Mediaboss Marketing

PARIS (AP) More than 20 African heads of state and top officials from European governments, the European Union and the International Monetary Fund agreed Tuesday to seek an additional $100 billion for reviving Africas economies crippled by the COVID-19 pandemic.

French President Emmanuel Macron hosted the Paris summit aimed at finding ways to help Africa face the crisis and return to growth, with the support of international organizations, including the IMF, the World Bank and the African Union.

Macron called on the international community to set a new deal for Africa nations. He said the financing needs of the continent are estimated at about $300 billion by 2025.

This moment may be an opportunity to finally respond to huge challenges Africa is facing, he said at a news conference. Economies in sub-Saharan Africa together shrank 1.9% last year in an unprecedented recession.

Participants also agreed Africa should be able to massively produce vaccines on the continent for its own population, notably via technology transfers and lifting barriers to intellectual property, Macron said.

IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva confirmed the organization will issue this year $650 billion worldwide in special drawing rights, a foreign exchange tool used to help finance imports. That would include $33 billion for the African continent.

Participants agreed Tuesday to seek to triple the amount and reach $100 billion via the reallocation to African nations of some of the money initially meant to go to advanced economies.

France and other European countries are ready to contribute and a discussion is starting, especially with the United States, to reach a deal by this autumn, Macron said.

Lets be very clear: No, it is not enough, Georgieva said. We have to bring financing from developing organizations. ... We have to make the private sector attractive.

Georgieva warned against a dangerous divergence between advanced economies and developing countries, especially Africa.

The European Union last year adopted a 750 billion euro ($910 billion) pandemic recovery plan. The U.S. Congress approved a $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief bill in March.

This is a great opportunity for Africa, said Congolese President Felix Tshisekedi, the current head of the African Union. The pandemic left our economies impoverished because we had to use all the means we had, the few means we had, to fight against the disease.

Leaders also discussed ways to relieve the debt of African nations and how to reduce interest rates for Africas private sector to boost investment and growth.

EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced a new initiative to mobilize substantial financing and technical expertise to address key bottlenecks that hold back young entrepreneurs and small business owners across Africa.

Senegalese economist Khadim Bamba Diagne said that the big problem that we have is that we have a very young population that is not working because all the markets have been taken over by foreign companies, especially because the debts are conditioned: I lend to you and in return it is my companies that are going to dominate the markets.

___

Associated Press writer Cheikh Sy in Dakar, Senegal, contributed to this report.

See the original post here:
Leaders agree in Paris on helping African economies revive - Associated Press

On May 10, 2021, the EU adopted its new, revised version of Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 (the Regulation). It is widely acknowledged to be the first major reform to the structure of the EUs export control regime since 2009.

The text of the Regulation was approved by the European Parliament on March 26, 2021. In November 2020, the Council and European Parliament representatives reached a provisional political agreement on the Regulation. The reform of EU export controls had initially been proposed by the European Commission in September 2016.

The Regulation introduces, inter alia:

We comment below on a number of these highlights.

The main feature of the Regulation concerns the area of human rights, dealing with such things as surveillance and facial recognition software.

The Regulation does not add specific cyber-surveillance items to the Dual-Use Control List in Annex I. Rather, it sets out new Articles 5(1) and 5(2) creating a catch-all prohibition of any unlicensed export of cyber-surveillance items (whether or not listed) if:

or

In the latter case, the exporter is required to notify its competent authority (understood to be its Member State export licensing authority), which will then decide whether or not to make the export subject to an authorisation requirement. Article 26(1) provides that the European Commission and the Council of the European Union, as well as Member States, will publish guidelines for exporters to apply in doing their due diligence.

Article 5(3) allows individual Member States to impose their own additional export license requirements for cyber-surveillance items not on the Dual-Use Control List.

Articles 5(4) and 5(6) create an EU-level coordination mechanism providing for notification of other Member States when one Member State decides to impose a licensing requirement under Article 5(1), 5(2) or 5(3).

Article 26(2) requires the European Commission to prepare and release to the public an annual report detailing for each Member State information about the applications received for each cyber-surveillance item, the destinations involved, and the granting or denial of the applications. Civil society groups have called this new transparency rule a landmark development which will allow the public, civil society, journalists, and parliamentarians to scrutinize licensing decisions to ensure they are in accordance with law and provide an invaluable insight into the EU trade in surveillance technology.[1]

Under Article 9, a Member State is authorised to prohibit or impose an authorisation requirement on exports of items not on the Dual-Use Control List for reasons of public security, including the prevention of acts of terrorism, or for human rights considerations. These Member State measures are to be notified to and published by the European Commission. Pursuant to a new Article 10, exporters in other Member States are then prohibited from making unlicensed exports of the items from the EU if they have been informed by their respective competent authorities (understood to be their own Member State export licensing authorities) that the items in question are or may be intended for uses of concern with respect to public security or to human rights considerations.

The end result of Article 10 is that when one Member State prohibits or imposes a licensing requirement for an item not already on the Dual-Use Control List, the export licensing authorities of other Member States will have the legal authority by virtue of the Regulation to impose the same prohibition or licensing requirement. This provision is consistent, at least to some degree, with the aim of harmonisation intended by the Regulation. In Member States whose legislation does not empower their licensing authorities unilaterally to impose export licensing requirements on new items, the Regulation effectively transfers legislative authority from one organ of Member State government (the legislature) to another (the export licensing authority). When enforcement cases arise under new Article 10, we may see exporters in some Member States raise constitutional questions about the validity of this transfer of law-making power from the legislature to the export licensing agency. By exercising their power under Article 10(1), however, the export licensing agency would presumably be acting under the Regulation pursuant to the authority conferred by Article 207(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which confers exclusive jurisdiction on the EU to legislate on matters affecting the Unions common commercial policy. Such constitutional questions under Member State law may, therefore, be quickly overcome by Article 207(2) and resolved on the basis of the primacy of EU law over national law.

Article 8 of the revised Regulation sets out notification and authorisation requirements for a provider of technical assistance related to items on the Dual-Use Control List, if the provider is aware that the assistance is intended for use in connection with weapons of mass destruction or other specified military uses. Member States may also extend the application of this article to items not on the Dual-Use Control List.

The definition of provider of technical assistance is found in Article 2(10) and is very broad. It includes:

(1) natural or legal persons that provide technical assistance from the EU to the territory of a third country;

(2) natural or legal persons resident or established in the EU that provide technical assistance within the territory of a third country; and

(3) natural or legal persons resident or established in the EU that provide technical assistance to a resident of a third country temporarily present in the EU.

The coverage in item (3) above of technical assistance to a resident of a third country temporarily present in the customs territory of the Union is revolutionary for the EU, because it effectively creates a new deemed export control (the term used in the U.S. export control system for disclosures of technical data within the United States to non-U.S. persons). Is one temporarily present in the EU for purposes of this new rule whenever one does not have permanent residence status in an EU Member State? If so, this new EU rule will operate very much like its U.S. counterpart.

Once the European Parliament and the Council sign the adopted regulation, it will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and will enter into force 90 days later. We expect the revised Regulation to be published this month or next and enter into force as soon as September 2021.

We will closely monitor activity around the revised Regulation and provide ongoing updates at our blog here.

[1] New EU Dual Use Regulation agreement a missed opportunity to stop exports of surveillance tools to repressive regimes, published on March 25, 2021 and available here.

Go here to read the rest:
A New Era of Export Controls Begins in the EU: The Revised EU Dual-Use Export Controls to Promote Human Rights - JD Supra

Joining Michael this week for the podcast quarterly check in with Europe is International Competition specialist Oliver Heinisch from London. Oliver shares the latest updates from the continent, including insight on Brexit, European merger controls, and the adequacy of GDPR enforcement.

Oliver is a partner in the Antitrust and Competition Practice Group in Sheppard Mullins London and Brussels offices. Oliver advises on all areas of EU, UK and German competition law with a focus on international Seemore+

Oliver is a partner in the Antitrust and Competition Practice Group in Sheppard Mullins London and Brussels offices. Oliver advises on all areas of EU, UK and German competition law with a focus on international cartel and abuse of dominance procedures including related antitrust litigation matters as well as merger control law. He also regularly advises clients on questions relating to the UKs decision to leave the European Union.

What We Discussed in This Episode:

What is the latest with Brexit and the Trade and Cooperation Agreement?

What is happening in Northern Ireland vis--vis Brexit?

How is the relationship between the UK and the European Union (EU) developing?

What has the EU decided in regard to the UKs adequacy of data protection?

What type of guidance has the EU Commission issued regarding merger transactions?

How will merger controls be handled going forward?

Is there potential for blind overregulation of digital markets?

Is there underenforcement of the GDPR?

What does Europe have to do to kickstart its economy as it emerges from the pandemic?

Seeless-

Go here to read the rest:
Nota Bene Episode 123: Europe Q2 Check In - Brexit Updates and Antitrust Laws in the Digital Economy with Oliver Heinisch - JD Supra

Andrew Yang thinks community boards are a bastion of democracy even if they end up obstructing his agenda as mayor.

At a Battery Park press conference on Tuesday announcing his plans for democracy reform which include lowering the municipal voting age to 16 and granting non-citizens the right to vote Streetsblog asked Yang how community boards fit into his vision. Are these groups of citizens who are appointed by borough presidents and local council members more likely to be conduits of popular democracy or do they have too much influence over city governance?

What an interesting question. I feel like community boards are tremendous because its people stepping up in their neighborhoods trying to address and resolve issues that matter to them and their neighbors, the candidate replied. I have a very hard time imagining how you could see community boards as anything but positive for democracy, because its a very high level of civic engagement.

Reminded that community boards often impede life-saving bike lanes and traffic calming infrastructure, Yang insisted he had no issue with them.

Its interesting. Again, I appreciate the people that want to give a voice to interests in their communities. I just see that as something to be admired, Yang said.

Community boards have no actual authority to make laws or veto city projects their volunteer roles are purely advisory. Yet over the years, city government, especially the Department of Transportation, has given community boards an outsized amount of influence that is mostly used to discourage the administration from carrying out road redesigns that can make the city safer.

Members of community boards have delayed street calming measures and crucial bike infrastructure across the city in many cases for years, costing lives. Their members have stoked a racist police crackdown on delivery cyclists, advocated for tow pounds over affordable housing, suggested that some pedestrians deserve to die, and that low-income workers dont have a right to relieve themselves with dignity. They have opposed popular programs like open streets and the installation of Citi Bike racks, and demand the right to break traffic laws when the laws dont suit them.

One community board even used city money to buy itself a fancy car.

Mostly, their objections to changing the lived environment boils down to complaints overa loss of parking spaces, a position that is out of step with a city that largely does not own cars, and would prefer to see valuable curbside real estate used for something else. Sometimes, members of community boards complain about a lack of engagement by the DOT.

In 2018, New Yorkers voted to amend the city charter to limit the service of community board members to four consecutive two-year terms. The amendment also stated that borough presidents must turn over demographic information on the citys 59 community boards to ensure that they actually represent their neighborhoods, but so far that data has been spotty.

Yang clearly hasnt acquainted himself with the lengthy, paint-peeling community board process (sometimes there are fisticuffs and Epstein allegations!) since he was asked about community opposition to bike infrastructure at the Bike NY forum in March.

Other candidates werent much better. The New York Times-endorsed Kathryn Garcia said she would keep the boards advisory role, but wouldnt let them stop the DOTs bike network. Shaun Donovan said something about introducing improvements as part of a comprehensive set of options. Ray McGuire had his bicycle in the frame behind him.

Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams, who is virtually running neck-and-neck with Yang in the recent polls that still show undecided dominating, said he would use credible messengers to dispel the notion that bike lanes are akin to gentrification. But he also said this: Ive communicated with community board members around the borough, and Im telling you that at the heart of their concerns, they feel, Eric, no one is talking to us; theyre talking at us.

Scott Stringer had a somewhat valiant, if unrealistic plan for addressing community boards: I will commit to this: As mayor, Ill go to community boards. Ill build consensus around the table.

While Yang was in front of the Statue of Liberty to ostensibly talk about his democracy reforms, he also took the opportunity to hypea recent New York Times story that detailed how Adams reaped campaign donations from firms with business before the city, and then multiplied those donations under the citys matching funds program.

Seeing another candidate violate these rules and then dismiss it as a paperwork issue is extraordinarily upsetting, Yang told reporters, adding that he had filed a complaint with the citys Campaign Finance Board. New York: Eric Adams took your tax dollars and used them to amplify special interests here in New York City that did not need it.

Streetsblog asked Yang if he too could be accused of amplifying special interests since his top campaign adviser was a longtime lobbyist in New York for clients like the Police Benevolent Association and Uber. The lobbyist, Bradley Tusk, literally referred to Yang as an empty vessel, which we pointed out to the candidate.

I think theres a major, major distinction between people who work on your campaign who may have lobbied at some point, which I think is true with just about every campaign, and violating campaign finance rules in front of all of us, Yang replied.

Adamss campaign responded to Yangs critique with its own letter to the CFB, alleging self-dealing between Yangs mayoral campaign, his nonprofit, and his presidential campaign.

Andrew Yang literally paid himself from his own campaign to run for office and had his campaign buy more than $225,000 worth of copies of his book, Adamss campaign spokesperson Evan Thies said in a statement. Hes funneled more than $1 million from his dark money nonprofit to his two campaigns, loaned his bankrupt presidential campaign hundreds of thousands of dollars, and left a trail of highly questionable activity between multiple entities that promote him. If anyone deserves to be investigated, its Andrew Yang.

Go here to see the original:
Andrew Yang Says Community Boards are 'Positive For Democracy' Even When Reminded That They're Not - Streetsblog New York

In the last few years, many elected leaders have attacked voting rights, cast doubt on free and fair elections, and served private interests over the public good. To pull American democracy back from the brink, we must use the full force of the lawand four laws will, if passed, set us on the right track.

Lets pretend, for a moment, that its November 2022election season. Youre a proud Georgian, born and raised, and youre ready to cast your ballot. What do you do?

Well, voting is about to get harder. If you want an absentee ballot, youll need a state ID. If you dont have one, too badand if you do, youd better hurry: You have half the time you had before to request an absentee ballot. Did you use a ballot drop-box in 2020? Good luck finding one now. And if you do everything rightif you show up at the right polling place at the right time (easier said than done) and wait in line for hours in the sweltering Georgian heat, nobodynot your friend, neighbor, or pastorcan give you water to drink.

These are real requirements of a real law, rammed through by state legislators in March. And Georgia isnt unique. Across the country, legislators are cracking down on voting accessslashing early voting, purging voter rolls, and closing polling sites. They do so in the name of election security, but these reforms are new clothes for the old Jim Crow. Rather than make elections safer and fairer, they aim to make voters whiter and wealthier.

Consider photo-ID requirements. On the surface, they might seem benigndoesnt everybody have a photo ID? In fact, millions dont, and Black, Latino, and Indigenous people are less likely than white people to have them. Black voters are also more likely to take advantage of early voting, and in the 2020 elections in Georgia, more Black voters relied on mail-in voting than white voters.

These legislators may feign innocence, but they know who these insidious bills will hurt: Black people, young people, urbanites, and other voters of color. In fact, thats the point. For these officials, its hard to appeal to diverse constituents, and easier to keep them from voting at all.

So how do officials justify these measures? Often, with lies. By peddling falsehoodsthat voter fraud is rampant (its not), noncitizens vote in droves (they dont), and the 2020 election was stolen (it wasnt)unethical leaders can rationalize their assaults on free and fair elections. These lies have consequences, not only for those robbed of their rights, but for democracy as a whole: On January 6th, Trump supporters, wrongly convinced that Trump had won re-election, stormed the US Capitol in what many deemed an attempted coup.

But all is not lost. To restore American democracy, we must start with four laws.

If enacted, the law would:

In the US today, elections arent competitivein 2016, only 4% of House races were considered toss-ups. Because only one party can represent people in single-seat districts, millions of Americans are represented by leaders they oppose. Worse, this system makes it possible for a single party to control leadership in the House even if another party wins more votes.

The Fair Representation Act (FRA) would change this. If enacted, the law would:

That law, the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965, remains one of the nations greatest legislative achievements, a triumph of integrity and equity over racism and oppression. Among many things, the VRA required some states, those with histories of discriminatory voting practices, to get federal permission to make changes to their voting laws. This preclearance requirement kept jurisdictions from installing new barriers to voting, barriers that usually hobble the rights of Black and Brown voters. But in 2013, the Supreme Court struck down the VRAs preclearance requirement, a devastating assault on voting protections.

The JLVRAA, named after the late civil rights activist and House Representative John Lewis, would restore preclearance, expand the types of voting changes that would require it, and let federal courts scrutinize a broader array of potentially discriminatory voting laws. For decades, the VRA worked to protect people of color from voting discrimination. It is vital that the JLVRAA pick up the mantle.

More than 700,000 people call DC homemore people than live in Vermont or Wyoming. Per capita, DC residents pay more in federal taxes than any state, and men in DC must, like all US men, register for the draft. But while DC residents have the same responsibilities as residents of states, they dont have the same rights: They have neither senators nor voting representatives. In other words, the residents of DC endure taxation without representation.

This is not only undemocratic, but racist. Washington, DC is a historically Black city, and nearly half of DC residents are Black. The US government has long overrepresented white people and underrepresented everyone else. Nowhere is this more apparent than in DC, a diverse city with no voice in federal government.

The Washington, DC Admission Act would right this wrong, making DC the 51st state and giving it the same rights enjoyed by other states, including two senators in Congress and a voting representative in the House. After more than 200 years of systemic inequality faced by DC residents, its time for change.

Most Americans support these election reforms, but the path to passing these bills is long and difficult. Our congressional leaders are cleaved by bitter partisan divide, and the filibuster rule has left the minority party with outsized control and very little interest in representing the public.

But failure is not an option. Without a functioning democracy, none of our other hopesfor health, safety, clean air and water, good jobs, education, a stable climateare possible. What can we do?

Posted in: Science Advocacy, Science and Democracy Tags: Democracy Reform, election reform, Voting rights

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.

Go here to read the rest:
How to Stop the Dismantling of Democracy - Union of Concerned Scientists