For historical reasons Germany has to be careful with giving advice to other countries.

Even more so at the moment considering Germany’s dominant position within the European Union (EU).

A sunflower stands in front of the Euro sculpture outside the headquarters of the European Central Bank in Frankfurt, Germany (AP Photo/Michael Probst)

A ‘know-it-all’ manner is particularly problematic when the advice given is bad – the German government’s insistence on austerity measures as a response to the European crisis is not only unsuccessful in economic terms but socially unfair to a level that endangers democracy and the European integration process as a whole.

This is a process for which Germany has a special historic responsibility.

Despite some anti-European tendencies that have also evolved here and the media portraying the German population as being tired of rescue packages, the vast majority of the German population is in fact supportive of the euro.

This is a development that is remarkable but cannot be taken for granted.

As German trade unionists we know from painful experience of the fascist destruction of the German trade union movement 80 years ago that an economic crisis that does not receive an adequate response has incalculable risks including political dislocations through to fascist dictatorship and war.

The Confederation of German Trade Unions (DGB) wants to propose an alternative strategy to our government’s current strategy for Europe. Our proposal is to look at what has been proven to be successful in times of crisis: investment to stabilise but also modernise the economy.

This strategy of economic stimulus packages has not only proved to be successful for Germany in the beginning of the crisis in 2008 but has also been the core element of a strategy once applied to several European countries called the ‘European Recovery Plan’ better known as the ‘Marshall Plan’.

The ‘Marshall Plan’ was implemented in 1948 to economically and politically stabilise Western European countries after World War II.

The huge investment program not only had short term success but also led to modernisation and became a first step towards European integration.

65 years later European integration has undoubtedly moved on.

But with an average youth unemployment rate of 24 per cent in the EU as a whole and even more than 50 per cent in Spain and Greece, it has become clear that there is an urgent need to find a new direction.

Furthermore social inequality and rising unemployment are not the only challenges Europe is facing. Like the rest of the world it has to develop strategies to react to demographic challenges, the increasing reliance on knowledge and technology in business and the scarcity of natural resources.

Europe needs a long-term path towards growth and modernisation.

This is the background to our developing a draft for a new ‘Marshall Plan’ for Europe that, like its predecessor, is based on sustainable investment and cooperation instead of a race to the bottom on the back of the workers and at the cost of future generations.

Although the Plan is focused on Europe we do believe that our approach is of interest for other regions as well and can also be seen as a contribution to the debate on globalising solidarity.

Core elements of our Marshall Plan

Our ‘Marshall Plan for Europe’ is borne out of the understanding that we need a political strategy that takes both short and long term growth into account.

Therefore it is designed as an investment and development programme for a 10-year period (from 2013 to 2022).

For this period we propose a mix of institutional measures, direct public sector investment, investment grants for companies and incentives for consumer spending.

The latter serve to combat the crisis in the short term. By contrast, public sector investment and investment grants take time to make an impact, but serve to safeguard long term growth and employment prospects by strengthening and promoting modern industries and services.

Beyond that, the ‘Marshall Plan’ will improve cooperation between European countries: massive investments averaging 110 billion euros per year will be needed across Europe in order for the modernisation offensive to include the whole of the EU.

This results in total annual financial requirements of, on average, 260 billion euros.

This corresponds to just over two per cent of Europe’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Such an ambitious and long term investment programme cannot be shouldered by one country alone.

To be precise, those countries currently in financial crisis will not be able to implement a modernisation initiative like this on their own.

This is why we need joint efforts and new European institutions with stable and solid sources of finance.

Given the high investment required one could easily dismiss our plan as being unrealistic but it is important to keep in mind that the costs of stabilising the banking system have reached 2000 billion euros. So why shouldn’t it be realistic, and much more promising, to mobilise about the same sum to invest into education, innovation and decent work in Europe over a period of several years?

Future Fund

Funding the Marshall Plan the DGB proposes to set up a ‘European Future Fund’ to fund the ‘Marshall Plan’.

In Western Europe, there is 27000 billion euros in cash assets on the one hand and a shrinking number of secure and profitable investment opportunities on the other.

This situation poses a major opportunity to use Europe’s available capital for investments in its future.

To this end, the European Future Fund would issue interest-bearing bonds – like companies or governments. We refer to these bonds as ‘New Deal’ bonds.

The interest obligations, the cost of which the Future Fund itself would have to cover, could be funded from revenue from a Financial Transaction Tax (FTT) –  a tax that will apply in particular to highly speculative financial transactions, thus burdening the very financial market players that were chiefly responsible for the biggest financial and economic crisis of the past 80 years.

The Future Fund would have to have sufficient equity when it is first set up. Up to now, it has been solely the taxpayers and workers who have borne the chief burden of overcoming the crisis.

Now, therefore, it is time for the wealthy and rich to participate in once-off funding to provide capital for the Future Fund.

For Germany, we propose a once-off wealth levy of 3 per cent on all private assets in excess of €500,000 for single people and €1 million for married couples.

The form that this levy would take has yet to be specified. The other EU countries should introduce comparable measures for the wealthy and rich.

As a new European institution, the European Future Fund should be under the strict control of the European Parliament. Following on from the proposals of nine Ministers for Foreign Affairs on the future of Europe, the European Parliament must approve all cash outflows from the Future Fund. The prerequisite for this is that the European Parliament is closely involved in all decision-making processes.

Macroeconomic effects of the Marshall Plan The DGB’s Marshall Plan contains decisive impetus for qualitative growth as well as decent jobs with a future.

The proposed investments and investment subsidies of €260 billion annually comprise direct investment and investment grants of €160 billion and ten-year low-interest loans to private investors of €100 billion. This combination of long-term, low-interest loans and investment grants should kick-start additional private investment and thus promote wide-scale private modernization measures.

These in turn would lead to further private investment and annual additional growth impetus totalling 400 billion euros. This would correspond to additional growth impetus of more than three per cent of the EU’s GDP in 2011. This considerable growth dynamic would have positive spill-over effects for employment.

Additionally an investment offensive in a fundamental overhaul of European national economies in terms of energy policy could yield between nine and eleven million new full-time jobs in the long term. Our programme will benefit the EU countries significantly. The investments will not burden their budgets.

Instead, they will receive additional impetus for growth and employment and can use this to generate significantly higher direct and indirect tax revenue from income tax, VAT, company and corporate taxes as well as social security contributions and to cut the cost of unemployment.

Europe’s future hinges on investments made in the present. Europe has all the resources it needs for this: we have to work together to combine these strengths and use them to transform our societies and to create a social Europe that might become a role model for other regions.

We should also contribute to the debate on a global transformation in the style of the ‘Global Marshall Plan’ that has been discussed since 2003 in order to transform our societies for a better future with all social groups having a fair share of the wealth being produced.

DGB’s proposal for a ‘European Marshall Plan’ can be downloaded in English, French, Spanish, Italian and German: http://www.dgb.de/-/5Vx

A full version of this article was originally published by Global Labour Column

Workers in New Zealand are facing yet another attack on their wages and conditions of work. The government is proposing to weaken the Employment Relations Act.

(Photo/CTU/Union.org.nz)

This follows changes the government has already made cutting youth pay rates, reducing union access, limiting the scope of appeals against unfair dismissal, and removing rights for workers in their first 90 days of employment.

The latest changes are in a bill that will be debated in parliament in coming months and will be the subject of an active campaign by unions.

The main effect of the changes will be to reduce wages and conditions by weakening the rules on collective bargaining.

Low wages are already pushing thousands and thousands of Kiwis to leave for Australia with a record loss in the last year. These changes will make it even worse.

We know that collective bargaining is under attack in many countries. It is typical of New Zealand’s centre-right National government to do this as they did in 1991 with the vicious Employment Contracts Act. This latest bill is moving us back very close to that regime.

The Employment Relations Act includes ‘promoting collective bargaining’ as one of its objects.

Yet this bill is designed to undermine collective bargaining. New Zealand has also ratified the main International Labour Organisation (ILO)  Convention that promotes collective bargaining. Unions will therefore develop a complaint to the ILO.

What does the legislation do?

Allow employers to end negotiation when they like
Currently, the law requires that employers conclude a process of collective bargaining unless there is “a genuine reason, based on reasonable grounds, not to.” This change will let employers say they have had enough of bargaining at any point and there will be nothing workers can do. Employers can ‘surface’ bargain.  Also employers will be able threaten to give workers’ jobs to someone else while they are bargaining to force them to agree. And right from the outset when the union has initiated bargaining for a collective employment agreement, the employer can openly state a preference for individual agreements and effectively refuse to bargain.

Remove protection for new workers
Currently a new worker in a workplace with a collective employment agreement is automatically employed on the basis of that collective agreement for their first 30 days of employment. This also applies to non-union workers. It protects them from being offered inferior terms and conditions to everyone else.

This change will force a new worker to choose straight away, making them vulnerable to pressure from the employer to accept a worse offer. Over time this will undermine everybody’s terms and conditions. In fact, the Cabinet paper recommending these changes, signed by the Minister of Labour, actually says they, “will enable employers to offer individual terms and conditions that are less than those in the collective agreement”.

Undermine industry deals
Employers will be able to opt out of multi-employer bargaining which will jeopardise the few industry-wide agreements that have been negotiated.

Make it more difficult to strike
Employers will be able to use what is in effect a ‘strike tax’. If workers take industrial action in the form of refusing to do some duties, the employer can either calculate a deduction or simply apply a 10 per cent pay cut. Employers however can partially lock out workers with no such penalty.

Reduce meal and refreshment breaks
Meal and refreshment breaks can be of a time and duration as specified by the employer provided there is a ‘reasonable’ compensatory measure. This undermines entitlement to proper breaks and threatens health and safety.

And more
There are many other changes that attack work rights. For instance, small businesses that win contracts will not have to comply with transfer protections for vulnerable workers, the small time-period advantage unions have over employers to initiate collective bargaining is removed, written notice is now required for any strike, and access to information in redundancy situations is reduced.
New Zealand unions are campaigning against this bill. We know that the government is trying to portray these changes as ‘technical’.

Our campaign will highlight the effect of this bill on pay, conditions, health and safety and work rights. But our campaign is not just to retain the current law.

We know that the Employment Relations Act as it stands is too weak. We need a law that can underpin extension of collective bargaining into more widespread industry documents.

The campaign will include stop work meetings, regional rallies, lobbying, building momentum around submissions, profiling workers’ stories, and getting our message out to everyone about the impact of these changes and the need for a better law that can lift pay.

This campaign will ‘connect the dots’ between employment law changes and the widespread concern in New Zealand about low pay alongside rising inequality.

For more details visit: http://union.org.nz/whycutourpay

Today I was witness to the frontline of an attack on workers’ rights in Turkey.

I was at the barricades when police and security forces, on the orders of their government, fired tear gas at small groups of workers.

(AP Photo)

From early morning until late in the evening on the first of May, workers in Istanbul came under brutal attack.  40,000 police in riot gear and gas masks are thought to have been on the streets of the city.

The scars from May Day 2013 will run deep for millions of workers in Turkey.

We wanted to go into Taksim Square and sing songs of peace but instead the government unleashed the instruments of war, the President of the Turkish union confederation DISK told me.

While the unions continued negotiating until the last minute for a peaceful celebration of May Day, the government was busy bringing in extra police from the Georgian border, a drive of more than thirty hours.

Last year 600,000 workers celebrated May Day in Taksim Square, bands played into the night, as people danced in the streets.

For thirty years the square has been a symbol of democratic freedoms and worker rights after more than thirty people were killed when right-wing extremists open fired in 1977.

A citywide lockout

This year the government has unleashed an extraordinary degree of martial law. Many of us spent the day asking why.

All arterial roads and bridges in Istanbul were cordoned off by government barriers, backed by water tanks, armoured trucks and armed police.

Drivers of buses picking up workers in factories had their driving licenses confiscated by police, and bridges across the Golden Horn dividing the city of Istanbul were raised for the first time since 1970 to stop workers making their way to Taksim Square.

Extraordinary force

For those that did make it to meeting points, the police were under orders to disperse groups as small as five people with force.

First they used tear gas to blind us, then came out the water cannon and finally they fired the rubber cartridges filled with tear gas at us, a young worker told me.

The president of the energy workers union was on a side street with one other person when the police fired rubber tear gas cartridges at him.

With blood streaming down his face, he made it to the headquarters of the Turkish union confederation DISK as the building came under siege.

Inside, the General Secretary of DISK – a doctor by profession, and the first woman leader of a Turkish trade union confederation – gave him emergency medical treatment as a cloud of tear gas enveloped the building.

Later that afternoon when I visited the union building, the acrid stench of tear gas hung heavy in the air.

Over 200 injured in May Day attacks

When I met Ali Duman, his shirt was covered with blood and his head bandaged. He wasn’t the only casualty of the day. Two people remain in critical condition, and over 200 people have been injured.

A young 17-year-old girl was chased into a house – the police broke down the door and shot her at close range with tear gas cartridgess.

At the end of a painful day as workers made their way home, police stopped buses and indiscriminately detained people who looked like they had been caught in tear gas, or been on the barricades.

By early evening on May Day, seventy people had been locked up.

But the attacks on workers did not stop there.

On this very May Day the Minister of Labour announced he would be taking rights away from workers by reducing severance pay and creating more subcontracting roles.

What a tragic 1st of May. But it marks a beginning rather than the end of a day.

Today’s legacy in Turkey is already flowing through the veins of the international workers movement, giving us strength.

We are building workers power in every corner of the world.

We will stand as brothers and sisters together.

We will stop the oppression, the attacks on workers’ rights and the attacks on democracy.

We will stop the barricades to decent work and social justice.

 

May Day in Istanbul, see the ITUC photostream

1 May, International Workers’ Day, commemorates the historic struggle of working people throughout the world, and is recognised in most countries.

Despite the fact that the holiday began in the 1880s in the United States – linked to the battle for the eight-hour day, and the Chicago anarchists – the US and Canada two of the countries that don’t celebrate it.

Haymarket Bombing (Photo/EqualTimes)

The struggle for the eight-hour day began in the 1860s.

In 1884, the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions of the United States and Canada, born in 1881 (and which changed its name in 1886 to American Federation of Labor) passed a resolution which asserted that “eight hours shall constitute a legal day’s work from and after May 1, 1886, and that we recommend to labor organizations throughout this district that they so direct their laws as to conform to this resolution”.

The following year the Federation repeated the declaration that an eight-hour system was to go into effect on 1 May, 1886.

With workers being forced to work 10, 12 and 14 hours a day, support for the eight-hour movement grew rapidly.

In the months prior to 1 May, 1886, thousands of workers – organised and unorganised – members of the organisation Knights of Labor and of the federation, were drawn into the struggle.

Chicago was the main centre of the agitation for a shorter day.

The anarchists were at the forefront of the Central Labor Union of Chicago, which consisted of 22 unions in 1886, among them the seven largest in the city.

During the railroad strikes of 1877, the workers had been violently attacked by the police and the army.

A similar tactic of state terrorism was prepared by the bureaucracy to fight the eight-hour movement.

The police and National Guard were increased in size and received new and powerful weapons financed by local business leaders.

Chicago’s Commercial Club purchased a 2000 US dollar machine gun for the Illinois National Guard to be used against strikers.

Nevertheless, by 1 May, the movement had already won gains for many Chicago workers.

But on 3 May , 1886, police fired into a crowd of strikers at the McCormick Harvester Machine Company, killing at least one striker, seriously wounding five or six others, and injuring an undetermined number.

Anarchists called for a mass meeting the next day in Haymarket Square to protest the brutality.

Haymarket bombing

The meeting proceeded without incident, and by the time the last speaker was on the platform, the rainy gathering was already breaking up, with only about 200 people remaining. It was then that a police column of 180 men marched into the square and ordered the meeting to disperse.

At the end of the meeting a bomb was thrown at the police, killing one instantly. Six others died later. About 70 police officers were wounded. Police responded by firing into the crowd.

Exactly how many civilians were killed or wounded by police bullets was never determined, and even though the perpetrator was never found, the bomb was used as an excuse to attack anarchists and the labour movement in general.

Police ransacked the homes and offices of suspected radicals, and hundreds were arrested without charge.

A reign of police terror swept over Chicago. Staging “raids” in the working-class districts, the police rounded up all known anarchists and other socialists.

“Make the raids first and look up the law afterward!” publicly counselled the state’s attorney.

Anarchists in particular were harassed, and eight of Chicago’s most active were charged with conspiracy to murder in connection with the Haymarket bombing.

A kangaroo court found all eight guilty, despite a lack of evidence connecting any of them to the bomb-thrower, and they were sentenced to die.

In 9 October, 1886, the weekly journal Knights of Labor published in Chicago, carried on page one the following announcement. “Next week we begin the publication of the lives of the anarchists advertised in another column.”

The advertisement, carried on page 14, read: “The story of the anarchists, told by themselves; Parsons, Spies, Fielden, Schwab, Fischer, Lingg, Engle, Neebe. The only true history of the men who claim that they are condemned to suffer death for exercising the right of Free Speech: Their association with Labor, Socialistic and Anarchistic Societies, their views as to the aims and objects of these organizations, and how they expect to accomplish them; also their connection with the Chicago Haymarket Affair.

Each man is the author of his own story, which will appear only in the “Knights of Labor” during the next three months, – the great labor paper of the United States, a 16-page weekly paper, containing all the latest foreign and domestic labor news of the day, stories, household hints, etc. A co-operative paper owned and controlled by members of the Knights of Labor, and furnished for the small sum of $1.00 per annum. Address all communications to Knights of Labor Publishing Company, 163 Washington St., Chicago, Ill.”

Later this journal and the paper Alarm published the autobiographies of the Haymarket men.

Martyrs

Albert Parsons, August Spies, Adolf Fischer and George Engel were hanged on 11 November, 1887.

Louis Lingg committed suicide in prison.

The authorities turned over the bodies to friends for burial, and one of the largest funeral processions in Chicago history was held. It was estimated that between 150,000 to 500,000 persons lined the route taken by the funeral cortege of the Haymarket martyrs.

A monument to the executed men was unveiled 25 June, 1893 at Waldheim Cemetery in Chicago. The remaining three, Samuel Fielden, Oscar Neebe and Michael Schwab, were finally pardoned in 1893.

On 26 June, 1893, the Governor of Illinois, John Peter Altgeld, issued a pardon message in which he made it clear that he was not granting the pardon because he believed that the men had suffered enough, but because they were innocent of the crime for which they had been tried, and that they and the hanged men had been the victims of hysteria, packed juries and a biased judge.

He noted that the defendants were not proven guilty because the State “has never discovered who it was that threw the bomb which killed the policeman, and the evidence does not show any connection whatsoever between the defendants and the man who threw it.”

It is not surprising that the State, business leaders, mainstream union officials, and the media would want to hide the true history of May Day.

In its attempt to erase the history and significance of May Day, the US government declared 1 May to be “Law Day”, and gave the workers Labor Day on 1 September instead – a date devoid of any historical significance.

Nevertheless, rather than suppressing the labour and anarchist movements, the events of 1886 and the execution of the Chicago anarchists mobilised generations of radicals.

Emma Goldman, a young Russian immigrant at the time, later pointed to the Haymarket affair as the moment of her political birth. Instead of disappearing, the anarchist movement only grew in the wake of Haymarket.

Italy, as everybody knows, is currently experiencing more crises than one.

Politically, we are scrambling to form a new government and economically, Europe’s financial crisis has hit us hard.

Newspapers and TV programmes across Italy have been reporting on people pretending to be blind to claim benefits. Problem is, these stories are usually untrue (Photo/Karl Blackwell/Lonely Planet)

While our general unemployment level is at 10.7 per cent, that figure rises to 35.3 per cent among young people.

The atmosphere in Italy is a mix of chaos and decay.

And at a time when every penny counts, people start spying on their neighbours, eager to find someone who has falsely declared a degree they didn’t earn, someone who is claiming benefits they’re not entitled to or anyone who is enjoying any kind of undeserved privilege.

Journalists are not exempt from wanting to play Big Brother.

Some years ago, a blind man named Ivano was at the centre of media storm.

He was followed by the police, who suspected that he could in fact see and was pretending to be blind to claim a disability allowance.

They cited the fact that he could enter a tram without needing to feel the sides or that he would lift his watch close to his eyes as proof that he was a ‘fake blind’ person.

Eventually, after thorough investigation, Ivano managed to prove that he was not pretending to be blind but it took many years to prove his innocence.

Ivano spent thousands on lawyers and his daughter was ridiculed at school because he had been portrayed by the local media as a fraudster.

This had a terrible impact on Ivano’s self-esteem – especially because when he was finally declared innocent, the media paid no or very little attention to the real story.

Time for outrage!

But Ivano’s story is just one of many stories of its kind in Italy.

More recently, the media reported on three people in Sicily who were identified as pretending to be blind by the tax authorities since, and I quote, “they had a Facebook profile, owned a car, could go shopping independently… and led a normal and active social life.”

When I read those articles I was startled. I have been blind since I was a baby and yet, according to the checklist that those articles compiled, I am also pretending to be blind.

I have a Facebook profile – even a Twitter account. I own a car as it is perfectly legal to do so, and in Italy, you can even claim tax reliefs if you are blind car owner (it goes without saying, that I don’t drive it).

I do all the things these ‘fake blind’ people did and more. And so I said to myself, thinking of a famous pamphlet, it’s time for outrage!

I wrote to the authors of the articles and of the TV programmes, and I encouraged other people to do the same.

A protest by Italy’s visually impaired and partially sighted community spread across the web.

Our slogan was: “We are all pretending to be blind!”

Journalists were made aware of the fact that even though we cannot see, we can still use social networks, surf the web and do sports – even the most extreme ones.

We can travel, even to uncomfortable places such as the Sahara Desert or the South Pole. We can have very rewarding social lives, fix household appliances, we can cook, iron clothes, make love and after that, we can even make the bed. Need I continue?

Some of the media took heed and as a result, reported on the protests, but I would be lying if I said that I was satisfied with that.

A witch hunt

Words are very important to journalists and they should be used carefully. It is one thing to say that someone is pretending to be blind because he or she has a Facebook profile, and it is another thing to look at their profile and deduce that they can in fact see.

Even so, sometimes it can be difficult to tell a sighted person from a partially-sighted one, hence the extra caution that should be given when reporting on such investigations.

We all know journalists like big stories. But the narrative around unveiling alleged fraud is often misleading and over-simplistic.

Even more worryingly, in times of financial crisis there’s a feeling of smug satisfaction when outing those who are thought to be stealing taxpayers’ money.

But journalists must be careful to make sure these stories are true.

The Unione Italiana Ciechi (the main Italian association representing the visually impaired) was recently accused of being involved in activities concerning trusts in tax heavens.

But despite the media attention when the story first broke, it later emerged that the story was untrue.

However, the media doesn’t care that 70 per cent of the ‘fake blind’ people discovered in recent years were actually really blind.

These journalists don’t care about the shame and ridicule these erroneous reports have caused people.

There is a witch hunt going on, and it’s not only against the visually impaired. It’s against all people with disabilities. It’s against migrants, against Roma, against homosexuals, against women and all vulnerable groups.

It’s vital that the media puts an end to such dangerous and defamatory campaigns. It’s even more important that the media correctly reports about the real lives of visually impaired people.

There’s a lot of ignorance and the media shouldn’t add to it.

If someone is pretending to be blind it’s in the interest of no-one more than people who really are blind that these fakes are sentenced but we have to put a stop to this new form of McCarthyism.

On 10 April 2013, I joined an international delegation of observers to attend a hearing against Turkish public sector union KESK (an ITUC affiliate) in Ankara.

KESK leadership addresses demonstrators in front of courthouse (Photo/KESK)

In what was actually one of several court cases against KESK, 22 defendants had to appear before the judge to determine whether they were to stay in pre-trial detention – as they had for the previous ten months.

The hearing was not about the merits of the case, which concerns 72 defendants, all KESK members, who are being charged under Turkey’s anti-terrorism legislation.

On 25 June 2012, a total of 50 KESK members and leaders, including KESK President Lami Özgen, were detained.

After three days, 28 of them were released but the other 22 were arrested.

The official indictment against the 72 KESK members, including the 22 still in detention, was issued on 12 February.

On 10 April, the judge released the 22 from prison but ruled that all 72 would continue to face charges and would have to appear in court on 8 July, 2013.

First hearing

Before entering the court room on 10 April, I joined around 2,000 demonstrators in front of the courthouse.

With members of the Turkish press present, our KESK colleagues addressed the crowd, followed by members of the international delegation who offered their support.

Inside, the courtroom was packed. Family members of the defendants reacted emotionally to seeing their relatives in the dock, flanked by five policemen and 15 jandarma (army personnel), one of whom carried a huge rifle.

Although I am no legal expert, a number of issues struck me as odd:

1. Three judges sat up front with the prosecutor. During the three breaks that were given, they left together, suggesting that they were sitting (and thus talking) together in between sessions.

2. The defence lawyers were seated on both sides of the dock where they were unable to speak to their clients. While there were around 40 of them present, only three had taken the floor by the end of the day.

3. The court clerk only withheld the judge’s (very short and sort of “standard”) summaries for the verbatim, not the defendants’ pleas.

4. A Word document was being projected on the wall containing what was referred to as “identity information” such as the full name, address, date and place of birth, full name of parents, salary, property declaration and even the level of literacy of each defendant.  More than half a day was spent on this alone as defendant after defendant had to rise, and go over this data (which contained a remarkable amount of even basic inaccuracies) with the judge.

5. Although Lami Özgen was not among those detained, he did sit with the defendants for the whole day and was the first to take the floor. He stated what would be repeated time and again throughout the day – that all the defendants were democrats who support peace between Turks and Kurds, and who simply engaged in legitimate trade union action which could in no way be labelled as “terrorist activity”. The evidence which was collected was haphazard – pictures of people entering union buildings, recordings of private phone calls of union members inviting friends over for dinner and attendance lists of legal union meetings. Despite the fact that the KESK offices were also raided, no further evidence provided to demonstrate any criminal activities had taken place. It was also striking that while Özgen was being charged on the basis of anti-terrorism legislation, at the same time, he had also been invited to be on a panel of “wise men” created to mediate between the Turkish authorities and Kurdish rebels.

6. One by one, all defendants made similar pleas, some demanding that the charges against them be dropped and that they be released, others emphasising the fact that they had been with their union long before there even was a KCK (the “urban division” of the PKK, of which KESK is alleged to be “part of the organogram”, according to the indictment), or the fact that they themselves were not Kurdish but that they simply defended equal rights for everyone. None of this was reflected in the verbatim; the clerk only took down the judge’s short summaries, which were limited to standard formulas such as “I am aware of my rights” and “I reject the accusations.” Every summary was more or less identical.

7. The law regarding the use of the Kurdish language in court had just been changed on 20 December. At the beginning of the hearing, some defendants had requested to be heard in Kurdish. At that point, I was told that the judge was refusing this. However, the final four defendants did make their statements in Kurdish. Translations were read out by two interpreters, and these statements were reflected in much more detail in the verbatim than the ones made in Turkish.

8. One lawyer had been given the floor before the defendants’ pleas. Afterwards, he was allowed to speak again. He complained about not being able to hear the prosecutor before bringing his clients’ defence, and about the fact that the defence lawyers weren’t able to speak to their clients. The judge replied, laconically, that he was going to allow for a five minute break, during which they could talk.

9. After all the proceedings, the prosecutor finally took to the floor for the very first time. He stated, very briefly, that, having heard the defence pleas, he ruled that the charges were not being dropped, but that every defendant would be released from pre-trial detention.

10. Only after this very first intervention, two other defence lawyers were allowed to speak. They argued that there hadn’t been a decent investigation, and that the indictment was all too similar to the report of the prosecutor. They denounced the procedure to collect evidence as unfair, and the indictment as lax and biased, and said they would take the case to the European Court of Human Rights.

11. Finally, the judge adjourned the hearing, saying he would announce his verdict immediately afterwards. Everyone was then summoned to leave the courtroom. Less than an hour later, we could tell from the cheers of the crowd outside the courthouse, that the defendants had been released.

I already mentioned that I’m no legal expert, let alone one familiar with the Turkish legal system, but I do believe that this report contains enough material to speak of major anomalies.

I briefly spoke to a British lawyer who was in attendance as an observer for Euromed, and he referred to Article 6 on the right to a fair trial of the European Convention of Human Rights.

He was particularly concerned by the long pre-trial detention periods and the fact that the three judges were sitting together with the prosecutor, while the defence lawyers could not talk to their clients.

Apart from the legal aspects, it is important for the international union movement to stand by its colleagues in Turkey, especially on the issue of being branded a terrorist organisation.

In a broader context, Turkish law is being misused to silence other civil society groups, such as journalists. It is therefore important to stress that Turkey abuses its legal system to muzzle any opposition in general, and the unions in particular.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to exert pressure on the authorities as Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan is becoming ever more arrogant in his dealings with the EU, stating openly that because economic growth is higher in Turkey than in the EU, it is Europe that needs Turkey, and not the other way around.

Several colleagues told me that they believed, however, that the KESK case could benefit from the peace talks which are being initiated between the authorities and Kurdish rebel factions.

Whether this is actually the case remains to be seen.

Drought is a frequent and brutal visitor to the Lake Turkana region in the north of Kenya. The rains seldom come and the lake is drying up.

Has “enormous progress” really been made towards achieving the Millenium Development Goals? (Photo/ICRC/Marko Kokic)

So is the hope of the Turkana, a proud people. They are mainly pastoralists. But the grazing lands are fast disappearing as are the fish in the rapidly receding lake. Heavily armed marauding bandits from the Horn of Africa regularly raid their lands and seize their cattle.

“They take our wealth and our food. Our cows are our bank. We are alone. There is no government here to protect us. It is the rule of the gun. Our homes are torched, our innocent are murdered. They want to drive us from our land. Our children are not safe. They must go to the city.”

Their poverty is driven by climate change, a precursor to the new resource wars that are to be fought over water, land, food and scarce resources.

The poverty is chronic, systemic and persistent. It leaves many in despair, abandoned by the political and economic elites in their own governments and the world.

This story is repeated in the many villages I have been to in the Indian sub-continent, in the slums of Africa and Asia where families live in a space that is barely bigger than the bathroom of middle-class families. People of these communities feel that God has forsaken them.

Official reports suggest “enormous progress has been made towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals, (MDGs). Global poverty continues to decline, more children than ever are attending primary school, child deaths have dropped dramatically; access to safe drinking water has been greatly expanded…”

While there’s no doubt that we have made progress, I wonder when these gains will trickle down to the billion people that still eke their very existence at the edges of our humanity.

The World Bank 2011 World Development report on Conflict, Security and Development, the Advisory Committee for which I sat on, found that at least one in three people live in conflict ridden countries and that no country that has experienced serious conflict will achieve any MDG.

On Monday morning at the opening of a global conference on hunger, nutrition and climate justice, the Irish President Michael Higgins described global hunger as “the grossest of human rights violations” and the greatest ethical challenge facing the global economy.

In illustrating the failure of the global development system he said further:

“What is required is a robust regulatory framework which protects our fragile and threatened environment and which respects the right of small landholders to remain on their land and retain access to water sources.”

President Higgins has his finger on the pulse of the rising anger in the world.

People are losing trust in their leaders and their positive role in political, economic and even in civil society.

The bottom half of humanity sees, and experiences, a new Apartheid that divides a global rich and predatory minority from the overwhelming majority’s growing poverty, joblessness and social inequality.

A high-level panel, appointed by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, is expected to submit its final report on a post-2015 development agenda when it meets in New York at the end of May. There is an urgency to develop an alternative vision of the world we want.

The Millennium Declaration in 2000 promised that “men and women have the right to live their lives and raise their children in dignity, free from hunger and from the fear of violence, oppression or injustice. Democratic and participatory governance based on the will of the people best assures these rights.”

The current ferment in the world demonstrates that patience of the forgotten people is running out.

Drivers

The ‘youth bulge’ in the developing world is alienated by the corruption in our political and economic systems.

Citizens are demanding voice and transparency. They want jobs and social protection, safety and justice – all issues that were not included in the original MDGs. We need to address the underlying drivers of poverty, now.

The data itself has hidden a growing social and economic inequality which has risen dramatically in the world.

We need to go beyond measuring progress as a set of narrow input and output indicators.

Let us disaggregate the laudable goal we set of the reduction of poverty by half by 2015.

Development bureaucrats claim victory in many of the discussions I have attended.

Poverty has been defined as an income of less than 1.25 US dollars a day, but because figures are not broken down, the fact that China accounts for the bulk of this success is ignored. Sub-Saharan Africa, on the other hand, is not on track on its poverty reduction and will fall short of nearly all the goals. But more importantly, here’s a question that many pose to me:

“Name one minister or bureaucrat in any global institution who can support a family on 1.25 US dollars a day.”

We need a new framework that addresses sustainable development holistically; human rights, economic, social and environmental rights.

At its core it has to place human well-being and address the fact that our consumption patterns have pushed the planetary resources to the limit.

A top-down, donor-driven and intergovernmental process that led to the MDGs is unlikely to work today.

We need a bottom-up process, which co-creates the vision of our future world, that will create the tools that allows communities at a grass root level to ensure there is transparency and accountability of those in power.

To be able to measure progress, we need reliable data in our countries.

But we need to unpack our morbid fascination with evidence that just satisfies ‘bean counters’ in foreign capitals and concentrate on data that meets the true needs of the poor and improves the real capacity and quality of service delivery.

So how can we legitimise the process towards a new future we hope to agree? We need to recognise the need for:

• Bold leadership at a local, national and global level and a set of shared rights and responsibilities across the public, private and civil society sectors
• Open Data networks that, building accountability from the bottom up, create tools for citizens to hold the leaders accountable
• The acceptance of universality of human rights and its inter-connectedness to environment and poverty
• Understanding that growing inequality within countries is fueling corruption and social tensions
• An inclusive and participatory process in which the voices of the poor are heard in the corridors of power
• Comprehensive development framework that integrates the discussions for a post-MDG agenda and ‘Sustainable Development Goals’ (SDGs) as agreed at the Rio+20 summit in June 2012

Today, over 1.3 billion people around the world have no access to electricity. What is the value of universal education when kids are taken out of school and sent to find firewood or herd the family livestock?

Today, I am reminded that Nelson Mandela once said: “Overcoming poverty is not a task of charity, it is an act of justice. Like slavery and apartheid, poverty is not natural. It is man-made and it can be overcome and eradicated by the actions of human beings. Sometimes it falls on a generation to be great. You can be that great generation. Let your greatness blossom.”

Sekunjalo ke nako. Now is the time to act.

This is an edited version of an opinion piece that first appeared on Daily Maverick

Last week the IMF issued a 94-page policy paper on Jobs and Growth: Analytical and Operational Considerations for the Fund, produced jointly by the IMF’s policy, research and fiscal affairs departments (dated 14 March but posted on 4 April).

Demonstrators carry signs reading “We are not going away” and “We won’t pay for this crisis” during a protest against youth unemployment in Madrid on 7 April 7, 2013 (AP Photo/Andres Kudacki)

The report is intended to offer guidance on employment and distributional issues to IMF staff working on a country level.

Although it includes some positive language favouring job creation, inclusive growth and more equal income distribution, there is little follow-through in the substantive sections of the paper that deal with IMF programmes and policy advice and how Fund staff should change their practices.

In particular, there is almost nothing in the new policy paper that would lead Fund staff to question their current approach to labour and employment issues in country reports.

As the ITUC showed in a recent background paper on IMF loan conditions and policy advice concerning labour issues in Europe, the approach consists overwhelmingly of weakening or dismantling labour market institutions and regulations in the interests of achieving greater labour market flexibility.

One of the more useful analytical parts of the paper is the section on “Inclusive Growth”, which discusses the importance of reducing inequality for stable and sustained growth (p. 24-31).

A later section of the paper, which takes stock of IMF country programmes and surveillance, acknowledges that currently little attempt is made by the Fund to mitigate the effects of inequality-producing austerity programmes: “While the majority of [country] reports examined discuss the likely effect of fiscal consolidation on social spending, only few propose options for mitigating the resulting impacts on the poor” (p. 35).

However, still later, in a section of the report with recommendations on what should change in the IMF’s work, only the following timid suggestion is put forward: “Discussion of inclusiveness could be enhanced where it is a priority. Staff could provide more discussion of the effect of proposed policies on inclusiveness, and where country authorities request, discuss policy options for enhancing inclusiveness.” (p. 41)

The paper includes a recognition that lack of aggregate demand subsequent to the 2008-2009 crisis and global recession is an important cause of the current global jobs deficit. However, it devotes more space to the impact of “megatrends” such as technological change, globalisation (which the report appraises positively while acknowledging that it has contributed to within-country inequality, especially in advanced economies) and demographic changes (p. 7-12).

A section on growth issues refers in large part to the Commission on Growth and Development (“Spence Commission”) that carried out its work in 2006-2009, and seems to acknowledge the importance of the role of the state in achieving sustained long-term growth, including for implementing policies to achieve industrial diversification (p. 13).

However, the report seems to hide behind the fact that “no generic formula exists” for a successful growth model. The key lesson it draws from the Spence Commission’s work is that the “one element … on which there is little disagreement is the critical importance of macroeconomic stability” (p. 1), which IMF staff have generally used as an alibi to push for fiscal discipline and monetary policy that prioritises low inflation above job creation.

The report refers to some positive aspects of the World Bank’s World Development Report 2013: Jobs (WDR 2013) emphasising the centrality of job growth as being essential to inclusive development and poverty reduction. It says that this may require a “jobs strategy” to complement a growth strategy.

However the report then trots out the tired slogan of “protect workers, not jobs”, which IMF staff have regularly used to attack labour market regulations (p. 16-18 & 24).

Efforts to weaken labour regulations have taken place with simultaneous IMF proposals to reduce the cost and therefore the scope of social protection regimes (which are supposed to “protect workers”), such as is the case currently in several European countries. In developing countries, labour market deregulation has often taken place in contexts where social protection is grossly under-funded and deficient.

Lack of evidence acknowledged but ignored in recommendations

The report skims over the important finding of the WDR 2013, which is based on an extensive review of economic literature, that labour market regulations constitute an insignificant or minor obstacle to job creation in most countries.

Its praise of the “Nordic flexicurity model”, supposedly based on the premise that “workers should be protected mostly through unemployment insurance rather than high employment protection” ignores indicators presented on the same page (p. 21).

 These show that three of the four Nordics (all but Denmark) have levels of employment protection in the same range as most of the southern European countries that the IMF has accused of having overly rigid labour markets.

The section of the report on the IMF’s surveillance and programme work concedes, in a footnote, that the “near-consensus” that greater labour market flexibility is good for growth disappeared several years ago.

It blames IMF staff’s continued promotion of labour market deregulation on the “lingering effects” of incorrect  analyses disseminated by the OECD – in 1994:

“The apparent tendency [of IMF staff] to recommend greater flexibility may reflect in part lingering effects of a near-consensus established by the influential OECD (1994) Jobs Study. The study recommended flexible rules for protecting employment and setting wages…. By the mid-2000s, however, this consensus had largely disappeared. As methods had improved and better data had become available, the impact of labor market institutions became less—not more—clear.” (footnote 18, p. 35)

One would have thought that this important admission that IMF staff promote labour market deregulation polices on the basis of two-decade-old false premises should lead to a strong recommendation that staff be instructed to cease propagating fairy tales as truth. Instead, the recommendations section of the paper simply drops the issue.

One potentially promising recommendation in the report is that IMF staff should provide evidence-based advice when dealing with labour and employment issues.

Curiously, the term “evidence based” is used in quotation marks in the executive summary. Whether this is because “evidence based” is an unfamiliar term for most IMF staff or it is intended that staff interpret the term figuratively rather than literally is not explained.

The IMF’s policy paper also reveals that the Fund has produced a “Surveillance Toolkit for Jobs and Inclusive Growth” (p. 45), but the toolkit is not provided with the report.

The full report is available in English only, here.

With a new election just a few days away, and the expectation that Nicolás Maduro – the chosen successor of the late President Hugo Chávez – will emerge victorious, there is much debate about Chávez’s legacy.

A supporter holds a picture of Venezuela’s late President Hugo Chávez at a campaign rally for ruling party candidate and interim President Nicolas Maduro. He will run against opposition candidate Henrique Capriles in the Sunday, 14 April election (AP Photo/Ramon Espinosa)

There is a particular focus on his economic policies, record on civil liberties and what he has left behind for ordinary Venezuelans.

As is so often the case, views are split ideologically. Unquestionably, Chávez invested heavily in social programs for the poor and this won him adulation among many sectors of society.  Poverty has been reduced substantially, healthcare became more accessible, and education rates rose.

Whether the gains under a continuation of Chávez’s economic policies can be sustained is the subject of much debate.

At the same time, Venezuela still struggles with a critical housing shortage and an exceptionally high crime rate. Indeed in polling last year, citizens said that crime was far and away the most important issue facing the country, followed by high unemployment.

It must also be noted that Chávez was widely criticised for suppressing dissent, while dominating and politicising other branches of government.  Whether this will continue is also a question for Sunday’s election.

Because the future economic and social conditions of Venezuela will be greatly impacted by the result, it is important to understand how the election will work.

How candidates, government officials, and voters operate within the structure of an electoral framework can say something about broader attitudes towards democracy and liberty going forward.

In Venezuela, the election takes place on one day and voting is not mandatory as it is in some other countries in the region.

The voters’ register will be the same as the one drawn up nearly a year ago. This doesn’t seem to be terribly problematic however, as the CNE (the electoral commission) says that an extraordinary 96.5 per cent of the eligible population is registered to vote.

This gives Venezuela one of the highest percentages of registered voters in the world, an achievement many credit to the Chávez administration’s great efforts to reach out to, provide identity documents for and seek the engagement of all strata of society – whether for political purposes or otherwise.

The mechanics

The technical rules of the election will be almost the same as the one held last October.

The biggest and most controversial innovation of the 2012 election, which will also be used on Sunday, was the use of the Automated Authentication System, a biometric process by which a voter certifies his or her identity at the voting machine by entering his or her identification number and scanning his or her fingerprints.

If the voter does so accurately and is verified, the machine will activate for voting.  After voting on the computerised system, the voter receives a receipt with his choices indicated which he drops in a separate ballot box.

An ongoing concern about this system is that if the machines are able to record fingerprints, the government will be able to trace how people voted and use that information against them, as it has reportedly done and continues to do with respect to the leaked 2004 list of supporters of a recall of President Chávez.

While in truth matching votes with voters would be technically difficult, attaching personal biometric information to the casting of the ballot has understandably has still led to suspicion.

That this fear exists is another Chávez legacy.

The poll workers are appointed by lottery, and each candidate is entitled to one poll watcher per poll site.

After the voting is completed a number of poll stations, selected by lottery, will be subjected to an audit known as ‘citizen verification.’

The paper receipts are double checked against the machines.  The results of each polling station are posted on the CNE website, as a third check on the count.

‘Best in the world’

There is a lot to admire about the Venezuelan election system.  Former US President Jimmy Carter didn’t call Venezuela’s system “the best in the world” for no reason.

Perhaps the most impressive aspect is the level of citizen engagement among all sectors of society, which is unlike most countries.

The registration rate is arguably as high as possible, and the turnout rate is also very good – in October it was over 80 percent.

Having randomly chosen ordinary citizens, who are known to all parties in advance, to take charge of the polls, is its own kind of check on the credibility of the election and a way of inspiring public involvement.

The high number of polling places – the number rose from 20,202 in 1998 to 38, 239 in 2012 – makes it easier for all citizens to vote, especially for the poor, since many of them were placed in underdeveloped areas.

In some ways, the process is also quite transparent, in keeping with democratic principles.  The different checks on the counting, including providing party witnesses with a printout of the electronic tally from every machine and posting individual poll site results online is especially notable and should be extremely effective in ensuring trust in the outcome.

The audit of 53 per cent of randomly selected voting tables is particularly commendable and a model for other nations.

Criticisms

That Venezuela has a technically superior election system does not, however, mean that elections in Venezuela are completely fair.

The biggest critique of this election and the last one has been the extreme abuse of state resources by the governing party, especially the use of state media, and perhaps more disturbingly, potential use of the military and other state assets to mobilise voters.

It was not a good portent when, according to The Guardian newspaper, the government’s Minister of Defence explicitly told Venezuelans just after Chávez’s death to vote Maduro, and to give opposition “fascists a good hiding” at the polls. He told state TV that the “mission” of the armed forces was to put Maduro in the presidency.

Transparency International reports that the massive and disproportionate use of the state media of used on Chávez’s behalf in 2012 has continued in the 2013 election.

According to numerous press reports, the government constantly broadcasts pro-Maduro propaganda with impunity.

In 2012, Chávez took great advantage of his right to air presidential addresses and free governmental institutional ads, and as Acting President – a position he holds with some controversy – Maduro has also used state media to expand his presence and to disseminate his message.

In 2012, there were also allegations of use of state resources to mobilise voters, and it is feared this will also repeat itself.

Even the director of the CNE himself stated recently that the election will be “profoundly anti-democratic” in its nature because the conditions among candidates are uneven.

Another problem is the electoral commission itself.  The opposition has argued that it is biased– and with some good reason.

According to The Carter Center, “of its five current rectors, four, including the president, are linked to the Chavez government with varying degrees of sympathy, and one is linked to the opposition.”

This is particularly problematic in that a credible, independent electoral authority is considered under international norms to be a lynchpin in upholding the democratic principles of elections.

Finally, there is the problem of the lack of broad independent observation of the election.  Since 2007 the government has decided that it will not allow international observation, but rather only “international accompaniment” which only applies to Election Day itself.

As The Carter Center described it, such activities are merely symbolic, and are contrary the Declaration of Principles for Election Observation that most international observation groups have signed to ensure consistent, meaningful observation and assessment of elections.

Indeed, The Carter Center refused to participate in such an “accompaniment” in 2012.

Such an approach only provides fodder for critics who want to call the system into question.  The silver lining to this is that the opposition campaign expects to be able to field enough party agents to cover most polling places.

While Venezuela’s electoral system in some ways is a model for the world, certain aspects, especially the practice of abusing the state machinery for electoral advantage during the campaign period and the politicisation of the electoral commission are highly troublesome.

Such practices threaten to undermine the credibility of Venezuela’s otherwise justifiably proud voting system.

Experts from the Washington Office for Latin America believe turnout is the big unknown in this election.

Thus, Election Day itself, when the machinery of mobilisation kicks into full gear, will be revealing as to how the likely next president of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, approaches the issue of democratic values.

This abuse of government power was one of the unfortunate aspects of Hugo Chávez’s legacy. Will his party perpetuate this anti-democratic process on Election Day?

This will be telling for the future of civil liberties in Venezuela. While the lopsided campaign environment has opened Venezuela’s voting system up to questions by some, perhaps Election Day itself will provide hope for the country’s commitment to democratic practices in the future.

To follow the election, visit to http://venezuelablog.tumblr.com/

Right-wing news outlets were crowing. The ‘new’ Axis of Evil (North Korea, Syria, and Iran) had prevented the United Nations from regulating global trade in conventional arms.

Fearing a loss of rights to civilian gun ownership, American conservatives would rather side with their country’s enemies than support the ATT (Photo/www.nextstepproductions.org)

America’s Fox News was quick to blame the “dictators” for the collapse of the negotiations, reporting that Pyongyang and the gang led the way for most of the developing world (including Russia and China,) though the proposed legislation was, in their view, still objectionable, because it was supported by the Obama Administration.

Say what? You heard it right.

Few agreements of its kind have aroused as much passion as the Final United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).

Take a survey of the English-language press, and one will encounter all kinds of conspiracy theories about the conference’s goals, some of which make the Fox News report sound rational.

The American blogosphere, in particular, fears that US agreement to the treaty will lead to further restrictions being imposed on firearms ownership as a response to the Sandy Hook massacre, in which 28 people were killed.

Truth be told, there isn’t much to fear. For example, the treaty does not impact on the regulation of arms possession, or specify what kind of conventional weapons can be sold or exported.

These are the sorts of concerns Americans especially harbour, as they are guaranteed a constitutional right to bear arms – a right that remains hotly debated, as it also, many of its critics contend, allow for the ownership of weapons used by criminal gangs, and deranged persons, the kind behind massacres such as Sandy Hook.

Still, Americans fear that as you create one set of restraints, others will follow.

In reality, the proposed treaty intends to prevent weapons from being transferred to the point of their use.

Particularly in unstable regions of the world, where they might be fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals, or governments considered to be in violation of international law, or whom are otherwise threatens to global stability.

Hence the anxieties of Iran, North Korea and Syria.

All locked in varying states of conflict, both civil and international, they have every reason in the world to want to inhibit such a treaty from coming into effect.

For example, Iran purchases a significant amount of arms from China and Russia, including transport aircraft, tanks, anti-aircraft missiles, and small arms.

Tehran in turn is said to licence some of these materials for domestic production, which it then distributes to allies such as Syria, Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Shi’ite rebels in Iraq and Yemen, as well as Hamas in Gaza.

Though more self-sufficient than Iran, as a weapons producer, North Korea is said to exchange missile technologies with Tehran, as well as with Pakistan, with whom it has supposedly collaborated with on missile and nuclear weapons development.

Surely, there is more information like this to detail.

Still, based on the intentions of the ATT, it is not hard to understand why these countries blocked it.

In varying states of conflict (with the US and its allies) they would all stand to lose access to significant markets for their weaponry, as well as be cut off from their suppliers.

Why American conservatives would bemoan such a scenario is of course telling.

Fearing a loss of rights to civilian ownership of military firearms, they side with their country’s enemies against the regulation of weapons that might also be used against the United States.

On Tuesday afternoon, the UN General Assembly voted on a revised draft of the ATT.

Though Iran, Syria and North Korea cast ballots against this new version, the treaty was overwhelmingly approved, with 154 votes in favour, 23 abstentions (including China and Russia), and three against.

According to Reuters, the ATT will be available for signature beginning 3 June, and will go into effect 90 days following its 50th signatory ratification.

Commenting on its American critics, such as the National Rifle Association, Gavin Aronsen of the left-wing political website Mother Jones doubted that US opposition was simply a matter of defending Americans’ constitutional right to bear arms.

“…the gun lobby’s real opposition to the treaty is probably economics. The US is the world’s leading arms exporter, and gun dealers aren’t eager to be required to report weapons exports that may wind up in the hands of warlords or terrorists overseas.”