engineering. The idea of an independent judiciary was rejected as "rotten liberalism," the party defined what was legal and what was not. Just as in Hitler's Germany where the heinous 1936 Nuremberg Laws were a legal fiction dictated by racial obsessions, from the outset, communism subordinated justice to party interests. For Lenin, dictatorship was rule by force and unrestricted by any law. The presumption of innocence was replaced by a universalized presumption of guilt. Utopian ideals were used to legitimaze abuses against political adversaries. Paranoia regarding infiltration, subversion and treason were enduring features of all communist political cultures, from Russia to China. Communist parties in France and Italy, officially playing the democratic parliamentary game, were no less tolerant of deviation from the orthodox line than similar extreme right institutions. When comparing the number of victims of the communist regimes (between 85 and 100 million) with the number of people who perished under or because of Nazism (25 million), however, communism has existed since its inception in 1917 until the present time in some countries (North Korea, China, Cuba). Nazism lasted between 1933 and 1945, what the price in terms of victims would had been, if Hitler had won the war, is not known. The chasm between theory and practice, or at least between the moral-humanist Marxian creed, and Stalinist, or Maoist or Khmer Rouge experiment was more than an intellectual fantasy. Commuism and Nazism were equally scornful of morality and legality in their drive to eliminate political "enemies." The problem with Stalinism was the sanctification of the ultimate ends.  This fixation with the future and the readiness to use the most atrocious means to attain it is a feature of all ideological utopias, but in the communism and nazism experience it reached grotesquely tragic limits. No less important, the appeals of communism were linked to the power of its ideology. The most important point is that both regimes were genocidal. Analytical distinctions between them are important, but the commonality in terms of complete contempt for the state of law, human rights and the universality of humankind regardless of spurious race and class distinction is beyond doubt. Communism and Nazism contained all the political and ideological ingredients of the totalitarian order: party monopoly on power, ideological uniformity and regimentation, censorship, demonization of the "people's enemy," besieged fortress mentality, secret police terror, concentration camps and the obsession with the shaping of the "new man." Often, comparing the two disgrace of the 20th centurym leads to misunderstandings and injured feelings among victims of one or another of these monstrosities. Thw key point, however, is the legitimacy of the comparison. The challenge is to avoid "comparative trivialization" or any form of competitive martyrology and to admit that, beyond similarities, the extreme systems had unique features, including razionalization of power, definition of the enemy and designated goals. They represented efforts to establish total control over society through systematic aggression against any form of autonomous association and initiatives, as well as the persecution and eventual extermination of ideologically defined adversaries. The ideology behind the tragedy of Communism and Fascism is summarized in this vision of a superior political elite whose utopian goals sanctify the most barbaric methods, the denial of the right to life to those defined as adversaries and the deliberate dehumanization of the victims.