IndyMedia - Vrij Media Centrum Nederland

Wanneer: 05/01/2014 - 22:09

The global financial crisis of 2009, which affected the West far more than other regions, was, in my view, a consequence of a UN decision on 10 December 2008. In my view, it was a deliberate decision at the UN that the West would go into 'permanent' decline.

What people have not been told about GFC 2009 - West in 'permanent' decline.

Anthony Ravlich
Human Rights Council (New Zealand)
10D/15 City Rd.
Auckland City.
Ph: (0064) (09) 940.9658

What people have not been told about the GFC 2009. Email to a German Facebook friend. Added a Post Script to provide some technical details.

"Since the onset of IMF globalization policies in the late 1970's under classes were created and exploitation permitted - those countries best able to exploit a vast work force gained the competitive advantage e.g. China and India.

Between 2004 - 2008 the UN dealt with economic, social and cultural rights which are concerned with social justice including exploitation. It would have been expected that the UN would stop such exploitation so countries competed on the basis of creative growth requiring individual freedoms for seeking of truth and new ideas to enable progress. BUT the UN failed to protect against exploitation.

It was a major concern of the Corporations that the UN might have protected against exploitation and when it didn't it meant they could safely relocate to countries with cheaper labor. The UN made this decision on 10 December 2008 and this was the major reason I consider for the global financial crisis in 2009 and the EU is still feeling the aftershocks - minus growth last two years, over 12% unemployment (and probably high underemployment).

And I can add that it my opinion, (ch5 of my book discusses what happened at the UN) the UN deliberately decided that the West, including the EU, was to go into 'permanent' decline. Unlike those in the global establishment who think it better people are protected from such hard truths I have always exercised a duty in human rights to inform people of important truth - also, in my view, it is better said than not".

PS, The human rights instrument adopted by the UN General Assembly on the 10 December 2008 was the Optional Protocol (OP) to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights It established for the first time under international law the equal status between the very controversial economic, social and cultural rights and civil and political rights as now both had complaints procedures. The OP for civil and political rights has been in force since 23 March 1976.

Remembering that economic, social and cultural rights were at the center of an ideological battle at the UN between East and West during the Cold War and also that America opposed the adoption of the OP throughout the discussions at the UN while the ‘American camp’ provided resistance.

Yet its adoption attracted no controversy. To my knowledge my book, released about six months before its adoption, was the only public dissent at the time.

The OP entered into force under international human rights law on 5 May 2013 but, in my view, people would have experienced the effects as from the time of its adoption. It resulted in a major rebalancing of global ideological and economic power from the West to other regions. The West was affected far worse than other regions as a consequence of the global financial crisis.

My book is, 'Freedom from our social prisons: the rise of economic, social and cultural rights' (Lexington Books, 2008). Chapter 5 deals with the OP. The book was later to be recommended on the UN website for two years. It outlines an ethical approach to human rights, development and globalization to replace neoliberalism.
Also, in my view, it is one of the great tragedies of the age we live in that with the rare exception academics have become ideologically captured. These are individuals because they would have had to be very bright to get into their positions who could have offered so much more for humanity. The following are some of the rare exceptions discussing the optional protocol that was adopted at the UN on 10 December 2008. They consider the OP was ideologically driven rather than based on the universality of the declaration:

Arne Vandenbogaerde (Human Rights Consultant) and Wouter Vandenhole (Professor of Human Rights Law, UNICEF Chair in Children's Rights, University of Antwerp Law Research School state in the abstract to their article: "In this article it is submitted that the text of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as finally adopted on 10 December 2008, is to be seen as the outcome of a drafting process that was dominated by ideological prejudices rather than concerns with potential effectiveness of rights…… At times an absolutist search for consensus seems to have been the driving force behind weakening the text" (The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: an Ex Ante Assessment of its Effectiveness in Light of the Drafting Process, Human Rights Law Review (2010) doi: 10.1093/hrlr/ngq004 First published online: May 13, 2010).