AI ChatGPT Responds to UNs Proposed Code of Conduct to Monitor Artificial Intelligence — Global Issues

  • by Thalif Deen (united nations)
  • Inter Press Service

Still, one thing is certain: as Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates predicts, AI “will change the way people work, learn, travel, get health-care and communicate with each other”.

But will AI also make a difference to an international organization like the UN—and perhaps influence its working methods, its mandate, and its broader missions overseas.?

With a proposed AI summit of world leaders looming on the horizon– on a yet-to-be-decided date– we posed several questions to ChatGPT, an AI-powered chatbot developed by OpenAI based on the company’s Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) series.

Excerpts from the Q&A follow:

Q: The UN plans to draft a Code of Conduct to monitor AI and prevent abuses. Will this work and is it practicable?

ChatGPT: The concept of developing a code of conduct to monitor AI and prevent abuses is a step in the right direction, given the potential impact of artificial intelligence on various aspects of society.

Establishing guidelines and ethical frameworks for the development and use of AI can help address concerns related to privacy, bias, accountability, and potential harmful consequences.

However, the effectiveness and practicability of such a code of conduct would depend on various factors, including:

International Cooperation:

The adoption and enforcement of a code of conduct would require broad international cooperation among different countries and stakeholders. Achieving consensus and addressing diverse perspectives can be challenging, as interests, cultural values, and technological capabilities vary across nations.

Enforceability:

The code of conduct would need mechanisms to ensure compliance and enforcement. Establishing clear accountability frameworks and regulatory mechanisms would be crucial to prevent abuses and incentivize adherence to the guidelines. It would require cooperation between governments, organizations, and technological actors.

Technological Pace:

The field of AI is rapidly evolving, with new technologies, applications, and challenges emerging regularly. Ensuring that the code of conduct remains up to date and adaptable to technological advancements would be essential. Regular reviews and updates would be necessary to keep pace with the evolving landscape of AI.

Balance between Innovation and Regulation:

While it is important to prevent AI abuses, it is equally important not to stifle innovation and the potential benefits that AI can bring to society. Striking the right balance between regulation and fostering innovation would be critical to ensure that the code of conduct does not unduly hinder progress.

Global Consensus:

Achieving a global consensus on the specifics of the code of conduct might be challenging, as different countries and stakeholders may have differing views on AI development, applications, and regulation. Balancing diverse perspectives and interests while working towards a common framework could be a complex task.

It’s worth noting that developments may have occurred since my knowledge cutoff date that could provide more information about the UN’s code of conduct or similar initiatives. To assess the current status and practicability of such efforts, it would be best to refer to the latest news, reports, and official statements from relevant organizations involved in shaping AI policies and guidelines.

Q: Is there a UN role for artificial intelligence?

ChatGPT: Yes, AI chatbots can be of great assistance to international organizations like the United Nations. Here are some ways in which AI chatbots can help:

Multilingual Support:

The United Nations deals with a diverse range of languages from all over the world. AI chatbots can be programmed to understand and respond in multiple languages, making them valuable tools for providing multilingual support to UN staff, delegates, and the general public.

Information and Resource Accessibility:

AI chatbots can be designed to provide quick and accurate access to information and resources. They can assist in retrieving data, documents, reports, and other relevant information from vast UN databases, making it easier for staff and users to find the information they need efficiently.

Real-time Communication:

Chatbots can handle a large volume of inquiries simultaneously, providing real-time communication and support. They can assist in answering frequently asked questions, offering guidance on procedures, and addressing common concerns, freeing up human resources for more complex tasks.

Public Engagement and Outreach:

AI chatbots can be integrated into the UN’s website or social media platforms to engage with the public, answer their queries, and provide information about the organization’s activities, initiatives, and campaigns. This can enhance public outreach and promote transparency and accessibility.

Data Analysis and Insights:

AI chatbots can gather and analyze data from conversations and interactions, providing valuable insights and trends. This can help the United Nations identify patterns, understand public sentiment, and make informed decisions based on data-driven analysis.

Crisis Management:

During times of crisis or emergencies, AI chatbots can help disseminate critical information, provide updates, and answer urgent queries. They can offer a channel for people to seek assistance and access relevant resources, contributing to effective crisis management.

It’s important to note that while AI chatbots can offer significant benefits, they are not intended to replace human interactions entirely. Rather, they serve as valuable tools to enhance efficiency, accessibility, and engagement within the organization.

Q: There is a proposal to set up a special UN body to monitor and regulate AI Chatbot? Will this work?

ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I can provide an analysis of the proposal to set up a special United Nations (UN) body to monitor and regulate AI chatbots. Please note that my response is based on information available up until September 2021, and developments after that date may have occurred.

Establishing a dedicated UN body to monitor and regulate AI chatbots could have both advantages and challenges. Here are some key points to consider:

Advantages:

AI chatbots transcend national boundaries, and having an international body to oversee them could facilitate global coordination and harmonization of standards and regulations. It could provide a platform for countries to share best practices and collaborate on addressing common challenges.

Addressing ethical concerns:

AI chatbots raise ethical considerations such as privacy, bias, transparency, and accountability. A specialized UN body could help develop guidelines and regulations to address these concerns, ensuring that AI chatbots are developed and deployed responsibly.

Consistency and standards:

A central regulatory body could help establish consistent standards and guidelines for the development and deployment of AI chatbots. This could enhance trust among users and promote responsible and ethical use of AI technologies.

Challenges:

Technological advancements: AI technology is rapidly evolving, and chatbots are becoming increasingly sophisticated. Regulating such technology can be challenging, as the regulatory framework may struggle to keep pace with the rapid development of AI chatbots. Balancing innovation and regulation are crucial.

Jurisdictional issues:

AI chatbots operate globally, and it can be difficult to determine jurisdiction and enforce regulations across different countries. Cooperation and agreement among nations would be necessary to ensure effective regulation.

Potential stifling of innovation:

Overregulation could impede innovation and limit the potential benefits of AI chatbots. Striking the right balance between regulation and fostering innovation would be essential to avoid hindering technological advancements.

Overall, the establishment of a special UN body to monitor and regulate AI chatbots could provide a platform for global coordination, ethical considerations, and standardization. However, it would require careful consideration of the challenges involved to ensure that the regulatory framework remains flexible, promotes innovation, and adapts to the rapidly evolving AI landscape.

Q Can AI CHATBOT help UN resolve some of the world’s ongoing military conflicts?

ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I can provide information and potential insights on various topics, including military conflicts. However, it is important to note that resolving complex geopolitical issues and ongoing military conflicts requires a multifaceted approach involving political negotiations, diplomacy, and cooperation among nations. While AI technology can support decision-making processes and provide analysis, it cannot independently resolve conflicts.

The United Nations (UN) plays a crucial role in facilitating dialogue and negotiations between conflicting parties. It utilizes a range of resources, including human expertise, diplomatic channels, and specialized agencies, to address conflicts. AI technology can be employed within these frameworks to enhance data analysis, aid in conflict resolution strategies, and support decision-makers with information.

AI-powered chatbots like AICHATBOT can provide insights and information to policymakers, diplomats, and negotiators. They can help gather and analyze data, identify patterns, and offer recommendations based on historical data or simulations. This can assist in understanding the complexities of conflicts, exploring potential resolutions, and predicting the outcomes of different scenarios.

However, it’s important to recognize that resolving military conflicts requires human judgment, empathy, and political will. AI can provide valuable assistance, but ultimately, sustainable resolutions require the collective efforts and collaboration of nations, international organizations, and stakeholders involved in the conflicts.

Q: How credible are the responses provided by AI CHATBOT? Is there a mix of fact with fiction?

ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I strive to provide accurate and helpful responses based on the information available to me up until September 2021. However, it’s important to note that I do not have real-time access to current events or ongoing developments beyond that date. Therefore, any information I provide about events, news, or specific details related to the period after September 2021 may be outdated or incorrect.

While I attempt to provide reliable and factual information, there is still a possibility of errors or inaccuracies in my responses. Additionally, as an AI, I do not possess personal opinions or beliefs. I generate responses based on patterns and information in the training data I was provided with, which includes a mixture of factual information from reputable sources as well as some fictional or hypothetical examples.

It’s always a good idea to verify information from multiple sources and consult authoritative references or experts when dealing with critical matters or seeking the most up-to-date information.

Is AI ChatGPT capable of producing UN press releases, transcripts of press briefings and the annual report of the Secretary-General?

ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I can certainly generate text in the style of UN press releases, transcripts of press briefings, and reports. However, please note that the accuracy and reliability of such generated content may vary, and it is always important to verify information from official sources.

While I strive to provide accurate and up-to-date information, it’s crucial to consult official UN channels and publications for official press releases, transcripts, and reports.

IPS UN Bureau Report


Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

© Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Does Artificial Intelligence Need a Regulatory UN Watchdog? — Global Issues

  • by Thalif Deen (united nations)
  • Inter Press Service

In a statement in its website, OPENAI founders Greg Brockman and Ilya Sutskever, along with chief executive Sam Altman, say that to regulate the risks of AI systems, there should be “an international watchdog, similar to the International Atomic Energy Agency (a Vienna-based UN agency) that promotes the peaceful uses of nuclear energy”.

“Given the possibility of existential risk, we can’t just be reactive,” they warned in a joint statement last week.

The UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which hosted more than 40 ministers at an groundbreaking online meeting on May 26, said less than 10 per cent of schools and universities follow formal guidance on using wildly popular artificial intelligence (AI) tools, like the chatbot software ChatGPT.

Asked about a UN role in AI, Ambassador Anwarul Chowdhury, former Under-Secretary-General and High Representative of the United Nations told IPS UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in his report titled Our Common Agenda (OCA) issued in September 2021 promises, “to work with Member States to establish an Emergency Platform to respond to complex global crises.”

“The platform would not be a new permanent or standing body or institution. It would be triggered automatically in crises of sufficient scale and magnitude, regardless of the type or nature of the crisis involved.”

AI is undoubtedly one of such “complex global crises” and it is high time now for the Secretary-General to formally share his thinking on how he plans to address the challenge, said Ambassador Chowdhury, founder of the Global Movement for The Culture of Peace.

He pointed out that it will be too late for the Summit of the Future, convened by the Secretary-General in September 2024, to discuss a global regulatory regime for AI under UN authority. In that timeframe, he argued, AI technology would manifest itself in a way that no global governance would be possible.

Robert Whitfield, Chair, One World Trust and the Transitional Working Group on AI, told IPS the point about the UN and AI is that AI desperately needs global governance and the UN is the natural home of such governance.

At present, he pointed out, the UN is preparing a Global Digital Compact or approval in September 2024 which should include Artificial Intelligence.

”But in reality, the UN is hardly at the starting block on AI governance, whereas the Council of Europe, where I am at the moment, is deep in its negotiation of a Framework Convention for AI,” said Whitfield, who is also chair of the World Federalist Movement/Institute of Global Policy.

The Council of Europe’s work is limited to the impact on human rights, democracy, and rule of law – but these are wide-ranging issues.

Whilst participation in Council of Europe Treaties is much wider than the European Union, with other countries being welcomed as signatories, he said, it is not truly global in scope and any UN agreement can be expected to be more broadly based.

“The key advantage of the UN is that it would seek to include all countries, including Russia and China, arguably the country with the strongest AI sector in the world”, Whitfield said.

One can envisage therefore a two-step process:

    • An initial international agreement within the Council of Europe emerging first of all, following the finalization of the EU AI Act
    • And a global UN Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence being developed later, perhaps following the establishment of a multi-stakeholder forum on AI governance. Such a Convention might well include the establishment of an agency equivalent to the International Atomic Energy Agency as called for most recently by the Elders.

Andreas Bummel, Executive Director, Democracy Without Borders, told IPS: “UN governance of AI should go beyond the usual intergovernmental mechanisms and give citizen-elected representatives a key role through a global parliamentary body”.

The scope of such a parliamentary assembly could be expanded to other issues and enhance the UN’s inclusive and representative character not just in the field of AI, he added.

As generative AI reshapes the global conversation on the impact of artificial intelligence, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the UN’s specialized agency for information and communication technologies, will host the 2023 “AI for Good Global Summit” July 6-7 in Geneva.

The two-day event will showcase AI and robot technology as part of a global dialogue on how artificial intelligence and robotics can serve as forces for good, and support the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, according to ITU.

https://aiforgood.itu.int/summit23/

The event will host the UN’s first robot press conference, featuring a Q&A with registered journalists. Overall, more than 40 robots specialized for humanitarian and development tasks will be on display alongside events with industry executives, government officials, and thought leaders on AI and tech.

Meanwhile, a group of UN-appointed human rights experts warn that AI-powered spyware and disinformation is on the rise, and regulation of the space has become urgent.

In a statement June 2, the experts said that emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence-based biometric surveillance systems, are increasingly being used “in sensitive contexts”, without individuals’ knowledge or consent.

“Urgent and strict regulatory red lines are needed for technologies that claim to perform emotion or gender recognition,” said the experts, including Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, Special Rapporteur on “the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism”.

The experts, appointed by the UN Human Rights Council, condemned the already “alarming” use and impacts of spyware and surveillance technologies on the work of human rights defenders and journalists, “often under the guise of national security and counter-terrorism measures”.

They have also called for regulation to address the lightning-fast development of generative AI that’s enabling mass production of fake online content which spreads disinformation and hate speech.

IPS UN Bureau Report


Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

© Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

US Ban on Smoking Undermined by Tobacco Industry — Global Issues

  • by Thalif Deen (united nations)
  • Inter Press Service

Currently, they “spread a lot of misleading information that promotes, especially among young people, the use of e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products”, he said, on the eve of World No Tobacco Day May 31.

According to PAHO, while the percentage of the population using tobacco in the Americas declined from 28% to 16.3% between 2000 and 2020, novel products and misleading information from the tobacco industry, especially targeting young people, threaten to undo those gains.

“Although eight countries in the region have banned the marketing of e-cigarettes and four of heated tobacco products, we are concerned that 14 countries have not yet taken any regulatory action in this regard,” he pointed out.

According to the latest statistics from PAHO, tobacco-use kills one million people per year in the Americas, one every 34 seconds.

In addition, 15% of cardiovascular disease deaths, 24% deaths from cancer and 45% of deaths from chronic respiratory diseases are attributable to tobacco use. In the region, 11% of young people use tobacco.

E-cigarettes are the most common form of electronic nicotine delivery. Their emissions contain nicotine and other toxic substances that are harmful to both users and those exposed to them.

To address the growing health threat posed by these products, the PAHO Director has called on countries to implement policies to prevent their use, especially among young people, as they can become the gateway to regular tobacco consumption.

Mary Assunta, Senior Policy Advisor, Southeast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance, told IPS about 40 countries in the world have banned e-cigarettes while 70 countries which allow them have instituted restrictions on sales. For example, 36 countries regulate the amount (concentration/volume) of nicotine in e-liquids.

She said New Zealand, the Philippines and England, where e-cigarettes are sold more as recreational products, are facing a big problem with teenage vapers.

The Australian government has just announced a slew of strong measures to strictly regulate e-cigarettes after misinformation on the health effects of vaping helped hook children and young people.

E-cigarettes are meant to be sold by prescription only in Australia, said Assunta.

Yolonda Richardson, Executive Vice President of the Washington-based, Global Programs of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said this World No Tobacco Day, the WHO is calling for action against the tobacco industry’s human and environmental toll.

“Harming human and environmental health is pivotal to the business model of multinational tobacco companies like Philip Morris International and British American Tobacco. Millions of people die every year due to Big Tobacco’s profit-over-people model”.

She said low- and middle-income countries increasingly feel this burden, with 80 percent of tobacco-related deaths from diseases such as cancer, lung disease and heart disease projected to be in such countries by 2030. And the tobacco industry traps farmers with unsustainable crops and appropriates arable land to grow tobacco used for deadly products.

On this year’s World No Tobacco Day, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids joins the WHO in calling on governments to stand up to the tobacco industry’s exploitative practices and the devastating impacts of its deadly products.

One in 10 adult deaths around the globe are due to tobacco use. By holding the industry accountable and through the implementation of proven tobacco control measures, we have the power to protect future generations from tobacco-related death and disease, she noted.

“It is critical that governments act with urgency to address tobacco’s burden by passing the proven tobacco control interventions contained in the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control,” said Richardson.

Without urgent action, tobacco use will kill one billion people this century, lock tobacco farmers into a lifetime of poverty, and cause continued harm to the environment, she declared.

The United Nations which banned smoking in its 38-storyed Secretariat building in New York, back in 2016, says smoking is one of the biggest public health threats in the world today, killing millions of people from lung cancer, heart disease and other diseases.

All delegates, staffers and visitors to UN Headquarters are reminded of the strict no smoking policy mandated by the General Assembly in its resolution A/RES/63/8and stipulated inST/SGB/2003/9.?

A designated exterior smoking area is available in the South Garden and signs showing the shortest route from the Secretariat lobby and the General Assembly and Conference Building main areas have been posted.?

Since the entry into force of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) in 2005, says PAHO, the region has made great strides in tobacco prevention and control. Currently, 96% of the population in 35 countries in the region is protected by at least one of the six recommended tobacco control measures.

In 2020, South America became the first 100% smoke-free sub-region – where there is a total ban on smoking in enclosed public places and workplaces, and on public transport.

Mexico also adopted the 100% smoke-free environment policy by the end of 2021 and banned all forms of tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship. As a result, 63% of the population of the Americas – or more than 600 million people – are now protected from exposure to tobacco smoke.

In addition, in 2022, Paraguay ratified the Protocol to Eliminate the Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products, which will boost regional efforts in this area.

“These achievements allow us to be confident that the region of the Americas will reach the target of a 30% reduction in the prevalence of tobacco use in those over 15 years of age by 2025, established in the WHO’s Global Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases,” Dr. Barbosa said.

But to expedite progress, the PAHO Director considered it “urgent to accelerate efforts to implement key measures that have fallen behind, including tax increases, a total ban on the advertising, promotion and sponsorship of tobacco-products, and the adoption of mechanisms to manage conflicts of interest.”

LINKS:
World No Tobacco Day – May 31, 2023
WHO urges governments to stop subsidizing life-threatening tobacco crops
Tobacco Control – PAHO
Tobacco: E-cigarettes
WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control
Report on Tobacco Control in the Region of the Americas 2022 (In Spanish)

IPS UN Bureau Report


Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

© Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Is There a UN Role in Artificial Intelligence Chatbot? — Global Issues

A female robot in an interactive session with UN Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed. Credit: UN Photo/Manuel Elias
  • by Thalif Deen (united nations)
  • Inter Press Service

Will it take a robot to break that unholy tradition?

At a joint meeting of the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and its Economic and Social Committee, the robot named Sophia had an interactive session with Deputy Secretary-General Amina J. Mohammed.

But with the incredible advances on CHATGPT chatbot– the AI search engine is now capable of producing texts, articles, pitches, follow-ups, emails, speeches and even an entire book.

If the UN goes fully tech-savvy, will AI chatbot help produce the annual report of the Secretary-General, plus reports and press releases from UN committees and UN agencies?

But the inherent dangers and flaws in AI chat bot include disinformation, distortions, lies, and hate speech—not necessarily in that order. Worse still, the search engine cannot distinguish between fact and fiction.

Testifying before US Congress on May 16, Sam Altman, chief executive of OpenAI urged legislators to regulate AI.

Ian Richards, former President of the Coordinating Committee of International Staff Unions and Associations, (CCISUA) told IPS: “ AI is good at regurgitating what it finds on the internet and which has been put there by someone, whether accurate or not. It basically reproduces existing patterns.”

“However, our work has two parts,” he pointed out.

The interesting, high-value-added part involves talking to people on the ground in remote areas, gathering stories, eliminating biases and creating data from sources that are offline or unreliable. This is something AI would find difficult to do, he added.

The less interesting, low value-added part involves creating tables and charts, running repetitive calculations and formatting documents, he noted.

“If AI can take over some of the latter and give us more time to focus on the former, staff will be both more productive and happier”, said Richards, a development economist at the Geneva-based UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).

“But let’s not get too caught up in the hype. And any staff member who relies too much on AI to produce original content will be quickly caught out,” he declared.

Last week the New York Times quoted Gary Marcus, emeritus professor of psychology and neural science at New York University (NYU) calling for an international institution to help govern AI’s development and use.

“I am not one of those long-term riskers who think the entire planet is going to be taken over by robots. But I am worried about what bad actors can do with these things because there is no control over them,” he warned.

Perhaps a future new UN agency on AI?

Meanwhile, some of the technological innovations currently being experimented at the UN include machine-learning, e-translations (involving the UN’s six official languages where machines have been taking over from humans) and robotics.

The United Nations says it has also been using unarmed and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), or drones, in peacekeeping and humanitarian operations, “helping to improve our situational awareness and to strengthen our ability to protect civilians”.

Among the technological innovations being introduced in the world body, and specifically in the UN’s E-conference services, is the use of eLUNa –Electronic Languages United Nations — “a machine translation interface specifically developed for the translation of UN documents.”

What distinguishes eLUNa from commercial CAT (Computer-Assisted Translation) tools is that it was developed entirely by the United Nations and is specifically geared towards the needs and working methods of UN language professionals, says the UN.

Asked whether UN should have a role in the growing debate on AI, UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told reporters May 22: “I think this is an issue that the Secretary-General has expressed extreme worry about — the lack of regulation, the lack of safeguards, especially when it comes to autonomous weapons.”

“And I think he’s been very clear on that. It’s one of the things that keeps him up at night… we should be releasing soon our latest policy paper on the global digital compact”

Referring to AI and the social media, he said: “These are things that need to be dealt with, within what we love to refer as multi-stakeholder settings, because it is clear that in this regard, the power is not solely in the hands of governments. It is very much also in the private sector. And the UN has been and will continue to try to bring all these people to the table.”

Responding to questions whether Guterres plans to convene an international conference on AI, UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq said: “I don’t have a meeting to announce for now, but certainly, these are part of the concerns that the Secretary-General himself has been expressing — the idea that as artificial intelligence develops, it needs to be monitored carefully and the right regulations and standards need to be put in place to make sure that this type of technology is not open to abuse”.

Asked if there is any chance that the Secretary-General might consider convening an international conference on AI, Haq said: “That’s certainly something that can be considered. Obviously, if he believes that this would be a helpful step forward, that is what he will do. But again, I don’t have anything to announce at this point.’

Speaking on condition of anonymity, a UN staffer pointed out that the UN once tried out an AI system to generate transcripts for meetings.

But in one instance, it incorrectly cited an European Union (EU) delegate talking about “Russia’s legal invasion of Ukraine” and another delegate accusing the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) of creating a conflict in Northern Ethiopia.

The moral of the story is that AI has to be closely monitored and double-checked because it can produce incorrect information and distort facts and figures.

At a White House May 4 meeting of executives from Google, Microsoft, Anthropic and OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT, US President Joe Biden conveyed mixed feelings: “What your’re doing has enormous potential– and enormous danger”

IPS UN Bureau Report


Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

© Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

State-Sponsored Killings Rise to Record Highs — Global Issues

  • by Thalif Deen (united nations)
  • Inter Press Service

In a Facebook posting, Ghani said he fled to Dubai in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) seeking safe haven because he “was going to be hanged” by the Taliban. If that did happen, the Taliban would have earned the dubious distinction of being the only government in the world to hang two presidents.

But mercifully, it did not. Ghani, however, denied that he had bolted from the presidential palace lugging several suitcases with millions of dollars pilfered from the country’s treasury.

On April 12, 1980, Samuel Doe led a military coup, killing President William R. Tolbert, Jr., in the Executive Mansion in Liberia, a West African country founded by then-emancipated African-American slaves, with its capital named after the fifth US President James Monroe.

The entire Cabinet, was publicly paraded in the nude, lined up on a beach in the capital of Monrovia – and shot to death. According to an April 1980 BBC report, “13 leading officials of the ousted government in Liberia were publicly executed on the orders of the new military regime.”

The dead men included several former cabinet ministers and the elder brother of William Tolbert, the assassinated president of the west African state. They were tied to stakes on a beach next to the army barracks in the capital, Monrovia, and shot, said BBC.

“Journalists who had been taken to the barracks to watch the executions said they were cruel and messy.”

But in some countries state-sponsored killings are on the rise.

In a new study released May 16, the human rights organization Amnesty International (AI) said 2022 recorded the highest number of judicial executions globally, since 2017.

The list includes 81 people executed in a single day in Saudi Arabia— and 20 other countries known to have carried out executions.

AI accused the Middle East and North Africa of carrying out “killing sprees.”. But, still, there were six countries that abolished the death penalty fully or partially

A total of 883 people were known to have been executed across 20 countries, marking a rise of 53% over 2021.

This spike in executions, which does not include the thousands believed to have been carried out in China last year, was led by countries in the Middle East and North Africa, where recorded figures rose from 520 in 2021 to 825 in 2022.

Other countries enforcing capital punishment include Iran, Myanmar, China, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, North Korea, Vietnam, the US and Singapore.

Dr. Simon Adams, President and CEO of the Center for Victims of Torture, the largest international organization that treats survivors and advocates for an end to torture worldwide, told IPS: ““When you strip away the judicial pomp and ceremony, the death penalty is nothing more than cold, calculated, state-sponsored murder”.

He said it violates the universal human right to life and clearly constitutes cruel, degrading and unusual punishment.

“While a record number of states around the world now view capital punishment as an antiquated and regressive practice, it’s true that executions are growing in a number of repressive states”.

In the aftermath of the “women, life, freedom” mass demonstrations, he pointed out, Iran’s theocratic rulers have used the hangman’s noose as a tool of social control – executing protesters, political dissidents and troublesome minorities.

Similarly, Myanmar’s Generals, who have failed to suppress widespread opposition to military rule, have also reintroduced hanging. “But if history teaches us anything, it is that states can execute political prisoners, but they can’t kill their ideas”.

“It is morally reprehensible that two states that sit on the UN Security Council, China and the United States, are amongst the world’s most prolific executioners of their own people. It’s time for the US and China to join the 125 UN member states who have publicly called for a moratorium on the death penalty,” Dr Adams declared.

In some countries the brutal way that the death penalty is imposed may not just constitute cruel, degrading and unusual punishment, but may also constitute torture.

The fact that public hanging, beheading, electrocution, stoning and other barbaric practices are still happening in the twenty-first century should shame all of humanity, he pointed out.

Asked about a role for the United Nations, Dr Adams said: “The UN should definitely take a more active role in advancing the global abolition of capital punishment.”

Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary-General, said countries in the Middle East and North Africa region violated international law as they ramped up executions in 2022, revealing a callous disregard for human life.

“The number of individuals deprived of their lives rose dramatically across the region; Saudi Arabia executed a staggering 81 people in a single day. Most recently, in a desperate attempt to end the popular uprising, Iran executed people simply for exercising their right to protest.”

Disturbingly, 90% of the world’s known executions outside China were carried out by just three countries in the region.

Recorded executions in Iran soared from 314 in 2021 to 576 in 2022; figures tripled in Saudi Arabia, from 65 in 2021 to 196 in 2022 — the highest recorded by Amnesty in 30 years — while Egypt executed 24 individuals.

According to AI, the use of the death penalty remained shrouded in secrecy in several countries, including China, North Korea, and Viet Nam — countries that are known to use the death penalty extensively — meaning that the true global figure is far higher.

While the precise number of those killed in China is unknown, it is clear that the country remained the world’s most prolific executioner, ahead of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the USA.

Meanwhile, UN Secretary-General António Guterres, who is critical of capital punishment, “strongly condemned” executions carried out last July by the Myanmar military against four political activists in Myanmar — Phyo Zeya Thaw, Kyaw Min Yu (Ko Jimmy), Hla Myo Aung and Aung Thura Zaw — and offered his condolences to their families.

The Secretary-General opposes the imposition of death penalty in all circumstances, his spokesman said. These executions, the first to be conducted since 1988 in Myanmar, mark a further deterioration of the already dire human rights environment in Myanmar.

In the report, the Secretary-General confirms the trend towards the universal abolition of the death penalty and highlights initiatives limiting its use and implementing the safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty.

Meanwhile, AI said there was a glimmer of hope as six countries abolished the death penalty either fully or partially.

Kazakhstan, Papua New Guinea, Sierra Leone and the Central African Republic abolished the death penalty for all crimes, while Equatorial Guinea and Zambia abolished the death penalty for ordinary crimes only.

As of December 2022, 112 countries had abolished the death penalty for all crimes and nine countries had abolished the death penalty for ordinary crimes only.

The positive momentum continued as Liberia and Ghana took legislative steps toward abolishing the death penalty, while the authorities of Sri Lanka and the Maldives said they would not resort to implementing death sentences. Bills to abolish the mandatory death penalty were also tabled in the Malaysian Parliament.

“As many countries continue to consign the death penalty to the dustbin of history, it’s time for others to follow suit. The brutal actions of countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia as well as China, North Korea and Viet Nam are now firmly in the minority. These countries should urgently catch up with the times, protect human rights, and execute justice rather than people,” said Callamard.

“With 125 UN member states — more than ever before — calling for a moratorium on executions, AI said it has never felt more hopeful that this abhorrent punishment can and will be relegated to the annals of history.

“But 2022’s tragic figures remind us that we can’t rest on our laurels. We will continue to campaign until the death penalty is abolished across the globe.”

IPS UN Bureau Report


Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

© Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

USAID Offers Protection to Journalists & NGOs Facing Defamation Lawsuits — Global Issues

  • by Thalif Deen (united nations)
  • Inter Press Service

“Freedom of the press is the foundation of democracy and justice. It gives all of us the facts we need to shape opinions and speak truth to power. But in every corner of the world, freedom of the press is under attack,” UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said on World Press Freedom Day May 3.

Journalists and media workers, he said, are directly targeted on and offline as they carry out their vital work. They are routinely harassed, intimidated, detained and imprisoned.

At least 67 media workers were killed in 2022 — a 50 per cent increase over the previous year. Nearly three quarters of women journalists have experienced violence online, and one in four have been threatened physically, according to the UN.

But there is also an increase in non-physical attacks, including defamation lawsuits against media organizations challenging their legitimate right to free expression.

The Washington-based US Agency for International Development (USAID) last week launched Reporters Shield, a new membership program that protects journalists around the world– who report in the public interest– from defamation lawsuits and legal threats.

Established as a U.S.-based nonprofit organization by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) and the Cyrus R. Vance Center for International Justice, Reporters Shield has been described as “a first-of-its-kind global program that defends investigative reporting around the world from legal threats meant to silence critical voices”.

USAID, which has a long history of fostering the growth of independent media across the world, plans to work with Congress to contribute up to $9 million in seed funding for this groundbreaking new program to support media outside the United States, according to a May 2 press release.

In a statement released last week, USAID said investigative journalists and civil society organizations reporting in the public interest are increasingly facing lawsuits that aim to harass and silence them by burdening them with the cost and time of a legal defense until they abandon their stories or go out of business entirely.

Reporters Shield will help to reduce these risks through training and pre-publication review, as well as funding legal representation to fight lawsuits and other legal actions meant to intimidate and financially burden reporters.

In order to keep the program sustainable, member organizations participating in Reporters Shield will pay reasonable annual fees that are based on a variation of factors, including location of the outlet and how many stories they produce a year.

“To be considered for membership in Reporters Shield, an organization must be legally registered and focus primarily in news, public interest, and/or investigative reporting; publish reporting in print and/or online; have non-profit status or transparent ownership; be independent from political, commercial, or other undue influence or interference; and have editorial independence and adhere to professional editorial standards”.

Reporters Shield is accepting applications worldwide and will be reviewing them in a phased approach, with some regions receiving benefits in the coming months, and others added later this year and in 2024.

Interested organizations can find more information and apply for membership by visiting reporters-shield.org.

The development of Reporters Shield has been supported by the generous pro bono legal support of the law firms of Proskauer, Primmer Piper Eggleston & Cramer PC, and Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP.

www.usaid.gov/democracy/reporters-shield.

Mandeep S. Tiwana, Chief Programmes Officer at CIVICUS, a global alliance of civil society organizations (CSOs), told IPS “these are hard times for media freedoms due to disinformation and attacks on civic space spurred by deepening authoritarianism, denigration of democracy through populism and consolidation of wealth by oligarchs”.

Uncovering serious human rights violations and high-level corruption, he pointed out, is becoming increasingly dangerous and costly for investigative journalists and civil society activists.

When few companies are ready to sign the Anti- Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) pledge and crafty politicians are busy undermining the independence of judiciaries, this initiative comes at a critical time,” he declared.

According to the Anti-SLAPP pledge by Global Citizen, an international education and advocacy organization, strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs, are not a legitimate business strategy for companies.

“The private sector thrives in functioning democratic societies, where the right to freedom of expression is a respected bedrock principle and where everyone can express their views without fear of intimidation or reprisal”.

“Lawsuits and legal tactics meant to silence civil organizations and human rights defenders aren’t just bad for societies, they’re also damaging to companies. When companies stifle free expression, they limit their ability to manage risk related to their operations and global supply chains.”

As companies that are committed to operating in societies where people are able to exercise fundamental rights, said Global Citizen, “we pledge to: define Strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs, as both lawsuits and legal tactics that are designed to silence critics and abridge citizens’ ability to exercise fundamental rights.”

— Refrain from engaging in SLAPPs against human rights and environmental defenders and civil society organizations that support affected rights-holders.

— Recognize the critical role that civil society organizations and human rights defenders play in creating a profitable enabling environment for the private sector.

— Encourage partners and suppliers within our value chain to refrain from engaging in SLAPPs to silence legitimate activism.

IPS UN Bureau Report


Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

© Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

A Proposal for a UN Freedom of Information Act Never Got Off the Ground — Global Issues

Credit: UNESCO Attribution 3.0 IGO
  • by Thalif Deen (united nations)
  • Inter Press Service

Celebrated every 3rd of May, this year’s theme for World Press Freedom Day will be “Shaping a Future of Rights: Freedom of Expression as a Driver for all other Human Rights.”

Journalists, rarely if ever, were able to get any on-the-record comments or reactions from ambassadors, diplomats and senior UN officials because most of them follow the advice given to Brits during war-time censorship in the UK: “Be like Dad, Keep Mum”.

As Winston Churchill once remarked: “Diplomacy is the art of telling people ‘to go to hell’ in such a way that they ask for directions.”

But as a general rule, most ambassadors and diplomats did not tell us either to go to hell or heaven– but avoided all comments on politically-sensitive issues with the standard non-excuse: ”Sorry, we have to get clearance from our capital”.

But that “clearance” from their respective foreign ministries never came. Still, it was hard to beat a response from a tight-lipped Asian diplomat who told me: “No comment” – and as an after-thought, added: “And Don’t Quote Me on That”.

And most senior UN officials, on the other hand, never had even the basic courtesy or etiquette to respond to phone calls or email messages even with an acknowledgment. The lines of communications were mostly dead.

When I complained to the media-savvy Shashi Tharoor, a former UN Under-Secretary-General, head of the one-time Department of Public Information (DPI) and a prolific author, he was explicit in his response when he said that every UN official – “from an Under-Secretary-General to a window-washer”—has the right to express an opinion in his or her area of expertise.

The US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which dates back to 1967, has provided the public and mostly the press in the United States the right to request access to records from any federal agency—and has been described as “the law that keeps citizens in the know about their government”.

As a result, some of the newspaper scoops and insider information in the US mainstream media have come following requests from American journalists under the FOIA.

But a longstanding proposal for a FOIA at the United Nations has failed to get off the ground due largely to the inaction by the 193-member General Assembly, the UN’s highest policy making body, resulting in the lack of transparency in the inner workings of the UN and its Secretariat.

So has the proposal for a UN Special Envoy to deal with safety of journalists—dead on arrival (DOA).

Andreas Bummel, Executive Director, Democracy Without Borders, told IPS: the UN is an institution that exercises public authority directly and indirectly with over 30,000 working in the Secretariat (plus the UN system worldwide).

“As such, it needs to be accountable not only to its member states but to citizens and the public at large.

Establishing a proper freedom of information procedure at the UN will be an important tool to enhance this, declared Bummel, co-author of “A World Parliament: Governance and Democracy in the 21st Century.”

Martin S. Edwards, Professor and Chair, School of Diplomacy and International Relations at Seton Hall University in the US, told IPS: “I must admit I don’t know the legal angles here. This having been said, it’s pretty clear to me that the only way forward for the UN in an era of political division is greater transparency”

Greater efforts to “tell your story better” are not enough. You can’t advocate for “effective, accountable, and inclusive” institutions at the national level without it, within the UN system too. Things like access to information are an essential step in that direction, he added.

In the US, federal agencies are required to disclose any information requested under the FOIA unless it falls under one of nine exemptions which protect interests such as personal privacy, national security, and law enforcement.

In Australia, the legislation is known as Right2Know; in Bangladesh, the Right to Information (RTI) provides resources for those seeking to file a request with government agencies; in Japan, the Citizens’ Centre for Information Disclosure offers help to those interested in filing requests; in India, the Right to Information: a Citizen Gateway is the portal for RTI; Canada’s Access to Information Act came into force in 1983 and Kenya’s Access to Information Act was adopted in August 2016, according to the Centre for Law and Democracy (CLD).

And Sweden’s Freedom of the Press Act of 1766 has been described as the “oldest in the world.”

While FOIA covers access to federal government agency records, the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) guarantees access to state and local government records. All 50 states in the US also have freedom of information laws that govern access to these documents, though the provisions of the state laws vary considerably.

The Paris-based UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which is mandated to oversee press freedom, defines Freedom of Information (FOI) as the right to access information held by public bodies.

According to UNESCO, the FOI is an integral part of the fundamental right of freedom of expression, as recognized by Resolution 59 of the UN General Assembly adopted in 1946, as well as by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), which states that the fundamental right of freedom of expression encompasses the freedom to “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”.

FOI has also been enshrined as a “freedom of expression” in other major international instruments, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) and the American Convention on Human Rights (1969).

In an interview with IPS back in 2017, Samir Sanbar, a former UN Assistant Secretary-General who headed the one-time Department of Public Information (DPI), said the right to information is an integral part of U.N. principles.

But providing that right—even the basic information available in the public domain– has been stymied both by member states and the UN bureaucracy, he added.

He pointed out that the need to “inform the peoples” is implicitly indicated in the UN Charter.

But implementing it was “a basic issue I had experienced throughout my work, with both certain government officials– including those publicly claiming open channels– and many senior U.N. Secretariat colleagues”.

Those who believed “Information is Power” were very hesitant, to what they perceived was sharing their authority with a wider public, said Sanbar who served under five different UN Secretaries-General.

“It was most evident that when I launched the now uncontested website www.un.org, a number of powerful Under-Secretaries-General (USGs) and Permanent Representatives cautioned me against “telling everyone what was happening” (in the UN system) and refused to authorize any funds.”

“I had to raise a team of DPI volunteers in my office, operating from within the existing budget, to go ahead and eventually offer computers loaned from an outside source, to certain delegations to realize it was more convenient for them to access news releases than having to send one of their staffers daily to the building to collect material from the third floor.“

Eventually, everyone joined in, and the site became one of the ten best official sites worldwide.

“We had a similar difficulty in prodding for International World Press Freedom Day through the General Assembly. It seems that even those with the best of intentions– since delegates represent official governments that view free press with cautious monitoring– are usually weary of opening a potentially vulnerable issue,” said Sanbar, author of the book “Inside the U.N. in a Leaderless World’.

This article contains excerpts from a 2021 book on the United Nations—largely a collection of political anecdotes– titled “No Comment – and Don’t Quote Me on That,” available on Amazon. The link to Amazon via the author’s website follows: https://www.rodericgrigson.com/no-comment-by-thalif-deen/

IPS UN Bureau Report


Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

© Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

The War in Ukraine Triggers a Record Increase in World Military Spending — Global Issues

  • Opinion by Thalif Deen (united nations)
  • Inter Press Service

Together, the UN pointed out, their grain was an essential food source for some of the poorest and most vulnerable people, providing more than one-third of the wheat imported by 45 African and least-developed countries (LDCs), described as “the poorest of the world’s poor”.

At the same time, Russia was the world’s top natural gas exporter, and second-largest oil exporter.

The negative fall-out from the war, and the rise in arms spending, are a blessing in disguise for US and Western arms suppliers. The US administration alone has provided an estimated 113 billion dollars in weapons, economic and humanitarian aid and security assistance to Ukraine—and with no end in sight.

As a result of the war, world military expenditures reached a new record high, according to a report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

The study, released April 24, says total global military expenditure grew for the eighth consecutive year in 2022. And an increase of 3.7 per cent in real terms last year resulted in a new high of $2.24 trillion.

By far the sharpest rise in spending (+13 per cent) was seen in Europe and was largely accounted for by Russian and Ukrainian spending. However, military aid to Ukraine and concerns about a heightened threat from Russia strongly influenced many other states’ spending decisions, as did tensions in East Asia.

Military expenditure in Europe, a new battleground since World War II, is the steepest year-on-year increase in at least 30 years.

The three largest spenders in 2022—the United States, China and Russia—accounted for 56 per cent of the world total.

All three, along with Britain and France, are veto-wielding permanent members of the UN Security Council who are expected to abide by one of the core principles in the UN charter: maintaining international peace and security.

The United States remains by far the world’s biggest military spender. US military spending reached $877 billion in 2022, which was 39 per cent of total global military spending and three times more than the amount spent by China, the world’s second largest spender.

The 0.7 per cent real-term increase in US spending in 2022 would have been even greater had it not been for the highest levels of inflation since 1981, according to the SIPRI study.

Dr Nan Tian, Senior Researcher with SIPRI’s Military Expenditure and Arms Production Programme, said “the continuous rise in global military expenditure in recent years is a sign that we are living in an increasingly insecure world.’

She said States are bolstering military strength in response to a deteriorating security environment, which they do not foresee improving in the near future.

Ukraine’s military spending reached $44.0 billion in 2022. At 640 per cent, this was the highest single-year increase in a country’s military expenditure ever recorded in SIPRI data.

As a result of the increase and the war-related damage to Ukraine’s economy, the military burden (military spending as a share of GDP) shot up to 34 per cent of GDP in 2022, from 3.2 per cent in 2021, according to the SIPRI study.

“The invasion of Ukraine had an immediate impact on military spending decisions in Central and Western Europe. This included multi-year plans to boost spending from several governments,” said Dr Diego Lopes da Silva, Senior Researcher with SIPRI’s Military Expenditure and Arms Production Programme.

“As a result, we can reasonably expect military expenditure in Central and Western Europe to keep rising in the years ahead,” he said.

Some of the sharpest increases were seen in Finland (+36 per cent), Lithuania (+27 per cent), Sweden (+12 per cent) and Poland (+11 per cent).

‘While the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 certainly affected military spending decisions in 2022, concerns about Russian aggression have been building for much longer,’ said Lorenzo Scarazzato, Researcher with SIPRI’s Military Expenditure and Arms Production Programme.

‘Many former Eastern bloc states have more than doubled their military spending since 2014, the year when Russia annexed Crimea,’ while Russia and Ukraine have raised military spending as war rages on.

Russian military spending grew by an estimated 9.2 per cent in 2022, to around $86.4 billion. This was equivalent to 4.1 per cent of Russia’s gross domestic product (GDP) in 2022, up from 3.7 per cent of GDP in 2021.

Figures released by Russia in late 2022 show that spending on national defence, the largest component of Russian military expenditure, was already 34 per cent higher, in nominal terms, than in budgetary plans drawn up in 2021.

‘The difference between Russia’s budgetary plans and its actual military spending in 2022 suggests the invasion of Ukraine has cost Russia far more than it anticipated,’ said Lucie Béraud-Sudreau, Director of SIPRI’s Military Expenditure and Arms Production Programme.

Ukraine’s military spending reached $44.0 billion in 2022. At 640 per cent, this was the highest single-year increase in a country’s military expenditure ever recorded in SIPRI data.

As a result of the increase and the war-related damage to Ukraine’s economy, the military burden (military spending as a share of GDP) shot up to 34 per cent of GDP in 2022, from 3.2 per cent in 2021.

Other notable developments, according to SIPRI included:

** The real-terms increase in world military spending in 2022 was slowed by the effects of inflation, which in many countries soared to levels not seen for decades. In nominal terms (i.e. in current prices without adjusting for inflation), the global total increased by 6.5 per cent.

** India’s military spending of $81.4 billion was the fourth highest in the world. It was 6.0 per cent more than in 2021.

** In 2022, military spending by Saudi Arabia, the fifth biggest military spender, rose by 16 per cent to reach an estimated $75.0 billion, its first increase since 2018.

** Nigeria’s military spending fell by 38 per cent to $3.1 billion, after a 56 per cent increase in spending in 2021.

** Military spending by NATO members totalled $1232 billion in 2022, which was 0.9 per cent higher than in 2021.

** The United Kingdom had the highest military spending in Central and Western Europe at $68.5 billion, of which an estimated $2.5 billion (3.6 per cent) was financial military aid to Ukraine.

** In 2022, Türkiye’s military spending fell for the third year in a row, reaching $10.6 billion—a decrease of 26 per cent from 2021.

** Ethiopia’s military spending rose by 88 per cent in 2022, to reach $1.0 billion. The increase coincided with a renewed government offensive against the Tigray People’s Liberation Front in the north of the country.

IPS UN Bureau Report


Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

© Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

When US Spies Read Russian Lips in the Security Council Chamber — Global Issues

  • by Thalif Deen (united nations)
  • Inter Press Service

The United Nations, which has long been under surveillance by multiple Western intelligence agencies, was also one of the victims of last week’s espionage scandal.

According to the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), one of the US intelligence reports recounts a conversation between Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and his deputy, Amina Mohammed.

Guterres expresses “dismay” at a call from the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen for Europe to produce more weapons and ammunition for the war in Ukraine.

The two UN officials also discussed a recent summit meeting of African leaders, with Amina Mohammed describing Kenya’s president, William Ruto, as “ruthless” and that she “doesn’t trust him.”

Responding to questions at the daily news briefings, UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told reporters: “The Secretary-General has been at this job, and in the public eye, for a long time, and “he is not surprised by the fact that people are spying on him and listening in on his private conversations”.

What is surprising, he said, “is the malfeasance or incompetence that allows for such private conversations to be distorted and become public.”

At a more global scale, virtually all the big powers play the UN spying game, including the US, the Russians (and the Soviets during the Cold War era), the French, the Brits, and the Chinese.

During the height of the Cold War in the 1960s and 1970s, the UN was a veritable battle ground for the United States and the now-defunct Soviet Union to spy on each other.

The American and Soviet spooks were known to be crawling all over the building -– in committee rooms, in the press gallery, in the delegate’s lounge, and, most importantly, in the UN library, which was a drop-off point for sensitive political documents.

The extent of Cold War espionage in the United Nations was laid bare by a 1975 US Congressional Committee, named after Senator Frank Church (Democrat-Idaho) who chaired it while investigating abuses by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), National Security Agency (NSA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

The evidence given before the Church Committee in 1975 included a revelation that the CIA had planted one of its Russian lip-reading experts in a press booth overlooking the Security Council chamber so that he could monitor the lip movements of Russian delegates, as they consulted each other in low whispers.

Dr Thomas G. Weiss. Distinguished Fellow, Global Governance, The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, who has written extensively on the politics of the UN, told IPS: “As you say, it is hardly surprising that US intelligence services spy on the 38th floor. This is an ancient practice”.

He pointed out there is almost nothing that they don’t monitor. Indeed, it should come as a source of relief to UN fans that Turtle Bay is still taken seriously enough to spy on.

“The justification for the monitoring would be more intriguing”, he said.

“Is the SG pro-West (he has criticized the Russian War), or pro-Russia (according to rumors)?,” said Dr Weiss, Presidential Professor of Political Science and Director Emeritus, Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies at the CUNY Graduate Center.

In his 1978 book, “A Dangerous Place,” Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a former US envoy to the United Nations, described the cat-and-mouse espionage game that went on inside the bowels of the world body, and particularly the UN library.

Back in October 2013, When Clare Short, Britain’s former minister for international development, revealed that British intelligence agents had spied on former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan by bugging his office just before the disastrous U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, the UN chief was furious that his discussions with world leaders had been compromised.

And as she talked to Annan on the 38th floor of the UN Secretariat building, Short told the BBC, she was thinking, “Oh dear, there will be a transcript of this, and people will see what he and I are saying.”

The United Nations, along with the 193 diplomatic missions located in New York, has long been a veritable battleground for spying, wire-tapping and electronic surveillance.

Back in September 2013, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, throwing diplomatic protocol to the winds, launched a blistering attack on the United States for illegally infiltrating its communications network, surreptitiously intercepting phone calls, and breaking into the Brazilian Mission to the United Nations.

Justifying her public criticism, she told delegates that the problem of electronic surveillance goes beyond a bilateral relationship. “It affects the international community itself and demands a response from it.”

Rousseff unleashed her attack even as US President Barack Obama was awaiting his turn to address the General Assembly on the opening day of the annual high-level debate. By longstanding tradition, Brazil is the first speaker, followed by the United States.

“We have let the US government know our disapproval, and demanded explanations, apologies and guarantees that such procedures will never be repeated,” she said.

According to documents released by US whistleblower Edward Snowden, the illegal electronic surveillance of Brazil was conducted by the US National Security Agency (NSA).

The Germany Der Spiegel magazine reported that NSA technicians had managed to decrypt the UN’s internal video teleconferencing (VTC) system, as part of its surveillance of the world body.

The combination of this new access to the UN and the cracked encryption code led to “a dramatic improvement in VTC data quality and (the) ability to decrypt the VTC traffic,” the NSA agents reportedly said.

In the article, titled “How America Spies on Europe and the UN”, Spiegel said that in just under three weeks, the number of decrypted communications increased from 12 to 458.

Subsequently, there were new charges of spying—but this time around the Americans were accused of using the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) in Baghdad to intercept Iraqi security intelligence in an attempt to undermine, and perhaps overthrow, the government of President Saddam Hussein.

The charges, spread across the front pages of the Washington Post and the Boston Globe, only confirmed the longstanding Iraqi accusation that UNSCOM was “a den of spies,” mostly American and British.

Established by the Security Council immediately after the 1991 Gulf War, UNSCOM was mandated to eliminate Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and destroy that country’s capabilities to produce nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

The head of UNSCOM, Richard Butler of Australia, however, vehemently denied charges that his inspection team in Iraq had spied for the United States. “We have never conducted spying for anyone,” Butler told reporters.

Asked to respond to news reports that UNSCOM may have helped Washington collect sensitive Iraqi information to destabilize the Saddam Hussein regime, Butler retorted: “Don’t believe everything you read in print.”

Around the same time, the New York Times weighed in with a front-page story
quoting US officials as saying that “American spies had worked undercover on teams of UN arms inspectors ferreting out secret Iraqi weapons programmes.”

In an editorial, the Times said that “using UN activities in Iraq as a cover for American spy operations would be a sure way to undermine the international organization, embarrass the United States and strengthen Mr. Hussein.”

“Washington did cross a line it should not have if it placed American agents on the UN team with the intention of gathering information that could be used for military strikes against targets in Baghdad,” the editorial said.

Samir Sanbar, a former UN Assistant Secretary-Genera, who headed the Department of Public Information (DPI), told IPS monitoring international officials evolved with enhanced digital capacity.

What was mainly done by security agents widened into a public exercise, he added.

Initially, he said, certain U.N. locations of interest like the Delegates Lounge were targeted by several countries, including with devices across the East River in Queens or across the lounge adjacent to the UN Lawn –and within shouting distance of permanent missions and residences of UN diplomats.

One senior UN official once said the closer he drove towards the S-G’s residence at Sutton place the more obvious was the radio monitoring.

“I recall a meeting with Kofi Annan the day U.S, President Bush announced the invasion of Iraq. He had suggested a “tete a tete”–the two of us alone.

While expressing his concern, and seated outside on lounge chairs, “we noted helicopters circling around The Secretariat building.”

“When I mentioned “Black Hawk Down” – relating to Somalia’s experience– he nodded and smiled casually. Kofi was a dignified colleague and an outstanding Secretary General who rose from the ranks, and inspired the whole Secretariat staff.”.

“May his soul rest in peace”, said Sanbar, who served under five different Secretaries-General during his long tenure at the UN.

Meanwhile, when the U.N. Correspondents Association (UNCA) held its annual award ceremony in December 2013, one of the video highlights was a hilarious skit on the clumsy attempts at spying going on inside the highest levels of the Secretariat—and right up to the 38th floor offices of then Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

When I took the floor, as one of the UNCA award winners, I gave the Secretary-General, standing next to me, an unsolicited piece of light-hearted advice: if you want to find out whether your phone line is being tapped, I said jokingly, you only have to sneeze loudly.

A voice at the other end would instinctively– and courteously– respond: “Bless you”.

And you know your phone is being tapped, I said, amid laughter.

This article contains excerpts from a 2021 book on the United Nations titled “No Comment – and Don’t Quote Me on That,” available on Amazon. The link to Amazon via the author’s website follows: https://www.rodericgrigson.com/no-comment-by-thalif-deen/

IPS UN Bureau Report


Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

© Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Should Internet Access be Declared a Basic Human Right? — Global Issues

  • by Thalif Deen (united nations)
  • Inter Press Service

Back in 1948, the UN General Assembly proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), whose 75th anniversary is being commemorated this year.

The rights spelled out include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and many more. Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination.

Enter the University of Birmingham (UoB), UK.

A new UoB study, released last week, has proposed that internet and online access be declared a human right.

“People around the globe are so dependent on the internet to exercise socio-economic human rights such as education, healthcare, work, and housing that online access must now be considered a basic human right”, says the study.

“Particularly in developing countries, internet access can make the difference between people receiving an education, staying healthy, finding a home, and securing employment – or not.”

“Even if people have offline opportunities, such as accessing social security schemes or finding housing, they are at a comparative disadvantage to those with Internet access.”

Publishing his findings in Politics, Philosophy & Economics, Dr Merten Reglitz, Lecturer in Global Ethics at the University of Birmingham, calls for a stand-alone human right to internet access – based on it being a practical necessity for a range of socio-economic human rights.

He calls for public authorities to provide internet access free of charge for those unable to afford it, as well as providing training in basic digital skills training for all citizens and protecting online access from arbitrary interference by states and private companies.

Dr Reglitz said: “The internet has unique and fundamental value for the realisation of many of our socio-economic human rights – allowing users to submit job applications, send medical information to healthcare professionals, manage their finances and business, make social security claims, and submit educational assessments.

“The internet’s structure enables a mutual exchange of information that has the potential to contribute to the progress of humankind as a whole – potential that should be protected and deployed by declaring access to the Internet a human right.”

Emma Gibson, Campaign Lead for Alliance for Universal Digital Rights (AUDRi), told IPS “with so much of our lives conducted online, access to the internet has now become a de facto human right”.

There is a gender dimension at play because women are less likely to be able to get online than men, and this is reversing some of the progress we’ve made on women’s equality.

“Access to the internet is becoming the new gender divide. When women can’t access education online, search for a higher paying job, independently manage their finances or set up a business with its own website, then it’s inevitable that the equality gap between men and women will widen,” declared Gibson.

Amanda Manyame, Digital Law and Rights Consultant at Equality Now, told IPS accessing the internet is important because it is intrinsically linked to various rights, including the right to freedom of expression and association, and the right to information.

The internet, she pointed out, plays a central role in ensuring full participation in social, cultural and political life, but not being safe online deters many women and girls from accessing the internet where it is available.

“As part of ensuring digital participation, consideration should be given to online safety concerns such as online sexual exploitation and abuse, especially in relation to women and girls who are disproportionately affected.”

“The United Nations, she said, has been playing a role in ensuring internet access through its agencies and other mechanisms involved in internet-related activities, such as international public policy, standardization, and capacity-building efforts.

These include the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the World Summit on the Information Society, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), and more recently, the Office of the Secretary-General’s Envoy on Technology, which has been making advances toward the Global Digital Compact, in close consultation with Member States, the technology industry, private companies, civil society, and other stakeholders.

One of the thematic areas for the Global Digital Compact is “Connect all people to the Internet, including all schools” focusing on ensuring safe and secure access to the Internet for all.

“National and international law and mechanisms need to address human rights and accountability in the digital realm, including incorporating access to the internet and digital technologies, which is key to ensuring equality for all women and girls, and other vulnerable groups, in both digital and physical spaces,” Manyame declared.

Dr Ruediger Kuehr Head of the Bonn Office of the UN Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) and Manager, Sustainable Cycles (SCYCLE) Programme, told IPS SCYCLE has not substantially researched on internet access yet.

“But we know from our daily activities that illiteracy, availability of end devices and access points and stable energy systems are also limiting factors for internet access”

And many argue that shipments of used end devices shall help to close the gap, also by making machines available for an affordable price for the majority of the population, he noted.

“But it turns out that many of these machines are no longer useable. And that too many of the receiving countries are without the necessary infrastructure, policies/legislation and systems to address the issue of waste electrical and electronic equipment”.

But without that, he argued, the environmental, economic and social consequences will be enormous as well – leading to pollution, loss of scarce and valuable resources, creation of primitive jobs not even meeting the least security standards and systems, which pick the “cherries” but leaving the rest unattended adding to, for example, the plastics avalanche many are yet confronted with.

The UoB study outlines several areas in developed countries where internet access is essential to exercise socio-economic human rights:

    • Education – students in internet-free households are disadvantaged in obtaining a good school education with essential learning aids and study materials online.
    • Health – providing in-person healthcare to remote communities can be challenging, particularly in the US and Canada. Online healthcare can help to plug this gap.
    • Housing – in many developed countries, significant parts of the rental housing market have moved online.
    • Social Security – accessing these public services today is often unreasonably difficult without internet access.
    • Work – jobs are increasingly advertised in real time online and people must be able to access relevant websites to make effective use of their right to work.

Dr Reglitz’s research also highlights similar problems for people without internet access in developing countries – for example, 20 per cent of children aged 6 to 11 are out of school in sub-Saharan Africa.

Many children face long walks to their schools, where class sizes are routinely very large in crumbling, unsanitary schools with insufficient numbers of teachers.

“However, online education tools can make a significant difference – allowing children living remotely from schools to complete their education. More students can be taught more effectively if teaching materials are available digitally and pupils do not have to share books”.

For people in developing countries, he said, internet access can also make the difference between receiving an adequate level of healthcare or receiving none.

Digital health tools can help diagnose illnesses – for example, in Kenya, a smartphone-based Portable Eye Examination Kit (Peek) has been used to test people’s eyesight and identify people who need treatment, especially in remote areas underserved by medical practitioners.

People are often confronted with a lack of brick-and-mortar banks in developing countries and internet access makes possible financial inclusion.

Small businesses can also raise money through online crowdfunding platforms – the World Bank expects such sums raised in Africa to rise from $32 million in 2015 to $2.5 billion in 2025.

Meanwhile, in a new report released last June, the UN Human Rights Office says the dramatic real-life effects of Internet shutdowns on people’s lives and human rights have been vastly underestimated and urges member states NOT to impose Internet shutdowns.

The link to the report: A/HRC/50/55 (un.org)

“Too often, major communication channels or entire communication networks are slowed down or blocked,” the report says, adding that this has deprived “thousands or even millions of people of their only means of reaching loved ones, continuing their work or participating in political debates or decisions.”

The report sheds light on the phenomenon of Internet shutdowns, looking at when and why they are imposed and examining how they undermine a range of human rights, first and foremost the right to freedom of expression.

“Shutdowns can mean a complete block on Internet connectivity but governments also increasingly resort to banning access to major communication platforms and throttling bandwidth and limiting mobile services to 2G transfer speeds, making it hard, for example, to share and watch videos or live picture broadcasts.”

The report notes that the #KeepItOn coalition, which monitors shutdowns episodes across the world, documented 931 shutdowns between 2016 and 2021 in 74 countries, with some countries blocking communications repeatedly and over long periods of time.

“Shutdowns are powerful markers of sharply deteriorating human rights situations,” the report highlights. Over the past decade, they have tended to be imposed during heightened political tensions, with at least 225 shutdowns recorded during public demonstrations relating to social, political or economic grievances.

Shutdowns were also reported when governments carried out security operations, severely restricting human rights monitoring and reporting. In the context of armed conflicts and during mass demonstrations, the fact that people could not communicate and promptly report abuses seems to have contributed to further insecurity and violence, including serious human rights violations, according to the report.

IPS UN Bureau Report


Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

© Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Exit mobile version