La Libertad de Expresión en la Internet Es un Derecho Fundamental
Global Viewpoint - Spanish
Word Count: 972
Bernard Kouchner es ministro del exterior de Francia y fundador de Medecins Sans Frontieres.
Bernard Kouchner
PARIS -- En 2015, 3,500 millones de personas -- la mitad de la humanidad -- tendrán acceso a la Internet. Nunca ha habido una revolución así en la libertad de comunicación y libertad de expresión. Pero, ¿cómo será usado este medio? ¿Qué nuevas distorsiones y obstáculos desarrollarán los enemigos de la Internet?
La tecnología moderna se presta para lo mejor y lo peor. Los sitios de la red extremistas, difamatorios y racistas diseminan odiosas opiniones en tiempo real. Han convertid a la Internet rn una arma para la guerra y el odio. Los sitios web son atacados y usuarios de la web reclutados mediante salas de chat para destructivos planes. Violentos movimientos están infiltrando las redes sociales para extender propaganda e información falsa. Es muy difícil para las democracias controlarlos. No suscribo a la inocente creencia de que una nueva tecnología, sin embargo, por poderosa y eficiente que sea, habrá por su naturaleza de avanzar la libertad en todos los frentes.
Pero, al mismo tiempo, las distorsiones son la excepción más que la regla. La Internet es por encima de todo el más fantástico medio para romper los muros y límites que nos separan de los demás. Para los pueblos oprimidos a quienes se ha robado su derecho a la autoexpresión y el derecho a escoger su propio futuro, la Internet provee un poder que va más allá de sus más alocadas esperanzas. En minutos, nuevas imágenes grabadas por un teléfono pueden diseminarse por todo el mundo en el ciberespacio. Es crecientemente difícil ocultar una demostración pública, un acto de represión o violación a los derechos humanos.
En los países autoritarios y represivos, los teléfonos móviles y la Internet han dado cabida a la opinión pública y a la sociedad civil. También han dado a los ciudadanos un medio crítico de expresión, a pesar de todas sus restricciones.
Sin embargo, la tentación de reprimir la libertad de expresión siempre está presente. El número de países que censuran la Internet, que monitorean a los usuarios de la web y los castigan por sus opiniones, está creciendo a una tasa alarmante. La Internet puede usarse en contra de los ciudadanos. Puede ser una formidable herramienta para captar información y detectar a los potenciales disidentes. Algunos regímenes ya están adquiriendo sofisticada tecnología para la vigilancia.
Si todos los que tienen apego a los derechos humanos y a la democracia se negaran a comprometer sus principios y utilizaran la Internet para defender la libertad de expresión, esta clase de represión sería mucho más difícil. No hablo de la libertad absoluta que abre la puerta a toda clase de abusos. Nadie está promoviendo eso. En lugar de ello, hablo de la verdadera libertad, que se basa en los principios del respeto por la dignidad humana y los derechos humanos.
En los últimos pocos años, instituciones multilaterales como el Consejo para Europa, y las organizaciones no gubernamentales, como Reporteros Sin fronteras, junto a miles de individuos alrededor del mundo, han hecho un fuerte compromiso con estos temas. Esto es prueba, si se necesitara prueba, de que el tema no enfrenta a occidente contra el resto del mundo. No menos de 180 países reunidos para la Cumbre Mundial de la Sociedad de la Información reconocieron que la Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos se aplica plenamente a la Internet, especialmente el artículo 19, que establece libertad de expresión y libertad de opinión. Aún así, alrededor de 50 países no cumplen con sus compromisos.
En ocasión del Día Mundial de la Libertad de Prensa la semana pasada, reuní a expertos, líderes de ONGs, periodistas, empresarios e intelectuales. Sus discusiones han confirmado mi convicción de que el camino que deseamos tomar es el correcto. Creo que debemos crear un instrumento internacional para monitorear los compromisos que han hecho los gobiernos y pedir que cumplan cuando fallen. Creo que debemos proveer asistencia a los ciberdisidentes, quienes han de recibir el mismo apoyo que otras víctimas de la represión política, y mostrar nuestra solidaridad con ellos públicamente, en estrecha colaboración con las ONGs que trabajan en estos temas. Creo que también debemos discutir la conveniencia de adoptar un código de conducta respecto a la exportación de tecnologías para censurar la Internet y seguir la huella de los usuarios de la red.
Estas cuestiones, junto con otras, como la protección de la información personal en la Internet y el derecho a la amnistía digital para todos, promovida por mi colega Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet, debe promoverse dentro de un marco que una al gobierno, la sociedad civil y los expertos internacionales.
Otro proyecto está cerca de mi corazón. Será una larga y difícil tarea implementarlo, pero es crítico. Es dar a la Internet status legal que refleje su universalidad. Algo que la reconozca como espacio internacional, de manera que sea más difícil que los gobiernos represivos utilicen su soberanía como argumento contra las libertades fundamentales.
Esta es una cuestión crítica. Creo que la batalla de ideas ha comenzado con, de un lado, los defensores de una Internet abierta e universal, basada en la libertad de expresión y la libertad de asociación, en la tolerancia y respeto por la privacidad y del otro lado, quienes quieren transformar a la Internet en una multitud de espacios cerrados entre sí para servir a los propósitos de un régimen, propaganda y todas formas de fanatismo.
La libertad de expresión es "la base de todas las demás libertades." Sin ella, no hay "naciones libres," dijo Voltaire. El espíritu de la ilustración, que es universal, debe correr por todos los nuevos medios. La defensa de las libertades fundamentales y los derechos humanos debe ser la prioridad del gobierno del a Internet. Es asunto de todos.
(c) GLOBAL VIEWPOINT NETWORK/TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES.
Paging and Bottom Toolbar
miércoles, 12 de mayo de 2010
martes, 11 de mayo de 2010
GREEK CRISIS IS ONLY TIP OF SOVEREIGN DEBT ICEBERG
http://bit.ly/djFwll
Roubini: Greek Crisis is Only Tip of Sovereign Debt Iceberg
By Nouriel Roubini
Global Viewpoint
Word Count: 944
Nouriel Roubini, a professor of economics at New York University and chairman of Roubini Global Economics has come to be popularly known as "Dr. Doom" for having predicted the recent financial crisis. He is author of "Crisis Economics: A Crash Course in the Future of Finance." His comments here are adapted from remarks at the Milken Global Conference in Beverly Hills, California, on Wednesday, April 28.
LOS ANGELES -- Financial crises have occurred very often in history. They are caused by unsustainable bubbles that go bust, and from excessive risk-taking and debt-leveraging by the private sector during the bubble. Then in the wake of, and as part of the response to, the economic downturn, government debts and deficits grow to unsustainable levels that can lead to default or inflation if not corrected. The crisis we are going through now follows this pattern.
Today there is a lot of talk about "de-leveraging," yet the data shows that de-leveraging has barely begun. Debt ratios in the corporate sector as well as households in the U.S. have essentially stabilized at high levels.
At the same time, we are seeing a massive "re-leveraging" of the public sector with budget deficits on the order of 10 percent of GDP. The IMF and OECD are projecting that the stock of public debt in advanced economies is going to double and reach an average level of 100 percent of GDP in the coming years.
This is all actually quite typical of what happens in a financial crisis. What explains this re-leveraging? First, "automatic stabilizers" (such as unemployment compensation) came into play during the recession. Second, countercyclical fiscal policies (such as tax cuts and spending increases) have been implemented by government to avoid depression because private demand is collapsing. Third, we have decided to socialize some of the private losses in the financial, corporate and housing sectors and put them on the balance sheet of the government.
So, there is a massive buildup of public debt. And the lesson of history is that unless this buildup of sovereign debt is tackled eventually by raising taxes and controlling spending, then there are only two outcomes: default or high inflation.
Historically, we have seen a series of defaults and sovereign debt crises in both advanced and emerging market economies. If you are a country like the U.S., the U.K. or Japan that can monetize its fiscal deficits, then you won't have a sovereign debt event but high inflation that erodes the value of public debt. Inflation is therefore basically a capital transfer from creditors and savers to borrowers and dissavers, essentially from the private sector to the government.
While the markets these days are worrying about Greece, it is only the tip of the iceberg, or the canary in the coal mine of a much broader range of fiscal crises. Today it is Greece. Tomorrow it will be Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Iceland. Sooner or later Japan and the U.S. will be at the core of the problem, shaking the global economy.
We need to recognize that we are in the next stage of financial crisis. The coming issue is not private-sector liabilities, but pubic-sector liabilities.
Revived economic growth alone will not generate enough tax revenue to relieve this sovereign debt crisis. Fiscal deficits are huge and structural. They are not due solely to a cyclical downturn in growth but to long-term commitments such as pensions, social security and health care. To avoid default or high inflation, the advanced economies will require some combination of raising revenues through taxes and cutting government spending.
In Europe, where tax rates are already very high, the right adjustment is cutting spending instead of raising taxes further. In the U.S., the average tax burden as a share of GDP is much lower than in other advanced economies. The right adjustment for the U.S. would be to phase in revenue increases gradually over time so that you don't kill the recovery while controlling the growth of government spending.
What worries me most is the political gridlock in Washington. While everyone agrees that $10 trillion deficits (by the Obama administration's own estimates) for the next decade are not sustainable, there is no political will to act. The two parties are completely divided. Effectively, the Republicans are against any form of revenue increases. The Democrats are against spending cuts, especially of entitlements.
If the Republicans take control of the House of Representatives in the next election and refuse any revenue increases while the Democrats veto spending cuts, the path of least resistance will be runaway fiscal deficits which will then be monetized by the Federal Reserve, which has already embarked on this path. In just the last year alone, the Federal Reserve has bought $1.8 trillion of Treasury securities and agency debt, a course that will inevitably lead to high inflation if sustained. It is what is popularly known as printing money.
In Greece (with yields higher than 12 percent on two-year bonds -- ed.) or Spain or Portugal, the bond markets are forcing an adjustment. In spite of the recession, the markets are telling them to either straighten out their problems or go bankrupt.
Unfortunately, there is no such adjustment being forced upon Washington at the moment because the bond market has not woken up to the dangers ahead. You can borrow at a zero percent rate on the short end and 3.6 percent on the long end. As a result, the political system is going to resist fiscal consolidation. This means the risk of something serious happening in the U.S. in the next two or three years is significant.
(c) GLOBAL VIEWPOINT NETWORK/TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES
Roubini: Greek Crisis is Only Tip of Sovereign Debt Iceberg
By Nouriel Roubini
Global Viewpoint
Word Count: 944
Nouriel Roubini, a professor of economics at New York University and chairman of Roubini Global Economics has come to be popularly known as "Dr. Doom" for having predicted the recent financial crisis. He is author of "Crisis Economics: A Crash Course in the Future of Finance." His comments here are adapted from remarks at the Milken Global Conference in Beverly Hills, California, on Wednesday, April 28.
LOS ANGELES -- Financial crises have occurred very often in history. They are caused by unsustainable bubbles that go bust, and from excessive risk-taking and debt-leveraging by the private sector during the bubble. Then in the wake of, and as part of the response to, the economic downturn, government debts and deficits grow to unsustainable levels that can lead to default or inflation if not corrected. The crisis we are going through now follows this pattern.
Today there is a lot of talk about "de-leveraging," yet the data shows that de-leveraging has barely begun. Debt ratios in the corporate sector as well as households in the U.S. have essentially stabilized at high levels.
At the same time, we are seeing a massive "re-leveraging" of the public sector with budget deficits on the order of 10 percent of GDP. The IMF and OECD are projecting that the stock of public debt in advanced economies is going to double and reach an average level of 100 percent of GDP in the coming years.
This is all actually quite typical of what happens in a financial crisis. What explains this re-leveraging? First, "automatic stabilizers" (such as unemployment compensation) came into play during the recession. Second, countercyclical fiscal policies (such as tax cuts and spending increases) have been implemented by government to avoid depression because private demand is collapsing. Third, we have decided to socialize some of the private losses in the financial, corporate and housing sectors and put them on the balance sheet of the government.
So, there is a massive buildup of public debt. And the lesson of history is that unless this buildup of sovereign debt is tackled eventually by raising taxes and controlling spending, then there are only two outcomes: default or high inflation.
Historically, we have seen a series of defaults and sovereign debt crises in both advanced and emerging market economies. If you are a country like the U.S., the U.K. or Japan that can monetize its fiscal deficits, then you won't have a sovereign debt event but high inflation that erodes the value of public debt. Inflation is therefore basically a capital transfer from creditors and savers to borrowers and dissavers, essentially from the private sector to the government.
While the markets these days are worrying about Greece, it is only the tip of the iceberg, or the canary in the coal mine of a much broader range of fiscal crises. Today it is Greece. Tomorrow it will be Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Iceland. Sooner or later Japan and the U.S. will be at the core of the problem, shaking the global economy.
We need to recognize that we are in the next stage of financial crisis. The coming issue is not private-sector liabilities, but pubic-sector liabilities.
Revived economic growth alone will not generate enough tax revenue to relieve this sovereign debt crisis. Fiscal deficits are huge and structural. They are not due solely to a cyclical downturn in growth but to long-term commitments such as pensions, social security and health care. To avoid default or high inflation, the advanced economies will require some combination of raising revenues through taxes and cutting government spending.
In Europe, where tax rates are already very high, the right adjustment is cutting spending instead of raising taxes further. In the U.S., the average tax burden as a share of GDP is much lower than in other advanced economies. The right adjustment for the U.S. would be to phase in revenue increases gradually over time so that you don't kill the recovery while controlling the growth of government spending.
What worries me most is the political gridlock in Washington. While everyone agrees that $10 trillion deficits (by the Obama administration's own estimates) for the next decade are not sustainable, there is no political will to act. The two parties are completely divided. Effectively, the Republicans are against any form of revenue increases. The Democrats are against spending cuts, especially of entitlements.
If the Republicans take control of the House of Representatives in the next election and refuse any revenue increases while the Democrats veto spending cuts, the path of least resistance will be runaway fiscal deficits which will then be monetized by the Federal Reserve, which has already embarked on this path. In just the last year alone, the Federal Reserve has bought $1.8 trillion of Treasury securities and agency debt, a course that will inevitably lead to high inflation if sustained. It is what is popularly known as printing money.
In Greece (with yields higher than 12 percent on two-year bonds -- ed.) or Spain or Portugal, the bond markets are forcing an adjustment. In spite of the recession, the markets are telling them to either straighten out their problems or go bankrupt.
Unfortunately, there is no such adjustment being forced upon Washington at the moment because the bond market has not woken up to the dangers ahead. You can borrow at a zero percent rate on the short end and 3.6 percent on the long end. As a result, the political system is going to resist fiscal consolidation. This means the risk of something serious happening in the U.S. in the next two or three years is significant.
(c) GLOBAL VIEWPOINT NETWORK/TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)
