View previous stories
	Silence the drums of war and disarm for development by Alfred de Zayas UN Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order   Lobbying on behalf of military and industrial companies is fuelling wars worldwide and frustrating the aspiration of humanity to live in peace. Instead of cutting military budgets, many States are currently increasing their military expenditure and reducing investment in health, education and social services.   States should refrain not only from the use of force in international relations, but also from the threat of force, as stipulated in the UN Charter.   However, in spite of these well-known rules, many politicians engage in sabre-rattling, frequently with the support and applause of political commentators and the mainstream media.   Based on the UN Charter’s call to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, civil society is leading the movement to ensure peace becomes a clearly defined human right.   This initiative was enshrined in the Santiago Declaration of 10 December 2010, which led to a draft declaration on the right to peace by the Advisory Committee of the Human Rights Council, a document manifesting a holistic approach to peace and encompassing civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights.   The watered-down resolution adopted by the Human Rights Council is not the end of the story. States must listen to civil society and complete the work already started by the General Assembly at the height of the cold war. A renewed cold war makes a new Human Rights Council resolution all the more urgent.   States must work together on resolving the root causes of local, regional and international conflict, often emerging from the unrepresentative nature of governments, great injustices and inequalities prevailing in the world.   Over the past seventy years many armed conflicts had their origin in the denial of the right of internal or external self-determination.   There are still many indigenous peoples, non-self-governing peoples and others living under occupation who have a legitimate claim to self-determination. It is time for the United Nations to proactively support the realization of self-determination as a conflict-prevention strategy, requiring mediation.   My previous reports to the UN Human Rights Council and the UN General Assembly emphasized that addressing global problems including pandemics, climate change and the challenges of the Sustainable Development Goals requires substantial funding.   It is therefore imperative to drastically reduce military expenditure and convert war economies into peace economies. It is unconscionable to continue the arms race when millions of human beings are suffering from extreme poverty, famine and no access to clean water and sanitation. We must silence the drums of war and disarm for development. Visit the related web page
	Whistle-blowers do not belong in court by Jennifer Baker International Politics and Society Journal Belgium   April 2017   On 16 March, the European Commission introduced a new online tool to help whistle-blowers.   The anonymous tool is essentially an encrypted messaging system run by an external service provider that acts as an intermediary. Only the content of the messages is forwarded to the Commission without any metadata that could identify the whistle-blower. It’s such a simple idea, one wonders why it took them so long to come up with it.   But “whistle-blowers” are suddenly a hot topic for the EU. Never mind the fact that whistleblowing – reporting illegal practice to a higher authority – has been around for decades. Woodward and Bernstein relied on “Deep Throat” in breaking the Watergate scandal in 1972. What has changed, however is the way in which whistle-blowers can protect themselves, and the ways they can be attacked.   When Chelsea Manning disclosed around 700,000 classified military documents in 2010, it was via Wikileaks. When the most famous whistle-blower of recent years, Edward Snowden, decided to make his disclosures, he spent a lot of time teaching the journalists he spoke to about encryption.   Since last year, he has been president of San Francisco–based non-profit organisation, Freedom of the Press Foundation, which tries to help journalists protect themselves and protect their sources… including using “crypto”.   Risks of exposure   Despite the Commission’s new tool, whistle-blowers face huge risks in coming forward, from losing their job and being blacklisted from their industry, to jailtime. Yet they are essential in holding the powerful to account in both public and private bodies. The Commission’s initiative is focussed on anti-competitive business practices: including price-fixing cartels, keeping products off the market or unfairly excluding rivals.   “If people are concerned by business practices that they think are wrong, they can help put things right,” said the EU’s Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager.   “Inside knowledge can be a powerful tool to help the Commission uncover cartels and other anti-competitive practices. Information can contribute to the success of our investigations… to the benefit of consumers and the EU''s economy as a whole.”   That will be scant consolation to Antoine Deltour or Raphael Halet, the former PricewaterhouseCoopers employees who disclosed the so-called LuxLeaks scandal. Both received convictions from Luxembourg''s court of appeal on 15 March. Although the court recognised their status as whistle-blowers—and gave reduced sentences from the initial verdict—it nonetheless found them guilty of theft of tax rulings and computer fraud.   Edouard Perrin, a reporter who worked on the Panama Papers as well as LuxLeaks also faced charges. Speaking truth to power is a dangerous business. And last year it was made even more perilous by the EU’s controversial Trade Secrets Directive, a ruling that “resembling a blanket right to corporate secrecy” that “threatens anyone in society who sometimes needs access to companies’ internal information without their consent: consumers, employees, journalists, scientists,” according to the Brussels-based Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO).   Feeling the chill   The Trade Secrets Directive was intended to harmonise EU-wide legislation protecting companies against theft or publication of their intellectual property, customer lists, planned innovations or market strategies. Instead it has had a chilling effect on disclosing corruption. Many in the European Parliament were against it, in particular the Greens group.   Nessa Childers, the only social-democrat MEP to oppose the directive, said it “fails to protect insiders who stand to lose their careers and face harassment and persecution when they blow the whistle on corrupt and unethical behaviour”.   As a sweetener, the Commission promised, alongside the Trade Secrets Directive, to look into rules to protect whistle-blowers, whether acting to expose the state or commercial entities.   The general principle is that whistle-blowers must act in the public interest. What defines the public interest is a grey area, but draconian laws like the UK’s proposed new “Espionage Act” swing the balance of power too far against whistle-blowers.   Under the plans to overhaul to the country’s secrecy laws, whistle-blowers who leak sensitive government information and journalists who report it could face jail time. The Law Commission, which is conducting a public consultation on the plan, has been so inundated with concerns, it has extended the review by a month—the deadline is now 3 May.   On a European level, the Commission is also delivering on its promise by holding a similar consultation. The deadline for submissions is 29 May.   “Whistle-blowers do not belong in court”   Meanwhile in the European Parliament, the Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) has an own-initiative procedure regarding “legitimate measures to protect whistle-blowers acting in the public interest when disclosing the confidential information of companies and public bodies” that recognises the importance of whistle-blowers as effective in protecting democracy.   According to Green MEP Sven Giegold, scandals like LuxLeaks or the Panama Papers show how important it is to protect those who dare publicise scandals that harm society.   “The fate of people who make scandals public cannot be dependent on the legal situation in the individual EU Member States. Whistle-blowers do not belong in court,” he said. Giegold, and others like him, know that in our so-called “post-truth” era, standing up for what is right in the face of opposition is more important than ever.   Issues such as public health, public finance, violations of human rights, corruption, fraud, discrimination, conflicts of interest and public safety, all deserve protection and should not be at the expense of a company’s desire to make money or a government’s wish to control the populace.   Furthermore, whistle-blowers should not bear the burden of proof: those who disclosure inaccurate information in honest error should still be protected.   Right now most whistle-blowers suffer a great deal as a result of their disclosures: on a micro level those reporting bad behaviour within their companies may face dismissal, demotion or denial of promotion. On a national scale, they may lose their freedom and their homes. Not everyone has the stamina and fortitude to go on the run à la Edward Snowden, which is why we need robust laws to protect those who are trying to protect all of us.   http://www.ips-journal.eu/regions/europe/article/show/we-cant-hear-you-1952/ http://www.eurodad.org/world-press-freedom-day Visit the related web page
	View more stories