In a case brought by German drinks company Brita, the European Court of Justice has ruled that Israeli goods made in Jewish settlements (which are illegal under international law) cannot be considered Israeli and benefit from a trade deal that gives Israel preferential access to EU markets.
Israel has yet to comment but even if state authorities decide to exert political pressure on their European counterparts, it should be noted that European Court of Justice rulings are binding on member states.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Censorship and the Search Engine
Officials from China and internet giant Google met this week to resume talks about Google’s continued operation in the country. This has prompted a flurry of debate and support from many who sycophantically laud Google as some sort of defender of human rights and bastion of free speech.
Let’s be clear about do not evil Google. When Google chose to commence operations in China, it did so with full knowledge of the level of state censorship that it would have to provide its online search engine services under. From the very beginning, terms such as human rights and genocide were banned and Google users in China could not search for information associated with the date of the Tiananmen Square massacre. Furthermore and as was reported earlier this year, Google can block entire websites that are deemed offensive to the Chinese Government and will remove web addresses (or specific pages within sites) that are known to carry so-called dangerous content. Google was originally happy with this level of self-censorship.
Then Google had a change of heart. It announced that it would cease operating in China due to cyber attacks (that were potentially state sponsored) aimed at collecting information on Chinese human rights activists. Though very serious allegations, such clandestine online activity is neither new nor surprising in China and Google was patently aware of the mine field it arrogantly chose to set up business in from day one. So perhaps the real reason that Google threatened to pull out of China is to do more with the fact that the internet giant is finding it difficult to compete with Baidu, a Chinese search engine that dominates the fast growing internet market which Google sought to originally exploit.
I would love to be wrong and to believe that Google has made an ethical rather than an economic decision – but I sincerely doubt that I am. Human Rights Watch previously praised the decision taken by Google and called on other companies to follow suit. It will be interesting to see what such an organisation, which is deserving of tremendous respect and trust, will do if the officials from China and Google manage to patch up their differences and continue to jointly enforce censorship in China.
Let’s be clear about do not evil Google. When Google chose to commence operations in China, it did so with full knowledge of the level of state censorship that it would have to provide its online search engine services under. From the very beginning, terms such as human rights and genocide were banned and Google users in China could not search for information associated with the date of the Tiananmen Square massacre. Furthermore and as was reported earlier this year, Google can block entire websites that are deemed offensive to the Chinese Government and will remove web addresses (or specific pages within sites) that are known to carry so-called dangerous content. Google was originally happy with this level of self-censorship.
Then Google had a change of heart. It announced that it would cease operating in China due to cyber attacks (that were potentially state sponsored) aimed at collecting information on Chinese human rights activists. Though very serious allegations, such clandestine online activity is neither new nor surprising in China and Google was patently aware of the mine field it arrogantly chose to set up business in from day one. So perhaps the real reason that Google threatened to pull out of China is to do more with the fact that the internet giant is finding it difficult to compete with Baidu, a Chinese search engine that dominates the fast growing internet market which Google sought to originally exploit.
I would love to be wrong and to believe that Google has made an ethical rather than an economic decision – but I sincerely doubt that I am. Human Rights Watch previously praised the decision taken by Google and called on other companies to follow suit. It will be interesting to see what such an organisation, which is deserving of tremendous respect and trust, will do if the officials from China and Google manage to patch up their differences and continue to jointly enforce censorship in China.
Monday, February 22, 2010
THE BIG SWAP
It's that time of year again - Fairtrade Fortnight.
This years theme is THE BIG SWAP and we are being asked to swap our usual coffee, tea, chocolate, ice-cream etc. for Fairtrade versions. To find out more about THE BIG SWAP, visit Fairtrade Mark Ireland.
For those who want to get more involved, Oxfam Ireland is running a Fairtrade Fortnight campaign. With less that 2% of tea sold in Ireland being Fairtrade, it's time the big companies had pressure put on them to make the switch. Join the call for Lyons and Barry's Tea to work towards achieving Fairtrade certification now.
Also, if Lyons' Tea reply and explain how they are part of the Rainforest Alliance initiative, remember that Fairtrade is the only independent certification system that guarantees a fair deal for farmers in developing countries.
This years theme is THE BIG SWAP and we are being asked to swap our usual coffee, tea, chocolate, ice-cream etc. for Fairtrade versions. To find out more about THE BIG SWAP, visit Fairtrade Mark Ireland.
For those who want to get more involved, Oxfam Ireland is running a Fairtrade Fortnight campaign. With less that 2% of tea sold in Ireland being Fairtrade, it's time the big companies had pressure put on them to make the switch. Join the call for Lyons and Barry's Tea to work towards achieving Fairtrade certification now.
Also, if Lyons' Tea reply and explain how they are part of the Rainforest Alliance initiative, remember that Fairtrade is the only independent certification system that guarantees a fair deal for farmers in developing countries.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
The Crying Dutchman Resigns
Yvo de Boer, UNFCCC Executive Secretary, has today resigned from his role as head of the UN climate change body.
De Boer, who famously and perhaps unfairly earned the nickname the crying Dutchman when he broke down in tears at the Bali UN climate conference, has to be regarded as one of the world's most experienced climate change negotiators.
Moving on to greener pastures, de Boer is expected to join accountancy firm KPMG as a consultant on climate and sustainability issues. It is always cause for concern when someone leaves a high powered political position to move into the commercial sector as it is hard to know what influence those individuals can wield for their new employers and clients.
Perhaps de Boer will work with progressive business interests in addressing climate change in the private sphere and become part of the growing commercial contingent that seek to encourage real action in the area. Alternatively, his services could be utilised for the benefit of investors seeking to profit from a changing world where carbon becomes a hugely valuable traded commodity and the use and ownership of land (particularly in the developing world) fails to benefit local communities.
As the focus now turns to who will replace de Boer, it will be just as interesting to see what his future holds.
De Boer, who famously and perhaps unfairly earned the nickname the crying Dutchman when he broke down in tears at the Bali UN climate conference, has to be regarded as one of the world's most experienced climate change negotiators.
Moving on to greener pastures, de Boer is expected to join accountancy firm KPMG as a consultant on climate and sustainability issues. It is always cause for concern when someone leaves a high powered political position to move into the commercial sector as it is hard to know what influence those individuals can wield for their new employers and clients.
Perhaps de Boer will work with progressive business interests in addressing climate change in the private sphere and become part of the growing commercial contingent that seek to encourage real action in the area. Alternatively, his services could be utilised for the benefit of investors seeking to profit from a changing world where carbon becomes a hugely valuable traded commodity and the use and ownership of land (particularly in the developing world) fails to benefit local communities.
As the focus now turns to who will replace de Boer, it will be just as interesting to see what his future holds.
Monday, February 15, 2010
€2 Billion - Loose Change
Last week, Michael D. Higgins asked the Minister for Finance, Brian Lenihan, to clarify Ireland's commitment as part of the G-20 to contibute to a new fund led by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Here is the full text from the Parliamentary Debates;
Deputy Michael D. Higgins asked the Minister for Finance the Irish commitment at a recent meeting of the G20 to contribute to a special fund addressed to the needs of indebted countries; if the fund is to be led by the International Monetary Fund; if so, the guiding principles that exists for the fund; and if they will include debt cancellation.
Minister for Finance (Deputy Brian Lenihan): I understand the Deputy is referring to the International Monetary Fund’s New Arrangements to Borrow (NAB) which has not, however, been designed to deal with debt cancellation. The NAB is essentially a set of credit arrangements between the IMF and member countries and institutions to provide supplementary resources to the IMF to forestall or cope with an impairment of the international monetary system or to deal with an exceptional situation that poses a threat to the stability of that system. Arrangements for a new and expanded NAB are currently under negotiation.
In April 2009, G20 Leaders agreed to increase the resources available to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) by up to USD500bn, thereby tripling the total pre-crisis lending resources of the IMF to USD750, to support growth in emerging market and developing countries. This agreement was endorsed by the International Monetary and Financial Committee, the European Council and Ecofin Ministers. The increase in IMF resources is to be made in two steps: (i) through the immediate provision of bilateral loans up to USD250bn from IMF member countries to the IMF; and (ii) by subsequently rolling over these loans and making additional provision into an expanded and more flexible New Arrangements to Borrow NAB), increased by up to USD500 bn.
At the Spring Council 2009, the EU agreed to provide temporary bilateral loans of €75bn to the IMF. Ireland agreed to provide its share - a loan facility of €1.3bn - based on Ireland’s new IMF quota. On 17 September 2009, EU Heads of State agreed to further increase support to the IMF by increasing the €75bn to €125bn (approx USD175bn) by rolling over EU bilateral loans into the new NAB and making further financial commitments to NAB. The result of this agreement for Ireland is that our share of the new and expanded NAB (based on Ireland’s IMF quota) would be approximately €2bn, inclusive of Ireland’s bilateral loan of €1.3bn.
On 13 January 2010, the Government decided in principle to approve Ireland’s participation in the IMF’s New Arrangements to Borrow (NAB), for increasing IMF resources, and Ireland’s provision to the NAB of a loan facility of approximately €2bn, subject to agreement on terms and conditions. Like a number of EU countries, Ireland’s provision of the bilateral loan to the IMF and participation in NAB will be met using Central Bank resources. Legislative provision for the bilateral loan and Ireland’s participation in NAB will be required.
Some important questions now need to be addressed. How will the €2 billion (and indeed the fund in its entirety) be used and who will it be given to? Will the poorest countries be targeted or excluded? Will Ireland re-coup this money - when and how? When will the appropriate legislation be drafted?
Deputy Michael D. Higgins asked the Minister for Finance the Irish commitment at a recent meeting of the G20 to contribute to a special fund addressed to the needs of indebted countries; if the fund is to be led by the International Monetary Fund; if so, the guiding principles that exists for the fund; and if they will include debt cancellation.
Minister for Finance (Deputy Brian Lenihan): I understand the Deputy is referring to the International Monetary Fund’s New Arrangements to Borrow (NAB) which has not, however, been designed to deal with debt cancellation. The NAB is essentially a set of credit arrangements between the IMF and member countries and institutions to provide supplementary resources to the IMF to forestall or cope with an impairment of the international monetary system or to deal with an exceptional situation that poses a threat to the stability of that system. Arrangements for a new and expanded NAB are currently under negotiation.
In April 2009, G20 Leaders agreed to increase the resources available to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) by up to USD500bn, thereby tripling the total pre-crisis lending resources of the IMF to USD750, to support growth in emerging market and developing countries. This agreement was endorsed by the International Monetary and Financial Committee, the European Council and Ecofin Ministers. The increase in IMF resources is to be made in two steps: (i) through the immediate provision of bilateral loans up to USD250bn from IMF member countries to the IMF; and (ii) by subsequently rolling over these loans and making additional provision into an expanded and more flexible New Arrangements to Borrow NAB), increased by up to USD500 bn.
At the Spring Council 2009, the EU agreed to provide temporary bilateral loans of €75bn to the IMF. Ireland agreed to provide its share - a loan facility of €1.3bn - based on Ireland’s new IMF quota. On 17 September 2009, EU Heads of State agreed to further increase support to the IMF by increasing the €75bn to €125bn (approx USD175bn) by rolling over EU bilateral loans into the new NAB and making further financial commitments to NAB. The result of this agreement for Ireland is that our share of the new and expanded NAB (based on Ireland’s IMF quota) would be approximately €2bn, inclusive of Ireland’s bilateral loan of €1.3bn.
On 13 January 2010, the Government decided in principle to approve Ireland’s participation in the IMF’s New Arrangements to Borrow (NAB), for increasing IMF resources, and Ireland’s provision to the NAB of a loan facility of approximately €2bn, subject to agreement on terms and conditions. Like a number of EU countries, Ireland’s provision of the bilateral loan to the IMF and participation in NAB will be met using Central Bank resources. Legislative provision for the bilateral loan and Ireland’s participation in NAB will be required.
Some important questions now need to be addressed. How will the €2 billion (and indeed the fund in its entirety) be used and who will it be given to? Will the poorest countries be targeted or excluded? Will Ireland re-coup this money - when and how? When will the appropriate legislation be drafted?
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Robin Hood Tax Campaign Launched
A new campaign has been launched in the UK which has galvanised the support of a coalition of charities, trade unions, aid agencies and hundreds of economists.
Calling for a tax of 0.05% to be applied on international banking transactions, the Robin Hood tax could raise up to £250 billion per year. Ideally half the proceeds would remain in the country to address domestic problems and the other half would be spent on tackling global poverty and climate change.
Financial transaction taxes already exist in many countries but none are as bold as the proposed Robin Hood tax. However, some world leaders including Angela Merkel and Gordon Brown have expressed support for the proposed tax alongside philanthropists such as George Soros.
The organisations involved claim that the minute tax would not damage the sterling market or impact negatively on the business of traders and so should prove relatively palatable. The tax is also not designed to hit the pockets of the public - though ensuring that banks and financial institutions do not pass on the cost may be hard to regulate. In addition, this new innovative source of funding should not be seen as a mechanism to relieve rich countries of any existing or future aid promises which they are committed to.
The only negative that immediately jumps to mind when this new campaign is considered is that the tax does not address the problems of the unregulated capitalist market that caused the recent global economic crisis but rather simply purports to benefit from it on the premise of helping those trapped in poverty. But, baby steps first...
Calling for a tax of 0.05% to be applied on international banking transactions, the Robin Hood tax could raise up to £250 billion per year. Ideally half the proceeds would remain in the country to address domestic problems and the other half would be spent on tackling global poverty and climate change.
Financial transaction taxes already exist in many countries but none are as bold as the proposed Robin Hood tax. However, some world leaders including Angela Merkel and Gordon Brown have expressed support for the proposed tax alongside philanthropists such as George Soros.
The organisations involved claim that the minute tax would not damage the sterling market or impact negatively on the business of traders and so should prove relatively palatable. The tax is also not designed to hit the pockets of the public - though ensuring that banks and financial institutions do not pass on the cost may be hard to regulate. In addition, this new innovative source of funding should not be seen as a mechanism to relieve rich countries of any existing or future aid promises which they are committed to.
The only negative that immediately jumps to mind when this new campaign is considered is that the tax does not address the problems of the unregulated capitalist market that caused the recent global economic crisis but rather simply purports to benefit from it on the premise of helping those trapped in poverty. But, baby steps first...
Thursday, February 4, 2010
When Profits Mean Losses
Pharmaceutical companies probably feel that they receive an unfair level of negative attention from NGOs. By this stage, many big pharmaceutical companies may well have even developed acute victim complexes commensurate with the constant criticism they receive in relation to their policies on patents and access to life saving medicines.
However, with that criticism comes the odd flash of praise. For example, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) was lauded last year for its decision to reduce the price of medicines it supplies to the world's poorest countries and for investing some of its profits into health infrastructure in those countries. More demands were and have been put on GSK but the backing that the pharmaceutical giant received at the time from those in the development sector was genuine.
But the criticism must start once again - this time for the way in which GSK is attempting to maximise its profits. Despite the global economic crisis, and partly due to sales of vaccines in response to the H1N1 pandemic, GSK reported a pre tax profit of $13.81 billion for 2009. However that is not enough profit for GSK who have stressed that major cost reductions continue to be required. Interestingly, the difference in profit margins between 2008 and 2009 is roughly the same value as the cuts that GSK chose to make throughout 2009. Some would argue that the company is simply reducing waste and becoming more efficient. Others however will point out that the staff that GSK may choose to let go in the near future to cut costs, never benefited from the profit margins (and bonuses) that those making these decisions gained from, but most certainly contributed to their accumulation.
2009 was a good year for GSK but 2010 may be a very bad one for its staff.
However, with that criticism comes the odd flash of praise. For example, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) was lauded last year for its decision to reduce the price of medicines it supplies to the world's poorest countries and for investing some of its profits into health infrastructure in those countries. More demands were and have been put on GSK but the backing that the pharmaceutical giant received at the time from those in the development sector was genuine.
But the criticism must start once again - this time for the way in which GSK is attempting to maximise its profits. Despite the global economic crisis, and partly due to sales of vaccines in response to the H1N1 pandemic, GSK reported a pre tax profit of $13.81 billion for 2009. However that is not enough profit for GSK who have stressed that major cost reductions continue to be required. Interestingly, the difference in profit margins between 2008 and 2009 is roughly the same value as the cuts that GSK chose to make throughout 2009. Some would argue that the company is simply reducing waste and becoming more efficient. Others however will point out that the staff that GSK may choose to let go in the near future to cut costs, never benefited from the profit margins (and bonuses) that those making these decisions gained from, but most certainly contributed to their accumulation.
2009 was a good year for GSK but 2010 may be a very bad one for its staff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
