अΣO אن冬宮 19:30 Wednesdays Global Agendae and Compacts Programme 5/7

Simultaneous Policy (Simpol)

Welcome

Welcome to Simpol's Global Site: Your vote to take back the world!

Simpol invites citizens around the world to use their votes in a completely new way to encourage politicians to solve global problems like global warming, financial market regulation, environmental destruction, war, and social injustice.

Simpol offers us a way to take action on global problems; problems individual governments cannot resolve by acting alone.

That’s because these problems cross national boundaries, and because competition between governments to attract investment and jobs means the markets - not the people - end up calling the shots.

Governments cannot act alone to solve these problems because any government doing so would make its economy uncompetitive, leading to inflation, unemployment, or even economic collapse. Any government that moved first would lose out! While governments remain stuck, it's the markets that continue to run politics - not we, the people.

Simpol aims to break this vicious circle by encouraging people around the world to oblige their politicians and governments to cooperate globally in implementing appropriate policies simultaneously for the good of all.

Only by implementing policies simultaneously can our problems be resolved in a way that no nation, corporation, or citizen loses out to its peers. Only by acting globally and simultaneously can governments regain control over global markets. If all nations act together, everybody wins.

Simultaneous implementation would ensure that no country became uncompetitive as a result of pursuing policies that were right for the planet and which embodied our higher aspirations. But politicians will not act together globally unless we make them!

So, please act now by signing up as a Simpol Supporter
which costs you nothing.

By supporting Simpol you are taking politics back! You are telling politicians you’ll be voting in future national elections, not for a particular candidate or party, but for ANY candidate or party, within reason, who has signed the Simpol Pledge; a declaration of support for a process leading to the simultaneous implementation of a range of policies to solve global problems. Or, if you have a party preference, your support signifies you want your preferred party to make that Pledge.

In that way, you still retain the ultimate right to vote as you please. But you are also clearly indicating to politicians that you’ll be giving strong preference to those who have signed the Pledge, to the exclusion of those who haven’t. With many parliamentary seats, and even entire national elections, hanging on a relatively low number of votes, even a relatively small block of Simpol supporters can make it in the vital interests of politicians to sign the Pledge. This is the simple mechanism Simpol supporters use to advance our cause. It's the simple mechanism we're using to take politics back.

Simpol's approach is peaceful, open, democratic, and it's free. By supporting Simpol, you gain the opportunity to

• contribute, if you wish, to the formulation of specific policies to solve global problems, and
• you join with others to use your vote in a new and effective way to drive the politicians of all parties and countries to implement those policies together.

By supporting Simpol, you are joining with others around the world to make us all a part of the global political solution!

Simpol around the world

National Simpol campaigns are already running in many countries around the world and politicians in many nations have already signed the Simpol Pledge. To read about Simpol in your language and to get involved in the campaign in your country, please click here.

--

Background

Background

Why are governments and political parties no longer able to solve our mounting global problems? We explain why Simpol offers an effective means of solving them.

What prevents governments from solving global problems?

It’s a common belief that politicians and governments have the power to solve many of today’s global problems; problems like global warming, poverty, and diminishing natural resources. Solutions certainly exist in the form of taxes, regulations and a switch to new environmentally friendly technologies. All that's lacking, it is always said, is the political will to implement them.

So why don’t politicians and governments implement them?

The difficulty is that these solutions would inevitably cost businesses more. Higher taxes or regulations on businesses would make them less profitable. So, no government dares implement these solutions alone because they fear corporations and investors simply moving or sub-contracting their operations to some other country where taxes and regulations are less severe, and where costs are lower. Implementing solutions to global problems, then, would cause an individual nation to lose out against competitor nations. And every nation participates in the global economy so they all suffer from the same fear.

"The blunt truth about the politics of climate change is that no country will want to sacrifice its economy in order to meet this challenge." [Former UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair. The Guardian, 3.11.05.]

What's worse, nations often weaken social and environmental protection regulations and planning laws to make doing business in their country more attractive to global investors and corporations. The idea is that this will bring more investment and jobs - and for a while, it does. But only, of course, until competitor nations do the same!

That is why nothing changes except that our problems only get worse. It’s a vicious circle all nations are caught in; a dangerous game no nation can win and all will ultimately lose.

"There is a collective action problem internationally". [Former UK Environment Minister, David Miliband. The Financial Times, 6.12.06]

So, are corporate executives or global investors to blame?

If politicians are the victims of the vicious circle caused by the free movement of capital and corporations, surely this must be the fault of investors or corporate executives? But this is not so. Corporate executives and investment managers are forced, through competition, to seek out the most profitable investments and opportunities and this often means sacrificing social and environmental interests in order to maximize profits. Any corporation failing to maximize profits will lose out to less scrupulous competitors. As executives themselves say, “if we don’t do it, our competitors will”. The same goes for global investors who are rated by the returns they obtain for their clients. Investors and corporate executives, then, are generally no less aware of global problems than the rest of society. But they, like our politicians, are trapped in the same vicious circle of destructive competition and they have no way out.

Seen in this way, global warming, excessive corporate power, the growing energy crisis and our many other global problems are not the real issue.  Because the common underlying barrier to solutions is the same: that nations are caught in a vicious circle of destructive competition from which they cannot escape. Global warming, poverty, energy insecurity and so on are not the problem.

The problem is a lack of international cooperation!

Why do I feel so powerless in this situation and why has my vote become meaningless?

Destructive competition between nations caused by the global free movement of capital and corporations has an important effect on politics. Because any party that comes to govern has no choice but to maintain its nation’s international competitiveness and its attractiveness to global investors and corporations. Even Green parties, when they come to power, are forced to discard or severely dilute their policies to avoid capital, jobs and investment disappearing to other countries. This is why, once in government, all parties end up implementing much the same market- and business-friendly policies and why voting for one or another makes little difference. Looking to politicians and governments alone to solve our problems has thus become substantially futile. It’s also why increasing numbers of citizens realize that their votes no longer make much difference and why so many of us no longer bother to vote in national elections.

To solve global problems citizens around the world need to drive politicians and governments from destructive international competition to fruitful global cooperation. The Simultaneous Policy (Simpol) is one way – perhaps the only way - we citizens can make that happen.

But just when you thought your vote had become meaningless, the Simultaneous Policy (Simpol) offers you and citizens all around the world a way to make your vote more powerful than you ever thought possible. So please support Simpol now and make yourself part of the global political solution!

--

Scope

Problems likely to require the Simpol approach

Protection of the Global Commons

Issues such as clean air, global warming, unpolluted oceans and adequate clean water availability are increasingly being recognised as factors requiring a global, as well as a local, approach. In many cases, the technologies required to reduce emissions and pollution are available but, because their use often involves increased costs, nations are reluctant to impose the necessary regulations for fear of their industries becoming "uncompetitive" in the global market. With respect to climate change, for example, how often do we hear news of the following type:

"Brown in 'green tax' climbdown.

GORDON BROWN will bow to pressure from big business today by announcing a climbdown over his plans to impose a "green" tax on industry. In his pre-Budget statement, the Chancellor will disappoint the environmental lobby by curbing the climate change levy after lobbying by Britain's bosses, who warned that it would harm productivity and cost jobs." (The Independent. 9th November 1999.)

If sufficient nations cooperated by implementing the necessary legislation simultaneously as the Simultaneous Policy (Simpol) proposes, the necessary taxes or stricter emissions regulations could be implemented without any loss of competitiveness or risk of corporations moving employment elsewhere. Furthermore, with Simpol, the prospect of achieving really dramatic cuts in emissions becomes possible, rather than the present very mild and inadequate provisions of the Kyoto Protocol.

To top

Global Financial Market Regulation

Global regulation of internationally mobile financial markets are increasingly seen as vital for a sustainable financial system. Measures such as the "Tobin Tax" and other restrictions on derivatives and other "financial instruments" have long been recognised as necessary to control the "casino economy". Furthermore, increasing threats from terrorists, drug traffickers and international crime syndicates cannot be dealt with when Tax Havens continue to permit these people to launder money and hedge against differing tax rates in different countries.

To top

Destructive Tax Competition

Because today's open global market permits corporations to move their operations freely from one country to another, and because governments are keen to attract the jobs and investment corporations bring, governments are locked in a destructive race to the bottom in corporate tax revenues. The tax-take from corporations around the world is consequently in steep decline. The London Financial Times (2nd May, 2003), for example, carried the following article which well describes the problem: The UK’s long-standing appeal as a low-tax location for companies is being chipped away by tax cuts in rival EU states, according to a survey by KPMG, the professional services firm.

"Competition between governments to attract businesses is driving down taxes on companies around the world, intensifying pressure to raise tax on individuals, KPMG found. As companies become increasingly multinational, it has become easier for them to shift activities between states or allocate their profits to countries with lower taxes. … "I believe that corporate tax is in near terminal decline,” said John Whiting, a tax partner at PwC. “Over the next 10 years governments may have to deal with a lot less corporate revenue and will have to raise tax from elsewhere.” "It’s a battle governments will never win," he said."

A study carried out for the years 2002/3 by Citizens for Tax Justice showed that tax payments by 275 'Fortune 500' companies were less than half the statutory 35 percent level and 82% of the companies surveyed paid zero or less in federal income taxes. (Source: London Financial Times, 22nd November, 2004)

With corporate tax revenues drying up as a result of this destructive competition, it is hardly surprising that governments do not have adequate resources to fund proper public services such as schools, hospitals and public transport. Since any nation that dared to move first to raise its level of corporation tax would be certain to put itself at a competitive disadvantage, this global vicious circle can only be broken by simultaneous government action of the kind advocated by the Simultaneous Policy (Simpol).

To top

Corporate Accountability

Corporations operate in a global market. Major corporations have their shares quoted on global stock markets. While doubtless influenced by the desire of consumers to purchase products made under environmentally and socially responsible conditions, corporations cannot afford to lose out to their competitors. Any corporation doing so invites a reduction in profits, a down-valuing of their share price and, ultimately, the threat of a hostile take-over. As such, in a globally competitive market, it is not an exaggeration to say that corporations can only afford to behave as responsibly as their main competitors allow or, as the corporations themselves put it: "If we don't do it, our competitors will".

Without appropriate global regulation such as the Simultaneous Policy (Simpol) proposes, therefore, it is simply unrealistic to expect any lasting or significant improvement in corporate social or environmental responsibility when corporations are free to move across national borders to wherever labour costs and environmental restrictions are lowest, and potential profits therefore highest.

To top

Localisation and Food Security

The localisation of production and consumption, as opposed to the long-distance, global transportation of all manner of goods to and from all corners of the Earth, is increasingly recognised as a central pre-condition of a sustainable global economy and environment in the 21st century.

Many of the policies needed to achieve "localisation" depend, however, on global cooperation. Some policies advocated by many of those calling for "localisation", such as the policy of "Site here to sell here", i.e. the unilateral national imposition of regulations to force corporations wishing to sell locally to also site some of their operations locally, will be difficult to implement when financial markets are likely to view any country contemplating such policies as "unconducive to business needs" or "protectionist" thus prompting capital flight, currency devaluation, etc. (even if WTO rules have not already excluded such policies). As such, the achievement of localisation is likely to depend on the re-regulation of capital markets and transnational corporations; i.e. on policies which will require widespread international cooperation as proposed by the Simultaneous Policy (Simpol).

Furthermore, local production and consumption can be promoted by appropriate global Simpol-type policies such as a global tax on fuels. Globally higher fuel prices which such a tax would cause would make long-distance transportation more expensive and would consequently:

• reduce global warming and other transport-related pollution
• reduce transport congestion
• make locally produced goods relatively cheaper and therefore more competitive, thus promoting local economies
• raise significant tax revenue to fund poorer countries or to compensate oil-producing or other countries who may lose out by such a tax
• reduce pollution-related health problems and the consequent burden on public health provision.
• conserve fossil fuels

The above tax on fuels is, of course, but one example of how global cooperation - as advocated by the Simultaneous Policy (Simpol) - is a pre-requisite of achieving healthy and vibrant local economies.

To top

Provision of Adequate Public Services

Financial market liberalisation, which has permitted capital owners and corporations to avoid taxation and regulation by moving their activities elsewhere, has severely tilted the overall burden of taxation away from corporations and onto the mass of ordinary private individuals. This, combined with governments' reluctance to increase the tax burden for fear of losing votes, has resulted in the by now famous "cuts" in public spending, in particular on transport, health and education. It has also resulted in government increasingly looking to privatise or to operate public services by using private companies. Since we live in a global market, virtually all countries are experiencing this phenomenon to a greater or lesser extent inspite of mounting evidence that private companies are incapable of reliably and safely providing services such as railways, power, water and other vital services.

The WTO's General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) is further entrenching this state of affairs as all governments are led to believe that "greater competition" and "greater efficiency" will solve these problems when all the evidence suggests they are only helping to make them worse. Furthermore, opening up public services to private business is increasingly seen by world financial markets as a hallmark of a "competitive national economy conducive to business needs". Governments hesitating to follow such policies risk instant punishment by financial markets.

Measures to increase taxes on corporations simultaneously across national borders, as the Simultaneous Policy (Simpol) calls for, would therefore tilt the burden of taxation back to the corporations and financial speculators thus restoring properly funded and adequate public services.

To top

Waste Reduction and Recycling

Waste reduction and recycling have long been key requirements for a sustainable economy and environment. However, WTO rules which exclude national discrimination between goods which are packaged in recyclable packaging and those that aren't make the promotion of waste reduction and recycling difficult. This is an inherent feature of the WTO which is primarily focused on increasing (liberalising) trade rather than on environmental issues.

Global regulation, as proposed by the Simultaneous Policy (Simpol), is required either to ensure that environmental considerations are adequately built in to WTO rules or to re-regulate global capital markets and corporations to allow individual governments the necessary freedom to impose appropriate national regulations without fear of capital flight or adverse market reaction.

To top

Chemicals, Pesticides and Hazardous Substances

In a globalised world where governments increasingly fear imposing any measure which might increase the costs of industry or deter inward investment, unilateral action to outlaw or control harmful substances is becoming difficult if not impossible. Even the European Union which is thought to be a beacon for high social and environmental standards is not immune from global market forces and cannot regulate for fear of the consequences. The following example demonstrates the point:

" 'Danger' Chemicals get EU All-clear for Continued Use: Everyday chemicals suspected of causing birth defects, allergies and learning problems in children can still be produced and sold in the European Union under a white paper published yesterday by the European Commission. Shocked environmentalists said it was a victory for the chemicals industry, which had resisted curbs on products unless there was conclusive proof they damaged health. The Commission claimed in a statement that the white paper was a step forward in protecting the public from 30,000 chemicals routinely released untested into the environment in everyday products, such as plastic and car upholstery. At a long and acrimonious meeting in Strasbourg, the commission environment directorate was forced to give way to the industry's lobby, which feared loss of jobs and competitiveness if everyday chemicals had to be tested.... Elizabeth Salter-Green of WWF said: "The politicians have to agree to this [proposal from the directorate], we hope they will be as outraged as we are." Michael Warhurst, of Friends of the Earth, said "Ministers from across Europe must tell the commission to throw away this pathetic document, and instead draft plans that put human health above the vested interests of the chemical industry.".... The industry, the largest in the world, is also dissatisfied with the white paper, albeit for different reasons. While it fully acknowledges large-scale testing is inevitable, it is concerned that any EU rules risk saddling it with red tape and damaging its competitiveness vis-a-vis the United States.... Some in the industry have already warned that if Brussels goes too far thousands of jobs could be at risk." (The Guardian. 15.2.01.)

If such chemicals were the subject of global and simultaneous international agreement, as the Simultaneous Policy (Simpol) proposes, there would no longer be any question of "job losses" or "uncompetitiveness" because simultaneous implementation eliminates those problems.

To top

International Crime & Terrorism

"The total cost during 2009 of cross-border crime is said to equate to 3.6% of world GDP, according to Juri Fedotow, head of the UN's Drugs and Criminal Prevention agency (UNODC) based in Vienna. Human trafficers alone gain about $32m annually from their activity. "We must recognise that this is a problem that requires a global solution", he said while attending a UN conference on criminality. "No nation can tackle this problem alone". Der Spiegel, 23rd April, 2012.

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and Biotechnology

Despite the widespread public outcry against GM foods, genetic modification is seen by global corporations as having vast potential for increasing profits and increasing their market dominance. Amongst other things, genetic modification allows any naturally occurring plant or organism to be genetically modified and, since any such modified plant or organism then qualifies for patent protection, it opens the way to the appropriation of nature for private profit, manipulation and exploitation. National governments are, of course, aware of the dangers but are reluctant to regulate unilaterally for fear of disadvantaging their own bio-technology companies, deterring inward investment or of coming into conflict with WTO rulings.

Once again, widespread international cooperation as advocated by the Simultaneous Policy (Simpol) is required to ensure that proper and adequate regulation of such technologies is imposed without any nation or corporation losing out to others.

If you can think of other areas where the Simultaneous Policy (Simpol) might be applicable, please contact us.

--

Policy Development

Simpol - Policy Development

Processes for developing Simpol's policy content will only be launched once sufficient support in principle for Simpol is first forthcoming from politicians around the world. Simpol's policy content will, when that time comes, be developed by citizens via processes hosted by each national Simpol organisation, and overseen by the International Simultaneous Policy Organisation.

At that point citizen-supporters will be invited to design, propose, refine, negotiate and ultimately approve Simpol's policies themselves. In this process, they may take advantage of policies already developed by politicians, by non-governmental organisations, or they may choose to take advantage of independent policy experts.

The policies would remain strictly provisional until sufficient international consensus for their implementation had been achieved. In that way Simpol's policy content would remain

• Flexible: The policies, once developed, can be changed at all times until the point of implementation to ensure they are fully appropriate for then-prevailing world conditions
• Democratic: Supporters who may join the campaign at any time prior to implementation still have the opportunity to contribute to the process

Simpol is also globally inclusive. Not only does it allow citizens in democratic countries to participate in developing policy, at a later stage in the campaign, the governments of non-democratic nations would also be invited to participate in any international negotiations to determine a final set of policy measures.

Both supporting citizens and supporting politicians would be invited, prior to implementation, to re-confirm their agreement.

Subsidiarity and National Soveriegnty

To ensure Simpol only includes policies that genuinely require simultaneous implementation, the process incorporates a unique criterion for screening out national policies. In this way it achieves a healthy subsidiarity between the global level and the national level, so safe-guarding national sovereignty. This criterion is expressed in the following question:

Would the unilateral implementation of the policy by a single nation (or by a restricted group of nations) be likely to cause it a significant competitive disadvantage?

If the answer is:

• No: the policy does not qualify for inclusion in Simpol because it could be implemented by any nation (or restricted group of nations) alone.
• Yes: the policy qualifies for inclusion in Simpol.

In this way, only appropriate policies are included while the national sovereignty of all nations is maintained.

To top

Multi-policy framework

One of the unique features of Simpol is that it can include more than one policy. By combining two or more complementary policies, nations that may lose out on one policy can gain on another, so vastly enhancing the chances of securing global co-operation.

To give one example, the following two global policies could be combined and negotiated together, so forming a single Simultaneous Policy:

• Currency Transactions (Tobin) tax: This tax, if applied globally and simultaneously, would be risk-free for any nation and could raise very substantial sums from financial markets. These funds could then be used to compensate any nations that might lose out on:
• A carbon emissions reduction agreement: Dramatic reductions in CO2 emissions across the planet by all nations, with dramatic reductions by the most highly-polluting nations, such as the USA and China. Nations suffering disproportionate costs in reducing their emissions could thus be compensated, under an agreed formula, from revenues raised by the Currency Transactions Tax.

To top

Two-stage Process

Simpol's policy development process, when launched, will incorporate two stages; the first to include the differing perspectives and priorities of supporters in each nation; the second, the need for a final set of policies which supporters and all governments can agree to and implement.

Stage 1 will be launched only once sufficient support in principle for Simpol is forthcoming from politicians around the world. Stage 2 would only commence once international support for Simpol was already widespread and the possibility of implementation was approaching.

• Stage 1: Supporters engage in their own independent national processes for developing Simpol's policy content. In this way, national perspectives and priorities can be taken into account;
• Stage 2: Representatives from each national Simpol organisation and their governments, as well as the representatives of non-democratic governments would meet to negotiate a final set of measures.

To top

Simpol: the overall process

To top

Page Contents

• Simpol - Policy Development
• Subsidiarity and National Soveriegnty
• Multi-policy framework
• Two-stage Process
• Simpol: the overall process

How do YOU want the world to be?

Simpol has partnered with Jolitics to provide citizens around the world with an online tool for informally discussing global policies. Fun and easy to use, anyone anywhere can join in. This is a great way for citizens to exchange ideas, develop policies and vote on them.

© Copyright 2012 | Design: :schramms

--

Pledge

As a candidate for, or Member of, the ________________________ Parliament/Assembly, I

pledge my support for the Simultaneous Policy (Simpol) campaign. At this stage, my support

for Simpol is given only in principle and signifies my support for Simpol as a process for

bringing the governments of all or sufficient nations together around a common global

framework for cooperation to address the major global problems we face. I will encourage my

party and its members to join this global initiative.

The Simpol framework comprises the following features:

1. Global co-operation: Appropriate policies to solve global problems are to be implemented

by nations simultaneously, only when all or sufficient governments have agreed to do so.

Simultaneous implementation avoids any nation suffering a competitive disadvantage. If all

nations move together, all nations and their peoples win;

2. Subsidiarity: Only those policies likely to result in a significant first-mover competitive

disadvantage (i.e. those requiring a simultaneous approach) are included. Policies

implementable unilaterally by nations remain excluded, so assuring appropriate subsidiarity

and preserving national sovereignty;

3. Give and Take: International negotiations would combine multiple global issues together,

such that nations that may lose on one issue can gain on another;

4. Equality: Democratic and non-democratic nations participate in the process on an equal

basis (which is evident since the co-operation of all, or virtually all nations, is required);

5. Democracy: If there is sufficient worldwide support for the process in principle, citizens in

democratic countries will be invited to participate, if they wish, in the formulation of any

policies to be taken up by their government in negotiations, and their agreement to any policies

that may be agreed in negotiations will be sought prior to their implementation.

6. Complementarity: The Simpol process does not conflict with established international

treaties or with processes such as those pursued by the United Nations. Rather, it works in

parallel, so offering an alternative route to co-operation should these processes fail.

Should the Simpol succeed in gathering sufficient in principle support from enough nations, I

understand that any policies negotiated under this process will be subject to my further written

agreement before I would be willing to vote in Parliament for their implementation.

I further understand that I may cancel my Pledge at any time in writing by notifying the

International Simultaneous Policy Organisation (ISPO) and that ISPO may make my Pledge -

or any cancellation of it - known publicly and particularly to Simpol supporters in my country

or region. I am making this Pledge in my own name (not in that of my party*).

Gaia Trust

Curriculum

The EDE curriculum covers four dimensions of sustainability: Worldview, Social, Ecological and Economical. Each dimension or section has been subdivided into 5 modules as shown in the sustainability circle below. It was first developed and offered in several ecovillages (among them Findhorn and Crystal Waters) and has been adjusted and refined during the years since 1998. As it appears in 2005 it is the result of the work of about twenty experienced ecovillage educators ("The Founding Geese") and solidly based in ecovillage reality. Gaia Education is offering this for free to the world, asking only for an acknowledgment of the source. It can be downloaded as a PDF file here and translated into any language. It has been endorsed by GEN (Global Ecovillage Network) and UNITAR (The United Nations Institute for Training and Research).

It will be revised from time to time based on feedback and experience, most recently in early 2012. You can buy a hard copy and/or a DVD of the curriculum by contacting May East, the Program Director of Gaia Education at mayeast AT findhorn.org (the @ character is not used in the email order to avoid spamming)

Ecovillages wishing to use the UNITAR and GEN endorsements in their marketing of the course must first receive certification (of both teaching staff and facilities) by the Gaia Education Certification Committee (focaliser Dan Greenberg). Note that only the 4-week course has the endorsements. Anyone is free to use the material for teaching courses of any length without the endorsement, but Gaia Education would expect an acknowledgement. Organizers of certified courses may apply for support grants from Gaia Education .

Additional material for both teachers and students is under development. See the "Four Keys".

--

Resources - Four Keys

The "Four Keys to Sustainable Settlements", or just the "Four Keys", are anthologies published by Gaia Education to supplement the EDE course material. They cover the four sectors of the sustainability circle, namely, the Worldview, Social, Ecological and Economic dimensions. Each book covers the five modules of its section. Written by pioneers from the ecovillage movement and teachers of the EDE, they include both articles and extensive references.

They are all available on the Gaia Education website for gratis downloading. Permanent Publis, UK offer "print on demand" hard copies to interested parties for a normal printing fee.

Amnesty International

Campaigns

Campaigns

Control Arms
The unregulated global arms trade inflicts misery worldwide. Every year thousands of people are killed, injured, raped and forced to flee their homes as a result.

Demand Dignity
We are all born free and equal in dignity and rights – yet everywhere, these rights are being denied. Stand together with some of the world’s most marginalized people to hold those in power to account, and demand dignity and justice for all.

Security with Human Rights
Governments all around the world – from Sri Lanka to Russia; from India to Saudi Arabia – use the threat of terrorism to undermine human rights, often through torturing people, holding them without charge or trial, and making them ‘disappear’.

Individuals at Risk
Amnesty’s Individuals at Risk campaign strives to protect those directly experiencing human rights abuses. Working for the rights of individuals has been at the heart of all we do since 1961.

Abolish the Death Penalty
Thousands of people around the world are waiting for governments to kill them.  Amnesty International is campaigning to end these killings.  Join our global campaign to end all executions - a  global abolition of the death penalty.

--

Annual Report (Introduction)

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

Amnesty International is a global movement of more than 3 million supporters, members and

activists who campaign for internationally recognized human rights to be respected and protected.

Its vision is for every person to enjoy all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration

of Human Rights and other international human rights standards.

Amnesty International’s mission is to conduct research and take action to prevent and end grave

abuses of all human rights – civil, political, social, cultural and economic. From freedom of

expression and association to physical and mental integrity, from protection from discrimination to

the right to housing – these rights are indivisible.

Amnesty International is funded mainly by its membership and public donations. No funds are

sought or accepted from governments for investigating and campaigning against human rights

abuses. Amnesty International is independent of any government, political ideology, economic

interest or religion.

Amnesty International is a democratic movement whose major policy decisions are taken by

representatives from all national sections at International Council meetings held every two years.

The current members of the International Executive Committee, elected by the Council to carry

out its decisions, are Bernard Sintobin (Belgium Flemish – International Treasurer), Guadalupe

Rivas (Mexico – Vice-Chair), Julio Torales (Paraguay), Mwikali Nzioka Muthiani (Kenya), Nicole

Bieske (Australia), Pietro Antonioli (Italy – Chair), Rune Arctander (Norway), Sandra S. Lutchman

(Netherlands) and Zuzanna Kulinska (Poland).

United against injustice, we work together for human rights.

--

Annual Report (Preface)

PREFACE

“I NEVER IMAGINED THAT…TELLING THE TRUTH

ABOUT WHAT WAS HAPPENING COULD MEAN

WALKING THE LINE BETWEEN LIFE AND DEATH…

MANY TIMES I’VE FELT AS THOUGH FEAR HAS

SOAKED THROUGH TO MY BONES, BUT THE

FEELING OF RESPONSIBILITY IS STRONGER”

Dina Meza, Honduran journalist, human rights defender and member of the Committee of Relatives of the Detained

and Disappeared (COFADEH

The Amnesty International Report 2013 documents the state of human rights during

2012. The Foreword and the country-by-country survey of 159 individual countries and

territories set out a global overview of human rights violations and abuses inflicted by

those in power on those who stand in the way of their vested interests.

Human rights defenders, often themselves living in precarious situations, battled to break

through the walls of silence and secrecy to challenge abusers. Through the courts, in

the streets and online, they fought for their right to freedom of expression, their right to

freedom from discrimination and their right to justice. Some paid a heavy price. In many

countries, they faced vilification, imprisonment or violence. While governments paid lip

service to their commitment to human rights, they continued to use national security and

concerns about public security to justify violating those rights.

This report bears witness to the steadfast and rising clamour for justice. Regardless of

frontiers and in defiance of the formidable forces ranged against them, women and men

in every region stood up to demand respect for their rights and to proclaim their solidarity

with fellow human beings facing repression, discrimination, violence and injustice. Their

actions and words show that the human rights movement is growing ever strong and more

deep-rooted, and that the hope it inspires in millions is a powerful force for change.

--

Annual Report (International Secretary General Address)

HUMAN RIGHTS

KNOW NO BORDERS

Salil Shetty, Secretary General

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable

network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly,

affects all indirectly.”

Martin Luther King Jr., “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, 16 April 1963, USA

On 9 October 2012, 15-year-old Malala Yousafzai was shot in the head by Taliban

gunmen in Pakistan. Her crime was to advocate the right to education for girls. Her

medium was a blog. Like Mohamed Bouazizi, whose act in 2010 sparked widespread

protests across the Middle East and North Africa, Malala’s determination reached far

beyond the borders of Pakistan. Human courage and suffering combined with the power

of social media unbounded by borders has changed our understanding of the struggle

for human rights, equality and justice, even as it has led to a perceptible shift in discourse

around sovereignty and human rights.

People everywhere – at great personal risk – have taken to the streets as well as to the

digital sphere to expose repression and violence by governments and other powerful

actors. They have created a sense of international solidarity – through blogs, other social

media and the traditional press to keep alive the memory of Mohamed and the dreams

of Malala.

Such courage, coupled with the ability to communicate our profound hunger for

freedom and justice and rights, has alarmed those in power. Soundbites of support

FOREWORD

ANNUAL REPORT

2013

for those protesting against oppression and discrimination stand in stark contrast

to the actions of many governments cracking down on peaceful protests and trying

desperately to control the digital sphere – not least by rebuilding their national

borders in this sphere.

For what does it mean to those in power who hold tight to, and abuse the concept of,

‘sovereignty’, once they realize the potential power of the people to dismantle ruling

structures, and to shine the spotlight on the tools of repression and disinformation they

use to stay in power? The economic, political and trade system created by those in power

often lead to human rights abuses. For example, the trade in arms destroys lives but is

defended by governments who either use the arms to repress their own people or profit

from the trade. Their justification is sovereignty.

Sovereignty and solidarity

In pursuit of freedoms, rights and equality, we need to rethink sovereignty. The power of

sovereignty should – and can – arise through taking hold of one’s own destiny, such as

states that have emerged from colonialism or from overbearing neighbours or that have

risen from the ashes of movements that have overthrown repressive and corrupt regimes.

This is sovereignty’s power for good. To keep that alive, and to contain its exploitative

side, we need to redefine sovereignty and recognize both global solidarity and global

responsibility. We are citizens of the world. We care because we have access to

information and we can choose to be unbound.

States routinely claim sovereignty – equating it to control over internal affairs

without external interference – so they can do what they want. They have made

this claim to sovereignty – however specious – to hide or deny mass murder,

genocide, oppression, corruption, starvation, or gender-based persecution.

But those who abuse their power and privilege can no longer easily hide that

abuse. People with mobile phones record and upload videos that reveal the reality

of human rights abuses in real time and expose the truth behind the hypocritical

rhetoric and self-serving justifications. Likewise, corporates and other powerful private

actors are more easily subjected to scrutiny because it is increasingly difficult to hide the

consequences of their actions when they are devious or criminal.

We work in a human rights framework that assumes sovereignty but does not inherently

defend it – not least following the establishment of the doctrine of Responsibility to

Protect, agreed at a UN world summit in 2005, and repeatedly reaffirmed since then.

2 Amnesty International Report 2013

States routinely claim

sovereignty ... to hide

or deny mass murder,

genocide, oppression,

corruption, starvation,

or gender-based

persecution.

It is easy to see why; 2012 alone gives us ample evidence of governments violating the

rights of the people they govern.

A key element of human rights protection is the right of all people to be free from violence.

Another key element is the strong limits on the state’s ability to interfere in our personal

and family lives. This includes protecting our freedom of expression, of association and

of conscience. It includes not interfering with our bodies and how we use them – the

decisions we make over reproduction, the sexual and gender identities we embrace,

how we choose to dress.

In the first few days of 2012, 300 families were left homeless in the Cambodian capital

Phnom Penh, after being violently evicted from their neighbourhood. Just a few weeks

later, 600 Brazilians met the same fate in Pinheirinho slum in São Paulo state. In March,

21 people were killed in Jamaica in a wave of police shootings, Azerbaijani musicians

were beaten, arrested and tortured in detention, and Mali was plunged into crisis after

a coup took place in the capital Bamako.

And so it continued: more forced evictions in Nigeria; journalists killed in Somalia and

Mexico and elsewhere; women raped or sexually assaulted in the home, in the street, or

as they exercised their right to protest; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex

communities banned from holding Pride festivals and their members beaten up;

human rights activists murdered or thrown in jail on trumped-up charges. In September,

Japan executed a woman for the first time in more than 15 years. November saw a new

escalation in the Israel/Gaza conflict, while tens of thousands of civilians fled their homes

in the Democratic Republic of the Congo as the Rwandan-backed armed group March 23

Movement (M23) marched on the capital of North Kivu province.

And then there was Syria. At year-end, the death toll according to the UN had reached

60,000, and was still rising.

Failure to protect

Too often over the last few decades, state sovereignty – increasingly closely linked with

the concept of national security – has been used to justify actions that are antithetical to

human rights. Internally, those who are powerful claim that they and only they can make

decisions regarding the lives of the people they govern.

Like his father before him, President Bashar al-Assad has stayed in power by turning

the Syrian army and security forces against the people calling for him to step down.

Amnesty International Report 2013 3

But there is a key difference. At the time of the Hama massacre in 1982, Amnesty

International and others highlighted what was happening and worked tirelessly to

try to stop it. But the mass killings took place largely out of view of the rest of the world.

In the past two years, by contrast, brave Syrian bloggers and activists have been

able to tell the world directly about what is happening to them in their country, even

as it happens.

Despite the mounting death toll – and despite the abundant evidence of crimes

committed – the UN Security Council again failed to act to protect civilians. For nearly

two years the Syrian military and security forces have launched indiscriminate attacks

and detained, tortured and killed people they perceived to support the rebels. One

Amnesty International report documented 31 different forms of torture and other illtreatment.

Armed opposition groups have also carried out summary killings and torture,

albeit on a much smaller scale. The UN Security Council’s failure to act is defended,

particularly by Russia and China, as respecting the sovereignty of the state.

The idea that neither individual states nor the international community should act

decisively to protect civilians when governments and their security forces target their

own people – unless there is something in it for them – is unacceptable. Whether we

are talking about the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, the corralling of Tamils into the lethal

“no fire zone” in northern Sri Lanka, in which tens of thousands of civilians died in 2009,

the ongoing starvation of people in North Korea or the Syrian conflict – inaction in the

name of respect for state sovereignty is inexcusable.

Ultimately, states are responsible for upholding the rights of the people in their territory.

But no one who believes in justice and human rights could argue that these concepts are

currently served by sovereignty in any way but their lack of fulfilment.

Surely it is time to challenge this toxic mix of states’ claims to absolute sovereignty and

their focus on national security rather than human rights and human security. Let’s have

no more excuses. Now it is time for the international community to step up and reframe

its duty to protect all global citizens.

Our countries have an obligation to respect, protect and fulfil our rights. And many have

not done so. At best they have done so inconsistently. Despite all the successes of the

human rights movement over the last few decades – from the prisoners of conscience

released to the global prohibition of torture and the creation of an International Criminal

Court – this distortion of sovereignty means billions are still left behind.

4 Amnesty International Report 2013

Guardianship or exploitation

One of the starkest examples of this over the last decades has been the treatment of the

world’s Indigenous Peoples. A key value that unites Indigenous communities around

the world is their rejection of the concept of “owning” land. Instead, they have

traditionally identified as guardians of the land on which they live. This rejection of the

concept of owning real property has come at a huge price. Many of the lands on which

Indigenous Peoples live have proven to be rich in resources. So the government that is

meant to protect their rights appropriates the land for the ‘sovereign state’, then sells it,

leases it or allows it to be plundered by others.

Instead of respecting the value of communities being guardians of the land

and its resources, states and corporations have moved into these areas,

forcibly displacing Indigenous communities and seizing ownership of the

land or the mineral rights associated with it.

In Paraguay, the Sawhoyamaxa spent 2012 as they have spent the last

20 years; displaced from their traditional lands, despite a ruling by the Inter-American

Court of Human Rights in 2006 recognizing their right to their lands. Further north,

dozens of First Nations communities in Canada were continuing to oppose a proposal to

build a pipeline connecting the Alberta oil sands to the British Columbia coast, crossing

their traditional lands.

At a time when governments should be learning from Indigenous communities in order

to rethink the relationship with natural resources, Indigenous communities the world over

are under siege.

What makes this devastation particularly distressing is the extent to which states and

corporate actors are ignoring the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,

which explicitly requires states to ensure the full and effective participation of Indigenous

Peoples in all matters that concern them. Indigenous rights activists face violence

and even murder when they seek to defend their communities and their lands.

Such discrimination, marginalization and violence were not limited to the Americas,

but took place across the globe – from the Philippines to Namibia, where 2012 saw the

children of the San, Ovahimba people and other ethnic minorities facing numerous

barriers preventing them from accessing education. This was particularly the case in

Opuwo among the Ovahimba children who were forced to cut their hair and to not wear

traditional dress to attend public schools.

Amnesty International Report 2013 5

Governments should be

learning from Indigenous

communities in order to

rethink the relationship

with natural resources.

The flow of money and people

The race for resources is just one element of our globalized world. Another is the flow

of capital through borders, across oceans, and into the pockets of the powerful. Yes,

globalization has brought economic growth and prosperity for some, but the Indigenous

experience is playing out in other communities who watch governments and corporations

benefiting from the land they are living, and starving, on.

In sub-Saharan Africa, for example, despite significant growth in many countries, untold

millions continue to live in life-threatening poverty. Corruption and the flow of capital into

tax havens outside Africa continue to be two key reasons. The region’s mineral wealth

continues to fuel deals between corporations and politicians in which both profit –

but at a price. A lack of transparency about concession agreements and the utter lack of

accountability mean that both the shareholders of the corporations and the politicians

are unjustly enriched, while those whose labour is exploited, whose land is degraded and

whose rights are violated, suffer. Justice is largely beyond their reach.

Another example of the free flow of capital is the remittances sent home by migrant

workers around the world. According to the World Bank, remittances from migrant workers

in developing countries are three times as much as official international development

assistance. Yet those very same migrant workers were often left in 2012 with neither their

home nor host states adequately protecting their rights.

Recruitment agencies in Nepal in 2012, for example, continued to traffic migrant workers

for exploitation and forced labour, and charged fees above government-imposed limits,

compelling workers to take large loans at high interest rates. Recruiters deceived many

migrants on terms and conditions of work. Recruitment agencies that violated Nepalese

law were rarely punished. In an example of a law that pays little more than lip service to

women’s rights, in August the government banned women under the age of 30 from

migrating for domestic work to Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates

due to complaints of sexual and other physical abuse in those countries. But the bans

potentially increased risks to women now forced to seek work through informal routes.

What the government should have done is fought to secure safe working environments

for the women.

Once people have left, the sending states claim that since their migrant workers are no

longer within their territory, they have no obligations and the host states claim that

because they are not citizens they have no rights. In the meantime, the UN Convention

on the Rights of Migrant Workers and Their Families, which was opened for signature in

6 Amnesty International Report 2013

1990, remains one of the least ratified human rights conventions. No migrant-receiving

state in Western Europe has ratified the Convention. Nor have others with large migrant

populations such as the USA, Australia, Canada, India, South Africa and states in the Gulf.

This vulnerability is even greater for refugees. The most vulnerable are the 12 million

stateless people in the world, equivalent in numbers to the world’s great agglomerations

such as London, Lagos or Rio. And around 80% of them are women. Without the

protection of their ‘sovereign’ state these people are true global citizens. And their

protection falls to all of us. They are the purest argument for the fulfilment of the duty

to protect there is. For human rights protections must be applied to all

humans, whether at home or not.

At the moment, this protection is seen as subservient to state sovereignty.

Women are raped in camps across South Sudan, asylum-seekers from

Australia to Kenya are locked up in detention centres or metal crates,

hundreds die in leaky boats as they desperately search for safe harbour.

Boats of Africans floundering off the coast of Italy were turned away from the

safety of European shores again in 2012, because states claimed that control

of their borders was sacrosanct. The Australian government continued to interdict boats of

refugees and migrants at sea. The US Coast Guard defended its practice: “Interdicting

migrants at sea means they can be quickly returned to their countries of origin without

the costly processes required if they successfully enter the United States.” In each case –

sovereignty trumped the right of individuals to seek asylum.

Around 200 people die every year trying to cross the desert into the US – a direct result of

measures taken by the US government to make safer passages impassable for migrants.

These numbers have remained steady even as immigration is declining.

These examples show the most heinous abnegation of the responsibility to promote

human rights – including the right to life – and they stand in stark contrast to the free flow

of capital detailed earlier.

Immigration controls also stand in stark contrast to the largely unimpeded flow of

conventional weapons – including small arms and light weapons – across borders.

Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, injured, raped and forced to flee from

their homes as a result of this trade. The arms trade also has direct links to discrimination

and gender-based violence, disproportionately affecting women. This has far-reaching

Amnesty International Report 2013 7

The most vulnerable

are the 12 million

stateless people in the

world, equivalent in

numbers to the world’s

great agglomerations

such as London, Lagos

or Rio. And around 80%

of them are women.

8 Amnesty International Report 2013

implications for efforts to consolidate peace, security, gender equality and secure

development. The abuses are fuelled in part by the ease with which weapons are easily

bought and sold, bartered and shipped around the world – too often ending up in the

hands of abusive governments and their security forces, warlords and criminal

gangs. It’s a lucrative business – US$70 billion a year – and so those with

entrenched interests try to protect the trade from regulation. As this report goes

to print, the top arms-brokering governments are poised to enter negotiations for

an arms trade treaty. Our demand is that where there is a substantial risk that these

weapons will be used to commit violations of international humanitarian law or

serious violations of human rights law – the transfer should be prohibited.

The flow of information

The crucial positive to take from these examples, however, is that we know about

them. For half a century, Amnesty International has documented human rights

violations around the world and uses every resource it has to try to halt and prevent

abuses and protect our rights. Globalized communication is creating opportunities

the founders of the modern human rights movement could never have imagined.

Increasingly, there is very little that governments and corporations can do in hiding

behind “sovereign” boundaries.

The speed with which new forms of communication have taken root in our lives is

breathtaking. From 1985, when the dotcom domain name was created, to today,

when 2.5 billion people can access the internet, the wheels of change have spun

with extraordinary speed. 1989 saw Tim Berners Lee propose the document retrieval

element of the internet, Hotmail was born in 1996, blogs in 1999, Wikipedia launched

in 2001. In 2004 Facebook was born, followed by YouTube a year later – along with

the internet’s billionth user, said to be “statistically likely to be a 24-year-old woman in

Shanghai”. 2006 brought Twitter, and Google’s censored Chinese site Gu Ge. By 2008

China had more people online than the USA. And in the same year, activists working

with Kenyan citizen journalists developed a website called Ushahidi – the Swahili

word for “testimony” – initially to map reports of violence in Kenya after the election,

and since developed into a platform used around the world with the mission to

“democratize information”.

We live in an information-rich world. Activists have the tools to make sure violations are

not hidden. Information creates an imperative to act. We face a crucial time: will we

continue to have access to this information or will states in collusion with other powerful

actors block that access? Amnesty International wants to make sure everyone has the

The arms trade also

has direct links to

discrimination and

gender-based violence,

disproportionately

affecting women.

This has far-reaching

implications for efforts

to consolidate peace,

security, gender

equality and secure

development.

tools to access and share information and to challenge power and sovereignty when it is

abused. With the internet, we can build a model of global citizenship. The internet forms

a counterpoint to the whole concept of sovereignty and citizenship-based rights.

What Martin Luther King Jr. phrased so eloquently around the “inescapable network of

mutuality” and the “single garment of destiny”, has been espoused and promoted by

many great thinkers and defenders of rights before and after him. But now is the moment

to seed it into the very “fabric” of our international model of citizenship. The African

concept of ‘Ubuntu’ puts it most clearly: “I am because we are”.

It is about connecting all of us, not allowing borders, walls, seas, portrayals of enemies as

“the other” to pollute our natural sense of justice and human-hood. Now the digital world

has truly connected us with information.

Agency and participation

It is simple. The openness of the digital world levels the playing field and allows many

more people access to the information they need to challenge governments and

corporations. It is a tool that encourages transparency and accountability. Information

is power. The internet has the potential to significantly empower all 7 billion people

living in the world today. It is a tool that allows us to see and document and challenge

human rights abuses wherever they may be happening. It enables us to share

information so that we can work together to solve problems, promote human security

and human development and fulfil the promise of human rights.

The abuse of state sovereignty is the opposite. It is about walls and control of information

and communication and hiding behind state secrecy laws and other claims of privilege.

The narrative behind the claim of sovereignty is that what the government is doing is

no one’s business but its own, and as long it acts within its own borders, it cannot be

challenged. It is about the powerful acting on the powerless.

The power and possibilities of the digital world are immense. And, as technology is value

neutral, these possibilities can enable actions that are coherent with building rights

respecting societies or enable actions that are antithetical to human rights.

It is interesting for Amnesty International, whose history is rooted in defending freedom of

expression, to live again what governments do when unable to control it, and decide to

manipulate access to information. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the prosecution

or harassment of bloggers in countries from Azerbaijan to Tunisia, and from Cuba to the

Amnesty International Report 2013 9

Palestinian Authority. In Viet Nam, for example, popular bloggers Nguyen Van Hai, known

as Dieu Cay, “Justice and Truth” blogger Ta Phong Tan, and Phan Thanh Hai, known as

AnhBaSaiGon, were tried in September for “conducting propaganda” against the state.

They were sentenced to 12, 10 and four years’ imprisonment respectively, with three to

five years’ house arrest on release. The trial lasted only a few hours, and their families

were harassed and detained to prevent them from attending. Their trial was postponed

three times, the last time because the mother of Ta Phong Tan died after setting herself

on fire outside government offices in protest at her daughter’s treatment.

But imprisoning people for exercising their freedom of expression and challenging

those in power using digital technology is only the first line of defence of governments.

We increasingly see states trying to build firewalls around any digital communications

or information systems. Iran, China and Viet Nam have all tried to build a system

that allows them to regain control over both communications and access to information

available in the digital sphere.

What may be even more worrisome is the number of countries that are

exploring less obvious means of control in this area through massive

surveillance and more artful means of manipulating access to information.

The USA, which continues to demonstrate a remarkable lack of respect for

recognizing parameters – as evidenced by the drone strikes being carried out

around the world – has recently proclaimed the right to conduct surveillance of any

information kept in cloud storage systems – digital filing cabinets that are not bound to

territorial domains. To be clear, this includes information owned by individuals and

companies that are not based in or citizens of the USA.

This struggle over access to information and control of the means of communication is

just beginning. So what can the international community do to show its respect for

those who so bravely risked their lives and freedoms to mobilize during the uprisings in

the Middle East and North Africa? What can all of us do to show solidarity with Malala

Yousafzai and all the others who dare to stand up and say “Enough”?

We can demand that states ensure that all the people they govern have meaningful access

to the digital world – preferably through high-speed and truly affordable internet

access whether via a portable hand-held devise such as a mobile phone, or a desktop

computer. In doing so they would be fulfilling one of the principles of human rights as

articulated in Article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural

Rights: “To enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications.” And Article 27

10 Amnesty International Report 2013

We can demand that

states ensure that all

the people they govern

have meaningful access

to the digital world.

of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says: “Everyone has the right freely

to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in

scientific advancement and its benefits.”

Meaningful access to the internet surely qualifies as enjoying the benefit of scientific

progress.

Many years ago, states created an international postal service that would be set up

nationally but would interconnect with all other postal services creating a global mail

system. Every person could write a letter, buy a stamp and send that letter to somewhere

else, pretty much anywhere else, in the world. If there was no delivery to your doorstep –

there was the system of poste restante or general delivery that designated a place where

one could call for one’s mail.

And that mail was considered private – no matter how many borders it crossed. This form

of communications and information sharing, which can seem rather quaint in today’s

world, changed the way we communicated and was built on a presumption of the right to

privacy of those communications. Most importantly, states undertook to ensure that all

people had access to this service. And while many governments undoubtedly used their

access to mail to read what was private, they did not challenge the principle of the right

to privacy of these communications. In countless countries it opened people up to the

sharing of information and family and community life.

Today, access to the internet is critical to ensure that people can communicate, and

also to ensure people’s access to information. Transparency, access to information

and the ability to participate in political debates and decisions are critical to building a

rights respecting society.

Few actions by governments can have such immediate, powerful and far-reaching

positive consequences for human rights.

Each government of the world has a decision to make. Will it take this value-neutral

technology and use it to reclaim its power over others – or will it use it to empower

and promote the freedom of individuals?

The advent of the internet and its global penetration – via cellphones, internet cafés, and

computers accessible at schools, public libraries, workplaces and homes – has created

a huge opportunity for empowering people to claim their rights.

Amnesty International Report 2013 11

The choice for the future

States have an opportunity to seize this moment and ensure that all the people they

govern have meaningful access to the internet. They can ensure that people have affordable

access to the internet. States can also support the creation of many more venues such as

libraries and cafés where people can access the internet for free or at affordable rates.

Crucially, states can ensure women – only 37% of whom currently access the internet –

can actively participate in this information system and therefore in the actions and

decisions being taken in the world they live in. As a new report by UN Women, Intel and

the US State Department details, there is a the huge internet gender gap in countries

such as India, Mexico and Uganda. This means states must create systems that

enable access in homes, schools and workplaces, as places such as internet

cafés are impractical for women who can’t leave their homes for religious and

cultural reasons.

States can also work to eradicate social discrimination against women and

negative stereotyping. An Indian woman with an engineering degree told the

report’s authors that she was banned from the computer “for fear that if she touched it,

something would go wrong”. Other anecdotal evidence pointed to some husbands

forbidding their wives to use the family computer in case they saw inappropriate sexual

content. That is one reason cited for why only 14% of women in Azerbaijan have ever

gone online, although 70% of men there have.

In recognizing the right of people to access the internet, states would be fulfilling their

duties with respect to freedom of expression and the right to information. But they must

do so in a manner that respects the right to privacy.

To fail to do so risks creating two tiers of people domestically and globally – in which some

people have access to the tools they need to claim their rights while others are left behind.

Knowledge, information and the ability to speak are power. Rights respecting states do

not fear that power. Rights respecting states promote empowerment. And the borderless

nature of the digital sphere means that we can all engage in an exercise of global

citizenship to use these tools to promote respect for human rights in small places close to

home and in solidarity with people living far away.

Traditional forms of solidarity can have even greater impact as they go ‘viral’. Take

the 12 individuals that thousands of activists campaigned for as part of Amnesty

12 Amnesty International Report 2013

Knowledge, information

and the ability to speak

are power. Rights

respecting states do

not fear that power.

Amnesty International Report 2013 13

International’s 10th global “Write for Rights” marathon in December 2012. This is

the world’s largest human rights event and in the last few years has embraced

emails, digital petitions, SMS messages, faxes, tweets, leading to 2 million actions

taken expressing solidarity, providing support and helping get those imprisoned for

their beliefs released.

For Amnesty International we see in the internet the radical promise and possibilities

that our founder Peter Benenson saw more than 50 years ago – the possibility of

people working together across borders to demand freedom and rights for all.

His dream was dismissed as one of the larger lunacies of our time. Many former

prisoners of conscience owe their freedom and lives to that dream. We are on the

cusp of creating and fulfilling another dream that some will dismiss as lunacy.

But today, Amnesty International embraces the challenge and calls on states to

recognize our changed world and create the tools of empowerment for all people.

“One thing that gives us hope is support and solidarity from regular people. People are

the only impetus for change. Governments will not improve or do anything unless

there is pressure from people... The amount of messages I received [from Amnesty

activists] gives me a lot of hope, despite all the challenges.”

Azza Hilal Ahmad Suleiman, who is still recovering from a vicious attack near Tahrir Square, Egypt, was

one of the 12 cases featured in December 2012's Write for Rights campaign. She intervened after

seeing a group of soldiers beating and removing a young woman's clothes, and was left with a

fractured skull and memory problems. She is now suing the military.