Champion of poor comes of age at WTO
Monday 23.06.2003, CET 04:46
<a href=www.swissinfo.org>swissinfo
December 9, 2002 7:04 PM
A new intergovernmental agency is born (swissinfo)
A Swiss initiative to help poorer countries defend their interests during world trade negotiations has proved so successful that the project and its budget are being expanded.
On Monday, the agency, which has been sponsored by the Swiss government for the past four years, was transformed into an intergovernmental organisation.
"On certain issues, the smaller countries could push their interests."
Seven donor countries including Switzerland have pledged funding of SFr18 million over the next five years to support the Geneva-based agency for international trade information and cooperation (Aitic).
“The Swiss government [saw] that something was needed in that field and they had the discipline and the determination to make it work,” Aitic’s director, Esperanza Durán, told swissinfo.
Having a voice
Aitic was set up in 1998 to help less-advantaged countries make themselves heard at the World Trade Organisation.
The Swiss state secretariat for economic affairs funded its annual budget of SFr1.5 million.
“This was an initiative of the Swiss government to assist the countries that have not actively participated in international trade to have a louder voice and to defend their interests in the negotiations that take place under the aegis of the WTO,” said Durán.
Less advantaged nations include the 49 least developed countries as defined by the United Nations as well as smaller developing countries (such as Venezuela) and countries in transition such as the formerly communist central Asian nations.
Aitic is particularly valuable for “non-resident” WTO member states which can’t afford to have a permanent trade mission in Geneva.
Of the 144 WTO member states, 34 have non-resident status.
They are mostly poorer nations in Africa, Central Asia or Latin America, which deal with the WTO from embassies in Brussels, London or Paris or further afield.
Defining priorities
Aitic has a reference library, meeting and reading rooms and on-line stations but the main attraction is the personalised assistance the agency’s expert staff provides on request.
Representatives from developing countries can seek the help of Aitic to clarify an issue or obtain data to underpin an intervention they will be making.
“We can help if a delegate is attending a meeting and wants to know the implications of certain provisions, which are being negotiated,” said Durán.
“Also how best to make use of a country’s resources to put its point forward.
“We also help them to define priorities. A very small country will not have to follow all the subjects in the WTO.
“There may be two or three important subjects which touch on their basic interests – negotiations on basic telecommunications or market access in agriculture or the liberalisation of textiles.”
Summarising complex documents is another key aspect of the organisation’s work.
Aitic’s five permanent staff and five support staff also answer requests that arrive by e-mail or fax.
All of the assistance is free of charge.
Translating documents
Although the WTO has three official languages – English, French and Spanish – Aitic staff often have to translate documents because of a shortage of interpreters.
“Sixty per cent of the least developed countries have French as their first or second language,” said Durán.
“So they are at a disadvantage when very complex and technically difficult subjects are discussed particularly from the start if they do not have these documents translated.”
Duran told swissinfo she was convinced the growth in international trade offers more opportunities to less advantaged countries provided they know how to negotiate.
“If a small country knows what its interests are and knows what is being discussed, it can play a role as well,” she said.
“We have seen the weight of small and vulnerable countries in the negotiations when there is an issue that is particularly important for them.”
Advantages
Durán said recruitment of staff would probably now be easier because Aitic was competing on an equal footing with other intergovernmental organisations.
She said the new status would also make it easier to operate in the international arena.
“We were trying to assist the representatives of government and it was not commensurate with our status as a private organisation.”
Monday’s signing ceremony was co-chaired by David Syz, Swiss secretary of state for economic affairs and Rénald Clérismé, ambassador and permanent representative of Haiti to the WTO, and co-chair of the task force on AITIC’s development.
Denmark, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom are the other donor countries.
swissinfo, Vincent Landon
Hugo Chavez vs. the Media-- The Venezuelan strongman tries to crackdown on his country's journalists while Jack Kemp shills for him in America.
The daily Standard
by Thor Halvorssen
06/09/2003 6:40:00 AM
Caracas, Venezuela
EARLIER THIS YEAR, the U.S. media was atwitter with coverage of the protests against ousting Saddam Hussein. At the same time, just weeks before the war in Iraq began, a record-setting one and a half million Venezuelans marched in protest against a law proposed by the president of Venezuela, Lt. Col. Hugo Chavez. Simultaneous marches against Chavez took place across the world. It was the largest peaceful protest in Latin American history.
These protests did not register even a blip in the international and U.S. media. There were no page-one articles or photo-spreads about this widespread rejection of the Chavez regime. That the international media failed to cover these events is particularly dispiriting, since the protest was organized specifically to support the Venezuelan media, which has been tirelessly exposing human rights violations by the Chavez regime.
Despite being followed, harassed, arrested, tear-gassed, fire-bombed, shot at, and even killed by Chavez supporters and party members, journalists here have bravely persevered in their jobs and serve as the only effective check to arbitrary government power. Given that the courts, congress, military and the executive branch are firmly under Chavez's control, it's little wonder that in poll after poll, the Venezuelan media ranks as the most respected institution in the country.
Since January, using a presidential decree, Chavez has interrupted regular television and radio broadcasts on 60 separate occasions, forcing all media to transmit his hours-long tirades and pro-government propaganda.
And Chavez now seeks to formalize his control through the "Media Contents" law, a bill that controls TV programming by defining time slots suitable for children. The law assumes that children will be watching television for 18 hours a day and prohibits the broadcasting of news or any content with violent images or political language except between 11:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. For example, live footage of Chavez militia members shooting at innocent protesters, would be content unsuitable for children.
IN ADDITION to controlling the programming, the law criminalizes any content that "promotes, condones or incites disrespect for the legitimate authorities and institutions." Known locally as the "gag law," it states explicitly that mocking or criticizing the president and his henchmen is illegal. Broadcasters face million-dollar fines, loss of their broadcast licenses, and even jail time for noncompliance. If this column was published in a newspaper or read on television here in Venezuela, it would be in violation of the proposed Chavez media law.
When journalists expressed opposition to the law's barefaced censorship, Chavez responded: "That's just like drug traffickers opposing anti-drug laws or criminals complaining about crime-fighting."
And to further control the media, Chavez has imposed exchange controls. No Venezuelan citizen may purchase foreign currency without government permission--an act that renders the local currency worthless for import transactions. As a result, any television company that needs to purchase electronic equipment or any newspaper editor wishing to order newsprint paper or buy ink must petition the currency control agency that is, conveniently, headed by a man who assisted Lt. Col. Chavez in his failed 1992 coup attempt.
TO MAKE MATTERS WORSE, some American elites are actively shilling for the Chavez regime even as the media crackdown proceeds. Jack Kemp, notably, has been busy opening doors for the Chavez government. Recently Kemp and the Venezuelan ambassador visited the Wall Street Journal's editorial board in an unsuccessful attempt to charm the paper away from its anti-Chavez stance. Since that visit, the Journal reported that Kemp has been trying to broker a complicated deal to fill the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve with Venezuelan oil via an intermediary company--Free Market Petroleum LLC--on whose board Kemp sits. Since hooking up with Free Market Petroleum, Kemp has visited with Chavez and his ministers in Caracas. Surely he must have noticed Chavez's brutality here.
American elites should be helping pressure the Chavez regime and publicizing its anti-democratic doings in Venezuela, not seeking to profit from collaboration with it.
Thor Halvorssen is a human rights and civil liberties activist. He grew up in Venezuela and now lives in Philadelphia.
Amnesty's Amnesia --VIEW FROM THE RIGHT
<a href=www.sfgate.com>SFGate.com
Adam Sparks, Special to SF Gate Monday, June 9, 2003
Scores of brutal regimes around the globe routinely maim, torture and commit summary executions of its prisoners, criminal suspects and political opponents. Many of them imprison and torture children or put them on the front line of wars and terror campaigns.
The torture that occurs around the world, best symbolized by the terror conducted within Saddam Hussein's fallen regime, is a prime example of humans' continuing inhumanity toward others. But the savage cruelty -- eye gouging, nail pulling, electroshock therapy, severing of limbs, gassing, use of mechanical shredders on live prisoners and employment of children in armies -- is not limited to a few nations. The barbarity is widespread.
It should come as no surprise, then, that Amnesty International chooses as one of the world's most terrifyingly repressive nations the United States.
Don't be surprised. What you had thought is a beacon of freedom and economic opportunity for millions around the world is in reality a hate-filled nation that condones terror, permits capital punishment, sells arms and conducts torture. At least that's what Amnesty, the respected human rights organization based in London, and the appeasement-Left crowd thinks.
The capitalist press has apparently duped you if you actually think America is a liberator and a nation that has fought totalitarian regimes throughout its history. Wrong. The millions seeking freedom each year, risking their lives and meager fortunes to get to our shores, are merely chasing a myth.
Forget countries such as Africa's Sierra Leone, which has been nearly totally destroyed by armed conflict in recent years. Rebel forces have abducted, mutilated, tortured, raped and killed civilians. Government forces have done the same. Both sides have also used children as combatants.
And other nations, such as Iraq, have imprisoned children as young as 8 years old.
Now, comes Amnesty, which has just released its 2003 report, which states that confirmed or possible extrajudicial executions or otherwise unlawful killings occurred in 42 countries last year. They include: Argentina, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Burundi, the Central African Republic, Colombia, the Ivory Coast, the Dominican Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Fiji, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Jamaica, Kenya, Lebanon, Liberia, Macedonia, Madagascar, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Palestinian Authority, the Philippines, the Republic of Congo, Russia, Rwanda, the Solomon Islands, Sudan, Thailand, Uganda, Venezuela, Yemen and Zimbabwe.
But this is by no means the entire list of rogue states. Others simply engage in the more run-of-the-mill torture: live amputations, eye gouging, electric cattle-prod therapy, executing children as their parents look on, etc. Amnesty maintains a running list of 106 states that engage in torture -- including the United States.
The leftist credo of Amnesty, which declares the United States bad and leftist totalitarian regimes good, has now infected what was once a respected human rights organization. Its leadership has been taken over by a cabal of activist leftists with a political ax to grind. How else can you plausibly explain an organization so intent on repudiating America for daring to take down totalitarian regimes? These are the governments that condone the real torture and brutal oppression of their own people. This is theoretically the very stuff Amnesty allegedly opposes. We don't see too many other nations stepping into the role of liberator.
Amnesty©ˆs members spend considerable time wailing and gnashing their teeth about alleged torture crimes, but when a powerful nation actually takes action to bring these dictators to justice, they just wail and gnash their teeth some more. At this rate, they won't have much in the way of teeth left to gnash.
The Amnesty report charges that "the U.S.-led war against terrorism is sowing fear and danger in the name of security across the globe and denying basic rights to those who have been arrested." Well, duh. We hope so. Amnesty may not be aware that there is an international terrorist war going on. Perhaps it hasn't been reading the newspapers for the past few years. We're supposed to be "sowing fear" -- fear among al Qaeda, terrorist organizations, assorted armed wackos and the rogue regimes that support them.
Amnesty also says the United States "continued to deny international recognized rights to people arrested in the context of the 'war against terrorism.' Thousands were detained from the war in Afghanistan in defiance of international law." Double duh. The war is not over in Afghanistan; our troops are still there. Should we return Afghan prisoners of war to their caves to rearm, or should we simply send them to London so these trained al Qaeda fighters can assist Amnesty in its struggle for human rights?
Cuba's Club Med under Attack
The crybabies at Amnesty continue: "Conditions in Camp X-Ray and, later, in Camp Delta, gave cause for serious concern. U.S. forces also held hundreds of detainees in Afghanistan, or in undisclosed locations." Camp X-Ray is a tropical Club Med compared to the barren, blistering-cold mountain caves these fighters operated from. Now, they're getting shoes (something many of them never had), clean clothing, warm Cuban sunshine and three squares a day. Sounds plenty tough. The only thing these prisoners are missing is the simple pleasure of smoking some fat, hand-rolled Cuban stogies. Amnesty staffers should have it so good.
The report adds that more than 600 detainees are still being held at Camp X-Ray, at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, "without being charged and without legal assistance." Yeah, that's right -- they want every al Qaeda member to be represented by Johnnie Cochran: "If the turban don't fit, you must acquit." Amnesty's battles against worldwide torture and killings by brutal regimes must be over if they have the time and energy to be pointing accusatory fingers at the world's greatest crime fighter.
The effects of the U.S.-led war on terror have been "far reaching," Amnesty says in its report. "Far from making the world a safer place, [the war] has made it more dangerous by curtailing human rights, undermining the rule of international law and shielding governments from scrutiny. It has deepened divisions among people of different faiths and origins, sowing the seeds for more conflict." Here we go: While our president has said that al Qaeda's leadership is decimated and on the run, the Left says the opposite. The United States, by beefing up security, has had to hurt the feelings of would-be terrorists and their sympathizers. It's a real tearjerker. Quick, get the hanky.
The Left, never having wanted to wage a battle against terror, has been calling the war against terrorism a failure even before it started. It now has reached a verdict: The world is worse off because free nations have the temerity to defend themselves. The imprimatur of Amnesty has now given the Left's war on America the Good Housekeeping seal of approval.
Amnesty Secretary-General Irene Khan said it is important that "we resist the manipulation of fear and challenge the narrow focus of the security agenda." Narrow focus? What narrow focus? If you're not protecting your freedom to survive, freedom from fear, there is no other focus. But because Americans overwhelmingly believe our security is the nation's No. 1 priority, that laserlike concern is now an international crime that Amnesty needs to report at press conferences.
Putting killers to death upsets Amnesty
Amnesty hates capital punishment, too, and it continues to press its attack on the United States with more lefty rhetoric. This time, it complains about the fact that we put serial rapists, cop killers and heinous murderers to death. "In 2002, 69 men and two women were executed, bringing to 820 the total number of prisoners put to death since the U.S. Supreme Court lifted a moratorium on executions in 1976," the organization reports. So what? Now that we finally get to mete out justice after decades of defendants' appeals, at huge expense to the taxpayers, we're now guilty of international crimes? Give me a break.
Just in case you weren't getting the message that freedom-loving democracies are under attack by so-called human rights groups such as Amnesty, here's the kicker. The organization also says that "although the human rights crisis in Israel and the occupied territories is among the issues most discussed, it is the least acted upon by the international community." Lemme see: I guess suicide bombers, supported by terrorist regimes, which target civilians on nearly a daily basis, don't rate much these days. I don't recall hearing about the Amnesty press conferences over those daily terrorist murderer bombers. Yet the world community apparently needs to condemn Israel for merely defending itself. Yeah, right. Apparently Israel's self-defense, involving uprooting terrorist cells and the villages that support them, is futile; it would only generate another report about "human rights abuses."
In other words, politically left-leaning agendas are OK as long as they're carried out discreetly and under the guise of "human rights." The human rights brigades share an ideology that only barely masquerades as human rights but is heavily laden with leftist dogma. It's an ideology that opposes democratic nations that either fight in their own self-defense, as in Israel, or that try to bring the torch of freedom to despotic nations such as ours. To groups such as Amnesty, these are "crimes against humanity" that merit a lot of investigation and hoopla. However, the support of tyrannical states and roving bands of "underdog" terrorists is basically no problem.
I think this is true for several reasons: Amnesty is sympathetic to the goals of the murderous groups that terrorize nations such as Israel. The Amnesty Web site wears its political ideology on its sleeve. It still refers to Israel as the aggressor and the West Bank as occupied territories. That's provocative.
Also, despotic nations have no free press, so it's hard to get the facts, but not in democracies. Democracies are open societies, so many human rights groups seem to find many more incidents of really bad things going on in these nations.
Amnesty Tearjerker
One example spoken about in a call for action on the Amnesty Web site is a request to protect the headache-relief rights of a terrorist collaborator. Here's what the organization had to say: "Asma Muhammad Suleiman Saba'neh, a 40-year-old resident of the Jenin refugee camp and mother of six children, was arrested by the Israeli army on 11 February 2003 and placed in administrative detention without charge." Sounds pretty frightening. But it gets better: "Until the beginning of this year, Asma Saba'neh was symptom-free but then began to suffer from severe headaches and edema. No diagnosis could be made by X-ray examination, and her doctor recommended a CT scan, which she still has not received."
So now Israel has to offer expensive, high-tech CT scans to deal with every headache terrorists claim they get while under detention? That's quite a grievance Amnesty is busy trumpeting from its London digs. Why bother ridiculing the organization, when it does such a good job of making a joke of itself? Israel is now supposed to jump at every headache symptom? What is Amnesty thinking, that Saba'neh checked into a five-star resort? What kind of medical treatment would she be getting back in the ol' refugee camp? What's more, readers of the Amnesty Web site are urgently asked to write to the prime minister of Israel about this case!
To understand Amnesty, listen to not only what's said against democracies but also what goes unsaid against despots and terrorist organizations. For example, neither al Qaeda nor Hezbollah are listed in Amnesty reports or on its Web site as organizations that Amnesty have any problem with, but the United States and Israel are listed. That's the human rights game. That's all you need to know.
Adam Sparks is a San Francisco conservative writer. He can be reached at adamstyle@aol.com.