View previous stories
	World Refugee Day by Elizabeth Ferris Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement   June 20, 2013   Around the world today, people are commemorating World Refugee Day as a time to honor the strength and the courage of those who have been forced to flee their countries because of persecution, conflict and violence. And there is much to honor.   Over the years I have been moved and challenged by the strength and courage of the many different refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) I have met. Many times I have asked myself what I would have done in a similar situation. Would I have had the courage to carry my children across a desert? Could I have paid the necessary bribes and avoided the shelling and the landmines to make it to safety? Would I have been strong enough to start all over in a strange land, learn a new language, hold my family together, preserve our culture?   World Refugee Day also reminds us of our failures as an international community.   There is much to admire about refugees here in the United States with its long and very special tradition of taking in people who were persecuted and reviled in their home countries. And there is much to admire about refugees who are presently seeking safety in Kenya, Pakistan, Ecuador and 100 other countries. Refugees are not only victims of conflicts. They are also survivors and deserve to be honored as such.   But World Refugee Day also reminds us of our failures as an international community. There are too many refugees in the world today – some 15 million people, including 5 million Palestinian refugees. And there are too many internally displaced persons (IDPs) – some 28 million people – who have been forced from their homes by conflict but remain within the borders of their own countries.   Too many people – perhaps two-thirds of the world’s estimated 40 million displaced people – have been living in limbo for years, often for decades. Many live in camps, such as in Darfur and Kenya, but many live dispersed – and largely invisible – in communities with little prospects of returning to their homes or of starting their lives anew somewhere else.   The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) does a wonderful job, by and large, in responding to immediate humanitarian needs of refugees and in many cases of IDPs, but UNHCR alone can’t find solutions for the world’s refugees and IDPs. Concerted action is needed by governments, development actors and private citizens to find solutions for refugees and IDPs. Finding solutions for people who have been displaced for years is hard work and political commitment is needed.   World Refugee Day reminds us of the urgent need to redouble efforts to bring an end to displacement wherever possible and as soon as possible. It should be completely unacceptable that today a third generation of refugees is being born in Dadaab refugee camp in Kenya.   In addition to the millions languishing in long-term displacement, people continue to flee their communities and countries every single day as a result of horrific violence which the international community seems powerless – or unwilling – to prevent. UNHCR reported this week that over the past year an average of 28,000 people were displaced every day.   I recently returned from a UNHCR-led visit to Lebanon and Jordan where we saw the sadness and the pain of those displaced by the war in Syria. We talked with a Syrian refugee woman outside her flimsy, dirt-floored tent. “I used to have a house in Syria,” she said, wistfully looking around her very empty and very dusty tent. “I used to have furniture. Now it’s all gone.” We saw a little boy, maybe 5 years old, incessantly scratching his badly-burned face that was still red, oozing and obviously painful.   I felt sad as I talked with these refugees – but also angry. How can little children be bombed and burned in this day and age? How can it be that people are slaughtering each other and forcing neighbors from their homes? In the case of Syria, we know what is happening. In fact, we can watch the war on YouTube and follow combatants on Twitter. What does it say about our leaders and about the political institutions we have created that we are unable to bring an end to the violence – in Syria and in many other places?   As a political scientist, I’m usually comfortable explaining conflicts in terms of politics, national and strategic interests, security issues, etc. But at another level, I ask myself where is the moral outrage that this continues to happen in 2013? If it were my home that had been lost or my son with the badly burned face, I know that anger and outrage would be an appropriate response. We can use our analytical tools to understand what is happening but we also need to feel outrage and to recognize our collective failures in order to mobilize the political will to prevent and resolve conflicts which displace people.   World Refugee Day is a time to honor the world’s refugees and internally displaced people. But it is also a time to mobilize our collective outrage that 28,000 people are being uprooted from their homes every day and that millions continue to live in limbo. Let us honor refugees and IDPs today, by celebrating their courage and tenacity.   But let’s also honor them by taking steps to find solutions for those who have lived in displacement for far too long and by preventing and resolving the conflicts that uproot far too many children, women and men. Visit the related web page
	Why Let a Bank Write U.S. Financial Reform Legislation? by Nan Aron, Steven Strauss Huffington Post & agencies USA   June 2013   Supreme Court Shields Corporations From the Law, by Nan Aron.   Brick by brick, a wall of protection is being erected around large, powerful corporations to ensure that they never have to be held accountable for their actions or inconvenienced by the legal system that governs the rest of us. For the conservative Roberts Supreme Court, this is the corporations world; we just live in it.   Even as the public anxiously awaits the outcome of the "big four" civil rights cases still pending before the Court, another case was recently decided that will have far-reaching implications for every American and for the future of the rule of law itself.   In American Express v. Italian Colors, a five-justice conservative majority continued its relentless effort to shield corporations from any accountability for alleged violations of federal laws. Although the case, involving American Express use of its monopoly power to overcharge small businesses in credit card swipe fees, may sound esoteric, the decision has sweeping implications for the enforcement of a whole host of federal rights.   The decision dealt with the forced arbitration clauses that are included in the agreements between American Express and small businesses that take the company"s charge and credit cards, and are in the same vein as those forced on consumers in the ubiquitous small-print contracts that are increasingly a part of daily life. In this instance, the language of the agreements prohibits businesses (in this case a restaurant called Italian Colors) from joining together with other similar businesses to challenge AmEx through class arbitration for what they believe to be illegal practices.   The problem is that no one can effectively challenge this kind of widespread and complex misbehavior without undertaking research that would cost far more than any single small company can afford or could collect if it eventually won the case. The only way the challenge could meaningfully go forward is if numerous small businesses that felt similarly aggrieved could pool their resources and go up against AmEx together.   The Court ruled that the agreement between AmEx and the restaurant says there can be no class arbitrations and that"s all there is to it, even though federal antitrust laws govern the principles that are in dispute. For the conservative majority, the ban on class actions, which was written by the corporation into the agreement, trumps any interest in enforcing longstanding antitrust laws -- and presumably, any other bedrock consumer protection, civil rights, or labor law. It"s a shame, they say, the system is rigged so that you can"t possibly win the case, but that"s the way the cookie crumbles.   The Court established a legal Catch-22. You are allowed to challenge the powerful corporation through arbitration, but you have to do it on an individual basis. But an individual challenge can never succeed because the cost of making the case is so high no one can afford to undertake it on their own. Voila! A process to resolve disputes has been established that effectively can never be used. How convenient for American Express!   As Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her blistering dissent: "And here is the nutshell version of today"s opinion, admirably flaunted rather than camouflaged: Too darn bad."   The Italian Colors ruling is not an isolated event, nor was the holding mandated by the text of the Federal Arbitration Act. The conservative majority continued its trend of reaching, often beyond the bounds of reason, to grant powerful interests an ever-increasing shield against the rest of the country. What"s more, this wall of immunity has been built quietly, in cases that rewrite statutory and procedural rules to make it harder for Americans to ever have their claims heard in court.   In Iqbal v. Twombly, for example, the Supreme Court altered federal pleading standards, which has led to an increase in the number of civil rights claims dismissed before even reaching trial. In AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, another forced arbitration case, the Court gave AT&T a license to steal millions of dollars from its customers in illegally collected fees. In Wal-Mart v. Dukes, a conservative majority made it significantly more difficult for victims of employment discrimination to band together as a class and hold corporations accountable for widespread malfeasance.   We are rapidly approaching a time when there is a private set of laws for big corporations, created and enforced by and for themselves and separate from the system that governs the rest of us.   These rules, codified in the myriad contracts and agreements that govern countless everyday commercial transactions, have effectively relegated our laws and Constitutional guarantees to secondary status.   By saying that the provisions of these agreements override rights well established in federal law, five justices have engaged in an astonishing abdication of their traditional role of protecting the rule of law.   Fortunately, Congress can -- and must -- act to restore the ability of Americans to hold powerful defendants accountable in federal court. The Arbitration Fairness Act, introduced by Rep. Hank Johnson and Sen. Al Franken, would prevent civil rights, consumer, employment, and antitrust claims from being forced into arbitration. Alliance for Justice strongly supports this legislation, and all efforts to tear down the wall of protection and corporate privilege erected by this Court and ensure that all Americans are able to stand up for their rights.   * Nan Aron is President of the Alliance for Justice, a national association of public interest and civil rights organizations. http://www.afj.org/   June 2013   Why Let a Bank Write U.S. Financial Reform Legislation? Particularly when that bank has a history of involvement with fraud and mismanagement, asks Steven Strauss, Adjunct Lecturer in Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School.   The proper level of financial regulation is a complex topic, about which people can have honest differences. But, reasonable people would agree that a bank having a history of involvement with fraud and mismanagement (and a recipient of one of the largest bank bailouts) shouldn"t be writing bank legislation. Unless, of course, you are the U.S. Congress doing business as usual.   According to The New York Times, a financial services reform bill with bipartisan support: "sailed through the House Financial Services Committee this month -- over the objections of the Treasury Department -- [and] was essentially Citigroup"s...The bill would exempt broad swathes of trades [including Citigroup"s] from new regulation...Citigroup"s recommendations were reflected in more than 70 lines of the House committee"s 85-line bill. Two crucial paragraphs, prepared by Citigroup...were copied nearly word for word. (Lawmakers changed two words to make them plural.)" - Source: Lipton, E. and Protess, B. (2013, May 24). "Banks Lobbyists Help in Drafting Financial Bills." New York Times   Recall that, Citigroup has been involved in most of the major financial frauds (e.g., Enron, Worldcom, the foreclosure scandal) and crises of the last 30 years. And in the 2008 financial crisis, it received one of the largest bailout packages. In 2001, 2005, 2006 and 2008 alone, Citigroup entered into agreements with the SEC promising not to break the law in future. Even more unsettling, the agreements with the SEC weren"t effective -- Citigroup continued to get in trouble. See the Appendix below for details.   I don"t find it reassuring that Citigroup believes it should be subject to less regulation, or that Congress adopted Citigroup"s proposed language nearly verbatim -- with a mere change of "two words to make them plural."   One possible explanation for having Citigroup write financial services legislation is its significant knowledge (based upon experience) of fraudulent and bad management practices. But with this line of reasoning, Bernie Madoff should"ve headed Congress efforts for financial services reform.   Yes, Citigroup replaced several top managers since the last financial crisis. However, the current CEO began with Citigroup out of college in 1983, and has been a senior leader at Citigroup for at least the past 10 years. Citigroup (again) promised to reform itself (although it"s made and broken that promise before). And maybe Citigroup won"t be ground zero for the next crisis. But, it still seems odd to trust Citigroup to draft the very legislation determining how much regulation Citigroup will be subject to.   Why would Congress turn over to Citigroup its responsibility for writing this legislation? Does Congress honestly believe Citigroup has America"s best interests at heart, and/or that Citigroup"s interests align with those of the American taxpayer? Or could it be the over $100 million Citigroup"s spent on lobbying and campaign contributions since 1998? Perhaps some members of Congress or their staff hope to obtain lucrative post-political careers with Citigroup (not a bad bet, given that 90 percent of Citigroup"s lobbyists have previously worked in government). Or, is it more simply that, as Mark Twain observed: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."   * Steven Strauss is an adjunct lecturer in public policy at Harvard"s Kennedy School of Government: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-strauss/why-let-a-bank-write-us-f_b_3450590.html http://www.alternet.org/authors/william-k-black   Fiscal Fallacies: 8 Myths about the "Age of Austerity". (Center for Economic and Social Rights)   Four years into the global economic crisis, political and economic malaise continues to besiege the eurozone and the US, the rising Eastern powers are stumbling, economic growth across the Southern hemisphere sputters, and worries of a repeat global economic recession—if not full blown depression—continue to unsettle people the world over.   While different countries and regions have been affected in different ways, the successive waves of the global economic crisis since 2008 have led to an austerity-driven “Great Regression” in human rights around the world. Massive and prolonged unemployment and job precarity, rising levels of hunger, homelessness and food riots, deprivations in access to adequate health and education, greater income inequality, significant cuts in basic social protections, growing xenophobia and discrimination, sharp increases in suicide rates across Europe, and mounting social disintegration have emerged from the wreckage, undermining not just the realization of human rights, but their very recognition as fundamental norms to guide economic and social policy. Austerity seems to have permeated the core of economic policy-making in many countries across the world, where many governments have reversed their previously expansionary crisis responses in 2009 and 2010 by cutting back through 2011 and into 2012, even in the midst of economic malaise. Cuts have been widespread, including de-funding health, education and other social services, reducing grants to employment services, and in some cases reducing social protection, unemployment insurance and older persons’ pensions. These programs are taken as mere collateral damage in the quest for economic recovery, rather than what they are—fundamental human rights to which everyone is entitled on the basis of their inherent dignity. While broad swaths of society are affected by austerity measures, evidence shows that women, children, older persons, ethnic minorities, immigrants, people with disabilities and people living in poverty suffer disproportionately. The enjoyment of human rights, in other words, has all too often become the foremost casualty of the “Age of Austerity.”   Despite evidence to the contrary, several myths plague mainstream debates over the enduring human consequences of the global financial and economic crisis. This briefing challenges eight widespread yet misguided perceptions about economic policy in times of crisis, and suggests a series of human rights-centered economic policy alternatives for governments to urgently consider in order to address the dark flipside of austerity-driven cutbacks—a deepening economic and social rights deficit.   Economic policy is public policy and therefore subject to international human rights law. Economic policy choices are a reflection of a government’s efforts to uphold its duties and obligations to human rights, particularly economic and social rights, in accordance with its own constitutional and international treaty commitments. Human rights norms, standards and principles also provide a programmatic framework and operational redlines for economic policy-making. Investing in people in line with international human rights norms and principles is not only legally compelling and morally right. It can also work to pull our economies out of the trappings of ever deeper, austerity-driven recessions—what Nobel laureate Amartya Sen called a "spiralling catastrophe".   http://cesr.org/article.php?id=1331 Visit the related web page
	View more stories