Current World NewsTopics

JOURNALISM IN THE AMERICAS
El Salvador’s President-elect Began as War Reporter
Mauricio Funes, who takes office June 1, first made his name by reporting on his country’s 1980-1992 war between U.S.-backed governments and leftist guerrillas and as a TV show host who tackled the country’s most sensitive issues, the Associated Press reports.
Funes, representing the former Marxist rebel FMLN party, won 51.3 percent of the votes to beat his conservative rival, Rodrigo Avila (48.7 percent) whose Arena party had won every presidential election since the civil war ended 18 years ago, the BBC notes.
Born in San Salvador in 1959, Funes studied communications at a Jesuit university, taught school in the capital for five years, then worked as a reporter for state TV Channel 10, the AP’s Marcos Aleman reports. After the civil war, his opinion program “Uncensored” featured investigations on scandals—including allegations that 2001 earthquake aid was illegally diverted—earning him the reputation as a crusader against corruption, Aleman adds. Funes was also a correspondent for CNN’s Spanish edition from 1991 to 2007.
In a report for the Los Angeles Times, Tracy Wilkinson writes that Funes, as a reporter, accepted an invitation in the 1990s to the president’s home for a meal and to accept an award. Granted permission to film the award ceremony for his mother, Funes launched into a scathing rebuke of President Armando Calderon Sol and what Funes considered to be government corruption and abuse, Wilkinson reports.

Mexican Government Criticized for Actions Against Community Radio

The federal government has filed criminal charges against the community radio station Tierra y Libertad (Land and Liberty), of Monterrey, Nuevo León (northern Mexico), charging it with operating clandestinely, La Jornada reports. Previous actions against community radio stations have involved administrative charges.
The charge could result in a 12-year jail sentence and a $100,000 fine and has generated criticism from several Mexican and international organizations working for freedom of expression, the Pulsar news agency reports.
In a statement circulated by the Mexican chapter of the World Association of Community Radio (AMARC), several organizations suggest that the decision to file criminal charges shows "the beginning of a more repressive and persecutorial policy" by authorities against the community stationos and is "a form of inhibiting the exercise of the right to communication of a marginal community."
Last week, federal agents also seized the equipment of another community radio station, Tu Voz en la Radio (Your Voice on the Radio) in the southern state of Veracruz.

Press Freedom in Americas Worsens, IAPA Concludes

Press freedom deteriorated in the Americas in the last six months, with attacks by criminal organizations in Mexico making that country among the worse places to practice the profession, the Inter American Press Association (IAPA) said at the end of its midyear meeting in Paraguay. See this report by the Associated Press.
In its own statement, IAPA noted new attacks on journalists, abuse and ridicule of news organizations and journalists by populist governments, and the U.S. newspaper industry crisis that threatens its role as a watchdog against corruption.
Reports, resolutions, and conclusions from the meeting are found here.
For more information, see this post in Spanish by Ingrid Bachmann of the Knight Center.

IAPA Warns of Persistent Threats to Press Freedom

The Inter American Press Association (IAPA) concluded its mid-year meeting in Paraguay on Monday (March 16). Highlights of the gathering as reported throughout the Americas include:
*IAPA Warns of Worsening Relations Between Media and Governments in Latin America (Reuters)
*Governments Shouldn’t Use State Ads to Reward or Punish Media, IAPA Says La Nacion (Paraguay)
*Venezuelan TV Executive Says Freedom of Expression Continues to Erode (Ultima Hora)
*Colombian Journalists Continue Receiving Threats (EFE)
*IAPA Criticizes Threats by Governments of Brazil and Ecuador (EFE)


BROOKLYN, New York (March 17, 2009) - The World Bank has expressed renewed confidence in the Government of St. Lucia and will assist the 30 year-old island nation weather the global economic crisis, the island's Prime Minister told his compatriots here over the weekend here in New York.
Prime Minister Stephenson King, accompanied by his wife and daughter as well as Minister of Physical Planning Richard Frederick at the 30th Independence gala celebrations in Brooklyn, said the Bank has committed resources to help the country sustain itself for the next two to three years based on programs that St. Lucia will design and present to the Bretton Woods institution. "To select St. Lucia as one of four countries in the entire Eastern Caribbean (and) to offer such assistance is an indication of the Word Bank's confidence in the Government and People of St. Lucia," said Prime Minister King.
Reassuring the 350-strong audience who had converged on Brooklyn's historic Grand Prospect Hall for the celebrations, Prime Minister King said that on the occasion of three decades of Independence "our achievements are beyond our own selves, our achievements are beyond our own shores, our achievements are recognized throughout the world, and therefore in congratulating you I ask you to hold your heads high, hold your shoulders high and consider yourself a proud St. Lucian ready and determined to help your country move forward for another 30 years."
Departing from the academic style presentation he had prepared for the evening, the Prime Minister instead highlighted St. Lucia's achievements in academia, education, communications, infrastructure, health, agriculture and tourism over the past 30 years and was hopeful that Sir Arthur Lewis Community College would soon be transformed into a tertiary institution. He said that as the world searches for answers to the current global economic crisis, St. Lucia perseveres and will continue to empower and support its people to transform the economy of St. Lucia, including its overseas-based nationals whom he congratulated for the remittances, educational pursuits, and commerce and business activities that have each helped the fledgling nation.
"(Looking at the challenges), we will put our shoulders to the wheel and continue to work in the interest of the development of our country. We look to the future with great anticipation, with great hope and with great courage that you in these parts can come forward and give support to the Government and People of St. Lucia," said Prime Minister King who emphasized that his government has made it a priority to engage its overseas-based nationals in the social and economic development of the country.
St. Lucia's Ambassador to the United Nations, Ambassador Donatus St. Aimee thanked St. Lucians across the Tri-State area around New York, and beyond, for their contribution to the success of the gala as well as to the preceding Independence activities which included cultural presentations, poetry readings, a flag raising ceremony at Brooklyn's Borough Hall, a church service, and the Ambassador's official reception.
He said that both the St. Lucia Mission to the United Nations and the Consulate looked forward to continuing the hard work ahead as well as to further mobilizing the nation's overseas-based residents to participate in the nation's development. "The Prime Minister has fired us all up and we are excited about meeting the challenges of the future with confidence," he said.
St. Lucia gained its Independence from Great Britain on February 22, 1979.

ENDS

Venezuelan Journalists Mobilize to Defend Law About Professional Practice

n response to the National Assembly's intentions to modify the Law of Journalism Practices, The Journalists Guild (CNP) has placed itself on alert and announced a movement to defend the law, El Universal reports.
The Journalists guild will also work with journalism schools and with government representatives to debate the need to pass a law to access public information, El Nacional adds.
Such a law would “guarantee Venezuelans the right to be informed in an explicit, detailed, and updated manner, and through different communications media," the CNP's president, William Echeverría, said.
(Source:Journalism in America)


Governance and Social Development Resource Centre



Aid Under Pressure
"The International Development Committee has set up this online forum to listen to the views of the public on how the UK Government helps poor countries.

"The UK Department for International Development (DFID) currently spends around £6 billion in aid every year and is planning to increase this to about £8 billion by 2011. This money supports long-term programmes used to provide basic services such as health and education and help tackle the underlying causes of poverty (development) and also responds to emergencies, both natural and man-made (humanitarian assistance).

"Have your views about how much help the UK should give to other countries changed since the onset of the financial crisis? How much do you know about the work that the UK does to support other countries? And how could DFID keep you better informed about what it does?

"This forum will run until 7 April 2009. We hope you will register on the forum and share your views with us. Your registration details will not be made public. Please be careful not to reveal private information about yourself or other people when posting.

"The posts we receive, with the written and oral evidence gathered during our inquiry, will help shape the recommendations the Committee makes to the Government in our report."
Malcolm Bruce MP, Chairman of the International Development Committee


The botched Doha Round negotiations on a Special Safeguard Mechanism
Robert E. Baldwin
11 March 2009 Print Email
Comment Republish

The WTO talks broke down last year over a highly technical issue – the Special Safeguard Mechanism in agriculture. This column highlights a flaw in the proposed mechanism. It also argues that fear of a retaliatory process in today’s recessionary climate should drive leading developed and developing trading countries to negotiate new rules aimed at preventing such an outcome. Within this larger framework, the technical sticking points holding up Doha negotiations may be settled quickly.

When the Doha Round negotiations collapsed in July 2008 because of the inability of India and the US to agree on a special safeguard mechanism for the agricultural products of developing countries, there was a widespread belief among WTO negotiators and world political leaders that the lull in negotiations would be short-lived. Because negotiators had already tentatively agreed on dozens of other issues that seemed much more contentious than temporary safeguards designed to protect livelihood and food security conditions for farmers in developing countries, these optimists reasoned that the negotiating failure must be an aberration that could be corrected with a temporary break and renewal of resolve.
The Chair of the Agricultural Committee expressed support for this view by concluding that he saw no alternative “to picking ourselves up, dusting ourselves off, and trying again” (WTO 2008). G20 leaders explicitly supported this approach in their November 15, 2008 declaration on Financial Markets and the World Economy by instructing their Trade Ministers to reach agreement on the key issues in the agricultural and manufacturing negotiations by the end of 2008.1 The Director-General of the WTO, Pascal Lamy, also initiated extensive discussions with high level officials in India, the US and other major trading nations in the negotiations to determine whether there was a reasonable chance these issues could be agreed upon by the end of 2008 if he scheduled new negotiations at the Ministerial level.
Unfortunately, on December 12 Lamy finally announced that he had not found the necessary political will among key members to accommodate the demands of others and thereby complete the essential parts of negotiations on manufactured and agricultural products by the end of the year. However, negotiations on other issues on the Doha Round agenda, e.g., services, WTO rules, disputes settlement, etc., continue, as does work of a technical nature in the manufacturing and agricultural committees
The long-run fate of the Doha Round is unclear. What is very much needed now, however, is a better understanding of just why the special safeguard issue has proved to be so difficult on which to obtain agreement. This column aims to explain the problem.
The flawed decision on safeguards in 2005
In my view the basis for the inability to reach agreement can be traced back to a bungled decision made during the Hong Kong Ministerial Meeting in 2005. The Ministerial Declaration from that meeting states that “Developing country Members will have the right to have recourse to a Special Safeguard Mechanism based on import quantity and price triggers, with precise arrangements to be further defined” (WTO 2005).2 The quantity trigger rule proposed by the Chair of the Agricultural Committee in the draft modalities paper that was considered by Ministers at their July 2008 meeting permits additional duties to be imposed on imports of agricultural products of developing countries if the volume of imports during any year exceeds 110% of a rolling average of imports in the preceding three years.3
Unfortunately, a safeguards rule based solely on changes in the quantity of imports is seriously flawed. It does not, for example, distinguish between import increases due to increases in supply from foreign countries and import increases touched off by a decrease in domestic production and rise in domestic price. In the latter situation, imposing additional duties and thereby raising consumer prices of agricultural products beyond the increases brought about by the decline in domestic production further reduces the living standards of consumers. Providing subsidies to domestic producers to compensate for their income losses is a much preferred policy option.
But even if all import increases were due to increases in the supply curves of foreign exporters, a quantity trigger mechanism would still be seriously flawed. Such a trigger mechanism is by itself unable to distinguish between those instances in which increases in imports do and do not indicate an appreciable worsening of living conditions for farmers in developing countries. To be able to distinguish between these conditions, it is necessary to take account of the size of the domestic market for a product in addition to the increase in imports (see the postscript below for numerical illustrations).
The failure to recognise the flaw or utilise the format of the special Uruguay Round agreement on safeguards
Had at the time of the Hong Kong Ministerial Meeting agricultural exporting nations such as the US used common sense economics and historical data to demonstrate forcefully the absurdity of using only changes in the volume of imports to measure the effects of import surges on the livelihood conditions of farmers in developing countries, the current Doha Round special safeguard rule may never have been adopted. But apparently this was never done. The Agricultural Committee’s Chair’s draft modalities of July 2007 states there is clear agreement that the trigger not be set in such a way to be “literally triggered hundreds or scores of times by developing countries” or be used to disrupt “trade where fluctuations upwards and downwards are the norm.”4 However, in this and other various draft modalities by the Agricultural Chair over the years, there is no indication that any members considered the quantity mechanism to be flawed as a way of distinguishing between import surges that endanger the livelihood of farmers in developing countries and those that do not.
It should be noted that at the outset of the negotiations in 2001, India proposed a special safeguard provision “on the lines of the Special Safeguard provision” included in the Agricultural Agreement of the Uruguay Round.5 This measure covers the agricultural imports of both developing and developed countries that agreed in the Uruguay Round to convert quotas on agricultural imports to equivalent tariffs and then to reduce these tariffs. The trigger level for utilising this provision is “based on market access opportunities defined as imports as a percentage of the corresponding domestic consumption during the three preceding years for data are available.”6 (Italics added.)
It appears that the US and other agricultural exporting nations did not make the case against a quantity trigger at this early stage when the negotiating position of India was more flexible. India and the other developing countries understandably prefer a trigger mechanism based just on changes in the volume of imports because this is more direct and gives them greater scope for raising tariffs. Unfortunately, it now seems too late in the negotiations to be able to replace the current quantity trigger mechanism by one based both on percent increases in imports and the level of import penetration.
The July 2008 collapse in the negotiations
The key issue over which disagreement between the US and India led to the collapse of the July 2008 Ministerial Meeting involved the extent to which developing countries could raise agricultural duties in response to import surges. India wished to have the unencumbered right to raise duties to the level it deemed necessary to protect the livelihood conditions of its farmers. The US was concerned that this freedom of action would lead to tariffs being raised to levels above those agreed on in the Uruguay Round negotiations and thus would represent a step backward from the hard-won liberalisation gains of that Round in agriculture.7
In an effort to break the resulting deadlock, WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy proposed as a compromise that pre-Doha tariff rates could be exceeded if the increase in imports in the current year was at least 40% greater than the average for the preceding three years. Susan Schwab, the US Trade Representative, accepted this figure as a compromise point (Schwab 2008), but Kamal Nath, the Indian Commerce and Industry Minister, summarily rejected it with the remark: “I reject everything. I cannot put the livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people at risk” (Blustein 2008).8
An alternative compromise subsequently put forward would have not limited the ability of developing countries to raise agricultural tariffs above pre-Doha Round levels, provided they could show that imports were causing “demonstrable harm” to their poor farmers, as judged by a panel of neutral experts. India reportedly stated it could go along with this approach but it was rejected by the US on the ground that being “a mechanism to disrupt trade” (Blustein 2008).
An interesting feature of this proposal is that in judging whether poor farmers were being subject to “demonstrable harm”, panels of experts would likely give considerable weight in their decisions to the share of domestic consumption taken by the increased imports. This is one of the measures that the general WTO safeguard article (Article XIX of GATT 1994) specifically states should be considered in determining whether increased imports are causing serious injury. Its use under these circumstances would partly compensate for the flawed quantity trigger mechanism.
Prior to the Director-General’s December 2008 announcement that he would not be calling for a restart of the negotiations at the Ministerial level, the Agricultural Chair issued still another revised draft modalities reflecting his views concerning a possible compromise on the special safeguard mechanism. The key differences from the proposal put forth by the Director-General at the July 2008 Ministerial were a lowering of the percent import increase at which pre-Doha Round tariff rates could be exceeded (from 40% to 20%) and the imposition of a limit on the share of tariff lines on which the trigger mechanism could be applied at any one time (2.5%). However, the Director-General’s subsequent announcement that he would not be calling for a restart of the negotiations at the Ministerial level indicates that this proposal was also rejected as an acceptable compromise.
Obama’s views
The Obama Administration has yet to indicate its views concerning the issues that led to the July 2008 collapse of the Doha Round negotiations. However, given India’s great fear that the livelihoods of its hundreds of millions farmers are endangered by import surges9 and thus its position that its agricultural sector must be protected by a special safeguard mechanism that contains few restrictions on its ability to raise import duties, it does not seem possible to reach an agreement in this sector unless the Indian demands concerning the nature of this mechanism are largely met.
US negotiators, however, recognise that accepting the Indian position would in effect eliminate the credibility of the formula tariff reductions agreed on in the market access negotiations in agriculture and greatly reduce the prospects of significantly increasing agricultural exports to developing countries as their income levels grow. Ambassador Schwab seemed prepared to accept this outcome provided that developing countries such as China were willing to engage in sectoral negotiations in manufacturing that cover such industries as chemicals and machinery. However, China refused to consider further tariff reductions in these industries beyond those already made as part of its WTO accession agreement.10
The looming trade war and the safeguards issue
The development most likely leading to a restart of negotiations at the Ministerial level is the increase in trade-distorting measures adopted by both developed and developing countries as means of stimulating national economic recovery from the current worldwide recession. A number of countries have already provided extensive subsidies for particular industries. An almost inevitable response to these measures will be the imposition of countervailing and antidumping duties by other countries on the grounds that the measures unfairly distort trade. Policies designed to increase domestic employment by favouring the purchase of domestic over foreign goods or domestic over foreign investment are also likely to lead to retaliatory actions.
Because of a fear that this retaliatory process will lead to a worldwide trade war in which all countries lose, the leading developed and developing trading countries are likely to call for a WTO Ministerial meeting to negotiate new sets of international rules aimed at preventing such an outcome. Within this larger framework, the special agricultural safeguard issue of the Doha Round may not appear to be so important in the trade agenda of the key participants and thus be settled more quickly.
References
Paul Blustein, “The Nine-Day Misadventure of the Most Favored Nations: How the WTO’s Doha Round Negotiations Went Awry in July 2008,” Brookings Global Economy and Development, The Brookings Institution, 2008.
Susan Schwab, Press Briefing, July 30, 2008.
WTO website, Doha Round, Report to the Trade Negotiating Committee by the Chairperson of the Agricultural Committee, August 2008.
WTO website, Doha Development Agenda, Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration, 2005
Postscript
This postscript illustrates the logical flaw in the safeguard mechanism using hypothetical data and actual Indian data.
Hypothetical data
Consider, for example, a sector in which production is equals to 95% of consumption, exports are equal to 5% of consumption, and imports are equal to 10% of consumption, i.e., C = P – X + M = .95C - .05C + .1C.11 In these circumstances, a 10% increase in imports represents only a 1% increase in the quantity of the good supplied to the domestic market (0.01 = .1 x .1C/ (.95C - .05C +.1C)). Even with the typically low elasticities of demand for agricultural products, it is unlikely that a 1% shift in supply would affect food security or the livelihood conditions of poor farmers sufficiently to warrant a protectionist response. In contrast, suppose imports initially equal 90% of a good’s domestic consumption, domestic production equals 15 %, and exports equal 5%. In this case a 10% increase in imports represents a 9% increase supply of the good to the domestic market (0.09 = (.1 x .9C) / (.15C - .05C + .9C)) or an increase much more likely to threaten the livelihood of poor farmers. A low trigger level is necessary to ensure that all agricultural sectors deserving of safeguard protection are selected, but this low trigger level will also select many sectors in which the livelihood of farmers is not endangered or threatened by surges in imports. A trigger mechanism based on the change in import penetration in a domestic market, i.e., the increase in imports divided by the level of consumption, would not have this drawback.
Actual Indian data
The unsatisfactory nature of a quantity trigger mechanism can be further illustrated using actual agricultural data for India. Using Indian import data covering 14 products over the period from 2001 to 2007, the ratio of current year imports to the average of imports for the three preceding years can be calculated for the 14 products for the four years, 2007, 2006, 2005 and 2004. The results indicate that 17 of these 56 ratios or 30% covering 11 of the 14 products equalled or exceeded 110%. Thus, had the Special Safeguard Mechanism been in operation during this period, additional import duties could have been imposed on these products for one year.
Since comparably classified production and export data are readily available for the industries covering 8 of the 17 ratios, it is possible to calculate a measure of the livelihood effects of these import increase on farmers by comparing the percent import increases in these 8 cases with their respective levels of domestic consumption.
In 4 of the 8 cases this calculation yields ratios of less than 1% – levels at which it seems doubtful that the import increases could have had much effect on the livelihood conditions of farmers. In the one case where the import surge is an appreciable fraction of domestic supply, 7% for wheat, the import increase was the result of a deliberate government action to increase the country’s stocks of wheat. Thus, if this sample of 8 cases is representative of all 17, one can conclude for India over this period that the safeguard mechanism would have been triggered a number of cases of dubious merit from the standpoint of protecting livelihood conditions of farmers.

1 In addition to the major developed countries, the Group of Twenty includes the more advanced developing countries such as Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and South Korea.
2 Disagreement on the safeguard issues has arisen mainly over arrangements with regard to the quantity trigger.
3 The greater the percent by which the import increase exceeds a three years moving average of imports, the greater the permitted increase in the tariff rate.
4 These quotations are from paragraphs 104 and 105 of the July 2007 revised draft modalities of the Chair of the Agricultural Committee.
5 Proposal on Market Access, WTO G/AG/NG/W/102, January 2001. Other developing countries also proposed a special safeguard mechanism for the agricultural products of developing countries.
6 Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture, Part II, Article 5, paragraph 4. The provision is written such that the smaller the import penetration ratio for a particular product, the larger the percent increase in imports must be in order to raise import duties on the product.
7 The July 2008 draft modalities by the Agricultural Chair specified that pre-Doha Round bound rates be respected as upper limits of tariff increases.
8 This is an especially valuable account of the December 2008 breakdown because Blustein interviewed key participants in the negotiations and had access to their notes on the meetings.
9 Kamal Nath, the Indian Industry and Commerce Minister, frequently raises the possibility of mass suicide on the part of Indian farmers if imports surges are not curtailed.
10 China and other developing countries also pointed out that participation in sectoral negotiations is voluntary under the Doha Round mandate.
11 Domestic consumption (C) equals domestic production (P) minus exports (X) plus imports (M), i.e., C = P – X + M.


(Source:VOX)

CURRENT AFFAIRS ON THE WORLD INCLUDING RUSSIA/US/DOHA & ETC.

AMS 2009 - A Global Learning and Sharing Event
by Javad Mottaghi
The Asia Media Summit 2009 has become a global learning and sharing event for broadcasters and other stakeholders not only from Asia Pacific, but also from Africa, Europe, North America and the Middle East.
This unique opportunity affords participants from more than 50 countries a diversity of insights that can empower media organizations better address the changing preferences of citizens and audiences, the demands of business growth, and the good of society. more...
News and Highlights
3rd Asia-Pacific and Europe Media Dialogue
Amsterdam, Netherlands, 9 - 10 November 2009
To build on the successes of the 1st and 2nd Asia-Pacific and Europe Media Dialogue, we are engaging more broadcasters and other stakeholders of the electronic media industry in promoting better understanding of media issues and enhancing interaction through the 3rd Asia-Pacific and Europe Media Dialogue, co-organised by Radio Netherlands Worldwide and the AIBD at the Royal Tropical Institute in Amsterdam from 9 to 10 November 2009. more...
35th AIBD Annual Gathering and 8th General Conference and Associated Meetings
For the first time in its 32-year history, AIBD will hold its General Conference in a Pacific Island. Fiji has accepted to host the 35th AIBD Annual Gathering and 8th General Conference and Associated Meetings from 20-23 July 2009. more...
Invitation to the 2009 Co-Production "I Am..."
AIBD is pleased to announce the 2nd round of the International Co-Production on Children's TV programmes "I Am...". It provides you an opportunity to join this international production and to benefit from the outcome. more...
Broadcast Asia 2009
From 16 to 20 June, Singapore Expo will see the 14 Digital Multimedia and Entertainment Technology Exhibition and Conference. Broadcasters in the region look forward to see the cutting edge technology before deciding on new equipment to procure. It is also the time to listen to the thoughts of industry leaders and ponder on the new strategies and business models. more...
Invitation to On–Line English Courses
The advanced Online English Course (Level 3) for Broadcasters will be started from 24 February 2009. more...
*************************************************************************************

Undefended - Russia's migrant workers
Jane Buchanan, 13 - 03 - 2009

migrant workers in Russia is in the lurch as the country reels from the global financial crisis. Even in the best of times, during the recent years of Russia's major economic boom, migrant workers in Russia have been subject to widespread abuses both in and outside the workplace. Now, economic crisis, coupled with a growing tide of hate-motivated violence in Russia, puts migrant workers at even greater risk. That is, unless the government takes immediate action to protect workers from abusive employers, employment agencies, and the police.
With over 40 percent of Russia's migrant workers employed in the construction industry, the fate of this sector is particularly relevant. Russia's multi-year construction boom, driven by high energy prices, appears to be grinding to a halt, with building projects across the country frozen and workers asked to go home.
Of course, workers' options at home, in countries like Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Moldova, which rank among the poorest in the region, were limited even in good economic times. They will still try to earn a decent living for themselves and their loved ones. This leaves most workers feeling that they have little choice but to stay on in Russia, or at least to try their luck in Russia again for seasonal work after workers' typical winter hiatus at home with their families.
Moreover, Russia needs migrant workers to offset a serious demographic crisis. Since 1992, Russia's population has declined by 6.5 million, and the yearly rate of decline is increasing. Both the UN and International Labor Organization (ILO) have indicated that Russia is likely to face labor shortages in the near future, perhaps as soon as 2012.
Russia has one of the largest migrant populations in the world, second only to the United States. Although estimates vary, some 4-9 million of Russia's migrants have come in search of work, and find it: overwhelmingly low-skilled employment in construction, agriculture, transport and manufacturing. Some 80 percent of Russia's migrant workers come from 9 former Soviet states, with which Russia maintains a visa-free regime.[1]
Most workers are recruited in their home countries for work in Russia by relatives, friends, or neighbors who have previously worked on Russian construction sites. In much smaller numbers, workers utilize formal employment agencies, the largest of which are usually run by the state.
Very often, though, migrant workers' problems begin with these intermediaries who have promised to find them decent jobs with steady pay. In the worst cases, workers are unwittingly trafficked into forced labor. Typically in such cases the employment agency or other intermediary delivers workers to employers in Russia who confiscate their passports in order to coerce them to work without wages. Workers may also be forced to endure long working hours, forced confinement at the work site, poor or no food, and even beatings.
Forced labour
Take Siarkhon Tabarov, a 40-year-old worker, from Tajikistan. After seeing a television advertisement by a local employment agency promising good jobs in Russia, he signed an agreement with the agency and traveled with 33 others to Rostov, in southern Russia, last March. Once in Rostov, the agency and employers immediately confiscated everyone's passports then drove and later forced them to walk to a remote mountainous area. Only then did the workers learn that they would be employed in a quarry digging stones, using only hand tools. When Tabarov and the other workers initially refused to perform this job, the employment agency's representative threatened them, "Whether you want to work or not, you will work. We will deport you."
Tabarov and the other workers worked for 85 days, were not paid, and for the most part were forced to live in an abandoned refrigerator truck containing filthy mattresses and a few cots. To eat they were given macaroni, bread, and kasha and only two large containers of water for the almost three months that they were there. The workers mostly drank puddles or water that they managed to collect from a nearby swamp. When the workers protested these conditions by refusing to work, demanding that they be paid or allowed to return home, the employer punished those seen as the initiators by refusing to give them food for two days.
Tabarov and the others were eventually freed when he managed to contact some relatives who alerted an international organization and the Tajik government to the case.
Nonpayment of wages
Trafficking and forced labor are particularly severe abuses of exceptional violation, but nonpayment of wages is utterly rampant, by private and state employers alike. Migrant workers typically do not know when they will be paid, how much they will be paid, or even if they will be paid. Because the practices of non-payment or delayed payment are so pervasive, many workers feel they have no choice but to remain at a job for weeks or months in hopes of one day receiving all or some of the wages owed to them.
Employers also frequently require migrant workers to work excessively long working hours and do not provide safe working conditions. Some employers use violence or threats of violence to coerce workers into accepting these terms and conditions of work.
Employers in most cases refuse to provide migrant workers with written employment contracts, as required under Russian law, making workers even more vulnerable to wage violations and other abuses and limiting their opportunities to seek assistance from official bodies in cases of abuse.
In many instances police officials responsible for providing protection and facilitating redress themselves prey on migrants. Police regularly target ethnic minorities, including migrant workers, for petty extortion during spot document inspections on the street. Sometimes, during these inspections, police also beat or humiliate them.
The government's response to these abuses has largely been to hail its recent migration policy reforms as evidence that they are looking out for the interests of migrants (at the same time looking out for Russia's national interest by facilitating a steady stream of workers). Reforms that came into effect in 2007 made it easier for workers who can enter Russia without a visa to legalize their stay and employment. These reforms, while positive, have clearly not been sufficient, to protect workers from the range of abuses that many of them face.
The government has also expressed a "love it or leave it" attitude, suggesting that if migrant workers don't like the conditions they find in Russia, then they can just stay home.
But everyone knows that the expectation that the workers "just stay home" is not realistic, or desirable, neither for the workers themselves, who have few or no opportunities for productive employment at home, nor for Russia's employers who rely on low-skilled employees from abroad to do the dirty, low-paying, and dangerous jobs that most Russian citizens aren't willing to do. Furthermore, migrant workers in Russia have a considerable impact on the economies of both Russia (experts estimate that migrant workers contribute eight to nine percent of Russian GDP) and their home countries. Remittances constitute significant portions of many regional governments' GDP (42 percent of Tajikistan's and 39 percent of Moldova's in 2007, according to the World Bank).
Nor is the "love it or leave it" position viable for protecting the human rights of migrant workers in Russia. Yes, governments have the right to develop laws and policies to regulate migration, including migration for work. But Russia's laws and policies on migration must be consistent with the country's obligations under international human rights law to protect the fundamental rights of every individual, including migrant workers, irrespective of their migration status.
Although the full impact of the economic downturn in Russia remains far from clear, without urgent action by the Russian government, Russia's already vulnerable migrant workers will be that much more exposed, as employers increasingly try to cut corners, intermediaries look to capitalize on workers' desperation, and private citizens look to scapegoat migrants for their economic woes.
What's to be done?
The Russian government must ensure rigorous labor inspections, prosecution of abusive employers, and effective regulation of intermediaries. It should also develop accessible complaint mechanisms for victims and timely and effective investigations into allegations of abuse. Further reform in migration law is also necessary to allow workers to regularize their stay more easily, making them less vulnerable to abuse and more likely to seek protection from state agencies.
The Russian government has an obligation under its own laws and international law to take these steps. It should have an interest in doing so, as these steps would create a better protected workforce. It should also be concerned about creating a better reputation for itself on labor migrants' rights in advance of the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics to avoid the embarrassment the Chinese government was subjected to over the same issue.

________________________________________
[1] The countries are: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.



The US Print Media's Relentless Retreat
Posted: 16 Mar 2009 05:17 PM PDT
The bloodletting won't stop, and it's hard to keep up with it.
Today, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the largest US newspaper yet to make this decision, has announced that it will stop its print edition and focus entirely on its webpage.
The 146-year-old newspaper said it will print its final edition on Tuesday after its publisher, the Hearst Corp., failed to find a buyer for the money-losing enterprise.
Also, the 140-year old Tucson Citizen, the one that chronicled the legendary OK Corral shootout in Tombstone, will publish its final edition on Saturday.
Gannett Co. Inc., the Southern Arizona newspaper's publisher, also failed to find a buyer and decided to shut it down because "the paper was losing money and was a drain on Gannett operations."
On Friday, The Washington Post announced it will stop publishing its stand-alone business section and that it will consolidate it with its main-news section starting on March 30.
The Post called the decision "a reality" given the dire straits the industry is going through and that it will "dramatically reduce the amount of stock data it publishes."



Doha Centre Calls for Rejection of 'Protection of Religion' Initiative

Posted: 16 Mar 2009 04:47 PM PDT
The Doha Centre for Media Freedom joined a world-wide chorus of voices condemning a proposal by Islamic countries at the UN Human Rights Council to reject criticism of religion.
The Centre called the initiative, which has the backing of the 57-member-state Organization of the Islamic Conference, "an unacceptable violation" of international agreements of freedom of expression, including Article 19 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
"Such freedom was only possible if religion could be “discussed and criticized freely” in accordance with article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Centre said.

The Council’s “credibility would be destroyed” if the resolution was passed, it said, urging the 47 member-states not to be “naively fooled “by the arguments of the Islamic countries.

The resolution, tabled on 11 March by Pakistan on behalf of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), calls “defamation of religions” a “serious affront to human dignity leading to (...) incitement to religious hatred and violence.”

It warns against the substantial risk of Islamophobia and says Islam is “frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism.” It voices great concern about “negative stereotyping” of some religions by the media, an allusion to the 2005 publication in Denmark of cartoons of the Prophet Mohamed (showing him wearing a turban looking like a bomb), which set off riots in many Muslim countries during which 5O people were killed and several Danish embassies burned.

The Centre reminded the Council that "defending the people's right to worship is the same as protecting the religions themselves," adding that this dangerous initiative would be used "to silence all of dissident voices, including religious minorities."
We have expressed our decisive opposition to this initiative on this blog (here and here) and at international fora. We agree with Donald H. Argue and Leonard Leo, writing in the Christian Science Monitor, that this drive for the "respect of religion" is, in fact, "a cleverly coded way of granting religious leaders the right to criminalize speech and activities that they deem to insult religion. Instead of promoting harmony, however, this effort will exacerbate divisions and intensify religious repression."
This campaign is a concerted effort to glorify blasphemy laws, the ancestral predecessors of insult laws. Both seek to shield either religious or political leaders from dissent or the public's criticism. Both seek to perpetuate the uncontested power and influence of elites of one sort or another.
And both are extremely dangerous to freedom of expression and freedom of the press.

Details: Attacking religious criticism “would destroy credibility” of rights council
The Doha Centre for Media Freedom called today on the UN Human Rights Council to reject a draft resolution by Islamic countries condemning criticism of religion, saying it was “an unacceptable violation” of international agreements about freedom of expression.
Such freedom was only possible if religion could be “discussed and criticised freely” in accordance with article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Centre said.

The Council’s “credibility would be destroyed” if the resolution was passed, it said, urging the 47 member-states not to be “naively fooled “by the arguments of the Islamic countries when it was discussed on the last two days of the Council’s session in Geneva, on 26 and 27 March.

The resolution, tabled on 11 March by Pakistan on behalf of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), calls “defamation of religions” a “serious affront to human dignity leading to (...) incitement to religious hatred and violence.”

It warns against the substantial risk of Islamophobia and says Islam is “frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism.” It voices great concern about “negative stereotyping” of some religions by the media, an allusion to the 2005 publication in Denmark of cartoons of the Prophet Mohamed (showing him wearing a turban looking like a bomb), which set off riots in many Muslim countries during which 5O people were killed and several Danish embassies burned.

The Doha Centre said the notion of defaming religion had no legal basis and was against human rights. “The OIC pretends that defending people’s right to worship is the same as protecting the religions themselves. This is a mistaken and dangerous view because ‘religious defamation’ will clearly be used as an excuse to silence all kinds of dissident voices, including religious minorities.”

US delegate Anna Chambers told the Council session on 12 March that the US was “alarmed” by use of the idea of blasphemy “by some governments to justify actions that selectively curtail civil dissent, halt criticism of political structures and restrict the religious speech of minority faith communities, dissenting members of the majority faith and persons of no religious faith.”

The last time such a resolution was presented to the Council, 21 countries backed it, 11 opposed and 14 abstained.

*************************************************************************************

Re Edited:MUKTI MAJID,Dacca

The Global Crisis/Labor Market Institute/Tibetian Media Cocerns/

SPECIAL ANOUNCEMENT FROM THE MONTHLY MUKTIDOOTH
Hello our dear readers, subscribers, associates and affiliating organizations and also all Global journalist specially Bangali who are living abroad are requested to participate having us your articles, features, news, advertisements and in every ways for participations on the coming "MUKTIDOOTH" special issue on "Liberation Day" March 26th 2009.
Authority of The Monthly Muktidooth
***********************************************************************


A global policy package to address the global crisis 'A global policy package is needed to overcome the current financial crisis, in the spirit of the historic Bretton Woods agreements. Bail-out plans of the financial sector, crucial as they are, will not be enough. Indeed the world economy is being affected by a vicious cycle of rapidly declining confidence, leading to lower demand, output and employment, which is further depressing confidence. What is needed is a global, coordinated stimulus package which breaks this vicious cycle.

In addition, as the World of Work Report 2008 demonstrates, one of the main factors of the current global financial turmoil has been rising economic and social imbalances that built up over the past two decades.1 By putting in place conditions for a more balanced distribution of the gains from economic growth, avoiding “deregulation-solves-it-all” solutions, the risk of major systemic crises like the present one would be attenuated. Acting quickly on this front and supporting disposable income through a global stimulus package is instrumental to overcome the current crisis and put the world economy on a sustainable path. The ILO has a major role to play in this global policy package.'
Language: English
Added by Imran Uddin
March 15, 2009

***********************************************************************

Civic Virtue and Labor Market Institutions

'We argue that civic virtue plays a key role in explaining the design of public insurance against unemployment risks by solving moral hazard issues which hinder the efficiency of unemployment insurance. We show in simple model that economies with stronger civic values are more prone to provide insurance through unemployment benefits rather than through job protection. We provide cross-country empirical evidence of a strong correlation between civic attitudes and the design of unemployment benefits and employment protection in OECD countries over the period 1980-2003.

We then estimate the existence of a potential causal relationship running from civic virtue to labor market insurance institutions. We show that the civic attitudes of people who were born and are living in the United States are strongly influenced by the country of origin of their ancestors. We then use this inherited part of civic attitudes by country of origin as an instrument for civic attitudes in the home country. This strategy allows us to uncover a significant causal effect of civic attitudes on labor market insurance institutions in OECD countries over the last two decades.'
*************************************************************************************

FCCC Calls for Full Media Access to Tibetan Areas
Posted: 13 Mar 2009 04:31 PM PDT

he Foreign Correspondents Club of China urged the Chinese government to allow reporters, both national and international, full access to Tibetan areas.

The statement coincides with the observation of both the 50th anniversary of the 1951 upraising that ended up with the Dalai Lama fleeing into exile and the first anniversary of last year's revolt.Here is the full FCCC statement:Beijing: The Foreign Correspondents' Club of China urges theChinese government to halt a wave of detentions of journalists andopen Tibetan areas for news coverage.Reporters from at least six news organisation have been detained,turned back or had their tapes confiscated in the past week as theytried to visit Tibetan areas of Gansu, Sichuan and Qinghai ahead of the one-year anniversary of the unrest in Tibet.This contravenes regulations made permanent by the Foreign Ministry inOct. 2008 that foreign reporters can travel freely without seeking prior permission everywhere outside of the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR).
Edward Wong and Jonathan Ansfield, two reporters for The New York Times, were detained by members of the People’s Armed Police and the
Public Security Bureau in Gansu Province for a total of 20 hours,starting on Feb. 27. They were then forced to stay overnight in
Lanzhou and board a plane for Beijing the next morning. When Wong tried to take a photograph of one of his captors, he was struck on the
arm and his camera was broken. A Japanese traveling companion and a local driver were also detained with the two reporters during the same period. The driver was subjected to interrogation and threats.
On Mar. 9, Beniamino Natale, a reporter with Italy's ANSA news agency was detained with two colleagues for more than two hours in Guinan County, Qinghai after visiting a monastery.
The previous day, Rosa María Mollo and Isabel Hormaechea, of Spanish broadcaster TVE, were detained by police in Ganzi, Sichuan province. Some of their reporting materials were confiscated and deleted. They were then escorted 200 kilometers out of the area.
Around the same time, Katri Makkonen, of Finnish Broadcasting Company, was repeatedly detained and followed on the road from Tongren to Xiningin, Qinghai. The police took her driver's driving licence and forced him to write a statement about where they had been and what
they had done. "It is despicable that now that they can't make us leave, they instead start pressuring the Chinese who are with us," Makkonen said. Associated Press reported that its journalists were detained twice in Sichuan in recent days. The FCCC has also received reports of three other cases of reporters being turned away from Xiahe, Gansu in lateJanuary. No explanation has been given of the legal basis of the police actions.
"These detentions must stop," said Jonathan Watts, FCCC president. "The reporters are within their rights to visit Tibetan areas outside
of the TAR. By locking up and blocking reporters, the security forces raise suspicions about their actions. The government should live up to
its promise of openness in all of China, including TAR and other
Tibetan areas."Of Sacred Cows and Expensive Cows
Posted: 13 Mar 2009 04:04 PM PDT
When courageous journalists in repressive countries sit down and consider the perils of telling the truth, otherwise known as self-censorship, they think about fines, suspension or even prison and physical attacks.
But when you have to measure your liabilities by the number of cows you risk to buy and give away, then you are working in Swaziland, a mountain kingdom completely surrounded by South African territory.
It also happens to be the last absolutist monarchy on the African continent, where the king is always right no matter how spectacularly wrong he may be. Saying otherwise constitutes an insult to his authority.

***************************************************************************************************************************
(Source:EJC, DG ALERT,OPEN DEMOCRACY)