Two
United Nations human rights experts today welcomed the holding of a
referendum in Greece to decide by democratic process the path to
follow to solve the Greek economic crisis without deterioration in
the human rights situation.
The
UN Independent Experts on the promotion of a democratic and equitable
international order, Alfred de Zayas, and on human rights and
international solidarity, Virginia Dandan, stressed that there is
much more at stake than debt repayment obligations, echoing a
warning* issued earlier this month by the UN Independent Expert on
foreign debt and human rights, Juan Pablo Bohoslavsky.
“All
human rights institutions and mechanisms should welcome the Greek
referendum as an eloquent expression of the self-determination of the
Greek people in conformity with article 1 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in pursuance of article 25
ICCPR on public participation. Indeed, a democratic and equitable
international order requires participation by all concerned
stakeholders in decision-making and respect for due process, which
can best be achieved through international solidarity and a human
rights approach to the solution of all problems, including financial
crises.
It
is disappointing that the IMF and the EU have failed to reach a
solution that does not require additional retrogressive austerity
measures. Some leaders have expressed dissatisfaction with the idea
of holding a referendum in Greece. Why? Referenda are in the best
traditions of democratic governance.
No
one can expect the Prime Minister of Greece to renounce the
commitments he made to the people who elected him with a clear
mandate to negotiate a fair solution that does not dismantle Greek
democracy and lead to further unemployment and social misery.
Capitulating to an ultimatum imposing further austerity measures on
the Greek population would be incompatible with the democratic trust
placed on the Greek Prime Minister by the electorate. By nature,
every State has the responsibility to protect the welfare of all
persons living under its jurisdiction. This encompasses fiscal and
budgetary sovereignty and regulatory space which cannot be trumped by
outside actors, whether States, inter-governmental organizations or
creditors.
Article
103 of the UN Charter stipulates that the Charter provisions prevail
over all other treaties, therefore no treaty or loan agreement can
force a country to violate the civil, cultural, economic, political
and social rights of its population, nor can a loan agreement negate
the sovereignty of a State. Any agreement that would require such a
violation of human rights and customary international law is contra
bonos mores and hence null and void pursuant to Art. 53 of the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties.
A
democratic and equitable international order requires a commercial
and financial regime that facilitates the realization of all human
rights. Inter-governmental organizations must foster and under no
conditions hinder the achievement of the plenitude of human rights.
Foreign
debt is no excuse to derogate from or violate human rights or to
cause retrogression in contravention of articles 2 and 5 of the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
In
2013, the Independent Expert on foreign debt and human rights stated
that the policy austerity measures adopted to secure additional
financing from the International Monetary Fund, the European
Commission and the European Central Bank had pushed the Greek economy
into recession and generally undermined the enjoyment of human
rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights.
This
is the moment for the international community to demonstrate
solidarity with the people of Greece, to respect their democratic
will as expressed in a referendum, to proactively help them out of
this financial crisis, which finds a major cause in the financial
meltdown of 2007-08, for which Greece bears no responsibility.
Indeed,
democracy means self-determination, and self-determination often
calls for referenda – also in Greece.”
Source:
Ωραία όλα αυτά, αλλά ας σημειωθεί ότι η δημοκρατία ήταν ένα πολίτευμα που οι περισσότεροι Έλληνες στοχαστές αποδοκίμαζαν.
ReplyDeleteΚαι για να το δικαιολογήσουμε εν μέρει αυτό γιατί υπάρχουν κι άλλες αιτίες,αναφέρουμε ότι στην δημοκρατία έχει δικαίωμα να ψηφίζει ή να διεκδικεί θέσεις και ο πιο βλάκας
Τέλεια. Οπότε ας βάλουμε τους "έξυπνους" τραπεζίτες να ψηφίζουν για τα συμφέροντα του "βλάκα" λαού.
DeleteΑγαπητέ φίλε εγώ δεν υπονόησα κάτι ούτε και αποκάλεσα ΄΄βλάκα΄΄ κανέναν. Τα παραπάνω αναγραφόμενα από εμένα δεν είναι κάποιου είδους προπαγάνδα. Είναι μια γνώμη για την δημοκρατία και ούτε καν λόγια δικά μου, είναι λόγια άλλων που δεν μπορούμε να τους ασκήσουμε κριτική γιατί δεν έχουμε το ΄΄μέγεθός΄΄ τους.
DeleteΠάντως θα δούμε την Κυριακή που μας έρχεται αν η λέξη ΄΄βλάκας΄΄ θα μείνει σε εισαγωγικά ή αυτά θα απαλειφθούν.
Προσωπικά τάσσομαι υπέρ του ΟΧΙ.
Αγαπητέ φίλε, δεν αμφιβάλω για τις προθέσεις σου. Απλά χρησιμποποίησα μια υπερβολή για να δείξω ότι κάποιοι είναι έτοιμοι να εκμεταλλευτούν κάποιες απόψεις για να επιβαλουν πράγματα που ούτε καν θα μας περνούσαν από το μυαλό πριν από 2-3 δεκαετίες.
ReplyDelete