“Tolerance is respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world’s cultures, our forms of expression and ways of being human.” UNESCO’s 1995 Declaration of Principles on Tolerance.
In 1996, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 51/95 proclaiming 16 November as International Day for Tolerance.
This action followed the adoption of a Declaration of Principles on Tolerance by UNESCO’s Member States on 16 November 1995. Among other things, the Declaration affirms that tolerance is neither indulgence nor indifference. It is respect and appreciation of the rich variety of our world’s cultures, our forms of expression and ways of being human. Tolerance recognizes the universal human rights and fundamental freedoms of others. People are naturally diverse; only tolerance can ensure the survival of mixed communities in every region of the globe.
In 1995, to mark the United Nations Year for Tolerance and the 125th anniversary of the birth of Mahatma Gandhi, UNESCO created a prize for the promotion of tolerance and non-violence. The UNESCO-Madanjeet Singh Prize for the Promotion of Tolerance and Non-Violence rewards significant activities in the scientific, artistic, cultural or communication fields aimed at the promotion of a spirit of tolerance and non-violence. The creation of the Prize has been inspired by the ideals of UNESCO’s Constitution that proclaims that “peace, if it is not to fail, must be founded on the intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind”. The prize is awarded every two years on the International Day for Tolerance, 16 November. The Prize may be awarded to institutions, organizations or persons, who have contributed in a particularly meritorious and effective manner to tolerance and non-violence.
MESSAGE FROM THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL
“At a time when extremism and fanaticism are unleashed too often, at a time when the venom of hatred continues to poison a part of humanity, tolerance has never been more vital a virtue.”
— Audrey Azoulay, Director-General of UNESCO on the occasion of the International Day for Tolerance
Each Government is responsible for enforcing human rights laws, for banning and punishing hate crimes and discrimination against minorities, whether these are committed by State officials, private organizations or individuals. The State must also ensure equal access to courts, human rights commissioners or ombudsmen, so that people do not take justice into their own hands and resort to violence to settle their disputes.
2. Fighting intolerance requires education:
Laws are necessary but not sufficient for countering intolerance in individual attitudes. Intolerance is very often rooted in ignorance and fear: fear of the unknown, of the other, other cultures, nations, religions. Intolerance is also closely linked to an exaggerated sense of self-worth and pride, whether personal, national or religious. These notions are taught and learned at an early age. Therefore, greater emphasis needs to be placed on educating more and better. Greater efforts need to be made to teach children about tolerance and human rights, about other ways of life. Children should be encouraged at home and in school to be open-minded and curious.
Education is a life-long experience and does not begin or end in school. Endeavours to build tolerance through education will not succeed unless they reach all age groups, and take place everywhere: at home, in schools, in the workplace, in law-enforcement and legal training, and not least in entertainment and on the information highways.
3. Fighting intolerance requires access to information:
Intolerance is most dangerous when it is exploited to fulfil the political and territorial ambitions of an individual or groups of individuals. Hatemongers often begin by identifying the public’s tolerance threshold. They then develop fallacious arguments, lie with statistics and manipulate public opinion with misinformation and prejudice. The most efficient way to limit the influence of hatemongers is to develop policies that generate and promote press freedom and press pluralism, in order to allow the public to differentiate between facts and opinions.
Intolerance in a society is the sum-total of the intolerance of its individual members. Bigotry, stereotyping, stigmatizing, insults and racial jokes are examples of individual expressions of intolerance to which some people are subjected daily. Intolerance breeds intolerance. It leaves its victims in pursuit of revenge. In order to fight intolerance individuals should become aware of the link between their behavior and the vicious cycle of mistrust and violence in society. Each one of us should begin by asking: am I a tolerant person? Do I stereotype people? Do I reject those who are different from me? Do I blame my problems on ‘them’?
5. Fighting intolerance requires local solutions:
Many people know that tomorrow’s problems will be increasingly global but few realize that solutions to global problems are mainly local, even individual. When confronted with an escalation of intolerance around us, we must not wait for governments and institutions to act alone. We are all part of the solution. We should not feel powerless for we actually posses an enormous capacity to wield power. Nonviolent action is a way of using that power-the power of people. The tools of nonviolent action-putting a group together to confront a problem, to organize a grassroots network, to demonstrate solidarity with victims of intolerance, to discredit hateful propaganda-are available to all those who want to put an end to intolerance, violence and hatred.
How countries are raising debt to fight COVID and . . . why developing nations face tougher choices by Shamel Azmeh, Lecturer in International Development, Global Development Institute, University of Manchester is about the pandemic that is affecting all countries as described by the World Bank’s article as a heat-seeking missile speeding toward the most vulnerable in society. That metaphor applies not just to the vulnerable in the rich world; the vulnerable in the rest of the world is not more immune.
How countries are raising debt to fight COVID and why developing nations face tougher choices
COVID continues to ravage societies around the world, and a key issue is how governments can afford to fight it. As economies are disrupted, governments are stepping in to increase their spending to bail out companies, pay the cost of health measures, and subsidise workers’ wages.
Before COVID, when people argued that the state should be able to offer free healthcare and free education, among other services, and welfare measures, a standard political response was that state resources were limited. Asked by a nurse in 2017 why her wages hadn’t increased from 2009 levels, then British prime minister, Theresa May, said: “There is no magic money tree that we can shake that suddenly provides for everything that people want.”
Except, a few years later, the government has not only been able to pay the wages of millions, it has also created rescue packages for thousands of firms and offered people vouchers to eat out in restaurants. A number of European countries have also taken the unprecedented step of underwriting the wages of millions of workers in response to the pandemic.
How is the British state and others capable of this radical increase in spending at a time when revenues from taxes are collapsing?
‘Magic money tree’
The answer to this lies in the debt market. Over the past few months, world governments have drastically increased their borrowing to cover the costs of the pandemic. It might appear logical that the cost of credit will go up during uncertain economic times. The reality, however, is that capital often goes to safer sovereign debt during economic downturns, particularly as the equity markets become unstable and volatile.
Over recent months, rather than struggling to find lenders or having to pay more for debt, the governments of the major economies have been awash with credit at historically low rates. In October, the EU, until now a small player in the debt market (as borrowing mostly is by national governments of member states), began a major borrowing campaign as part of the efforts to fight COVID through the SURE programme (Support to mitigate Unemployment Risks in an Emergency) which was created in May.
The first sale of bonds worth €17 billion was met with what some described as “outrageous demand”, with investors bidding a total of €233 billion to buy them. This intense competition was for bonds that offered a return of -0.26% over ten years, meaning that an investor who holds the bond to maturity will receive less than they paid today.
The EU is not the only borrower that is effectively being paid to borrow money. Many of the advanced economies have been in recent years and months selling debt at negative rates. For some countries, the shift has been dramatic. Even countries such as Spain, Italy and Greece that were previously seen as relatively risky borrowers, with Greece going through a major debt crisis, are now enjoying borrowing money at very low rates.
The reason for this phenomenon is that while these bonds are initially bought by “traditional” market actors, central banks are buying huge quantities of these bonds once they are circulated in the market. For a few years now, the European Central Bank (ECB) has been an active buyer of European government bonds – not directly from governments but from the secondary market (from investors who bought these bonds earlier). This ECB asset purchase programme was expanded to help weather the COVID crisis, with the ECB spending €676 billion on government bonds from the start of 2020 until September.
Other central banks in the major advanced economies are following the same strategy. Through these programmes, those central banks encourage investors to keep buying government bonds with the knowledge that the demand for those bonds in the secondary market will remain strong.
Not everybody, however, enjoys a similar position in the debt market. While the rich economies are being chased by investors to take their money, the situation is radically different for poorer countries. Many poor countries have limited access to the credit market and rely instead on public lenders, such as the World Bank.
In recent years, this pattern began to change with a growing number of developing countries increasing their foreign borrowing from private lenders. Developing countries, however, are in a structurally weaker position than richer peers. The smaller scale of their capital markets mean that they are more reliant on external financing. This reliance means that developing countries rely on raising money in foreign currency, which increases the risk to their economies.
As many developing countries have less diversified exports with a higher percentage of commodities, the price decline in commodities in recent months has increased those risks. As a result, developing countries face a significantly higher cost of borrowing compared to the richer economies.
A few large developing countries, such as Indonesia, Colombia, India and the Philippines, have begun to follow the policy adopted by the advanced economies of buying government bonds to fund an expanding deficit. The risks of doing this, however, are higher than the richer economies, including a decline in capital inflows, capital flight and currency crises. A report by the rating agency S&P Global Ratings illustrated the differences between those two economies:
Advanced countries typically have deep domestic capital markets, strong public institutions (including independent central banks), low and stable inflation, and transparency and predictability in economic policies. These attributes allow their central banks to maintain large government bond holdings without losing investor confidence, creating fear of higher inflation, or triggering capital outflow. Conversely, sovereigns with less credible public institutions and less monetary, exchange rate and fiscal flexibility have less capacity to monetise fiscal deficits without running the risk of higher inflation. This may trigger large capital outflows, devaluing the currency and prompting domestic interest rates to rise, as seen in Argentina over parts of the past decade.
While the reaction of the market to this approach by developing countries has been muted so far, the report argued, this situation might change. Developing countries who do this could “weaken monetary flexibility and economic stability, which could increase the likelihood of sovereign rating downgrades”.
In July, following the participation of Ethiopia, Pakistan, Cameroon, Senegal and the Ivory Coast in a World Bank-endorsed G20 debt suspension initiative, the rating agency Moody’s took action against those countries arguing that participation in this scheme increased the risk for investors in bonds issued by these countries, leading to some developing economies avoiding the initiative in order not to send a “negative signal to the market”. Zambia is on the verge of being the first “COVID default” and other developing countries could face a similar situation in coming months.
As a result of these dynamics, many developing countries are facing the tough choice of giving up any economically costly health measures or facing serious fiscal and economic crises. Access to credit has become a defining factor in the ability of governments to respond to the pandemic. As a result of access to cheap credit, developed economies are so far able to take such health measures while limiting the social and economic impact of the pandemic. Many developing countries do not have this luxury. Not everyone gets to shake the branches of the magical money tree.
Posted by Usama Soomro in his blog on is a response to a question that everyone who knows the Middle East pondered about. It is about whether T. E. Lawrence maker or demolisher of the modern Middle East? So here is it is.
There are uncountable hot and cold stories of Turkish, British, and German soldiers, families, and agents of World War I, most of the stories are evident and some of them are unclassified. Here is the story of a 5.5-inch young boy who changed the geography and demography of Arab countries including Saudi Arabia in the first world war. Thomas Edward Lawrence was a British agent, army officer, diplomat, and archaeologist. He was born on the 16th of August in 1888. He is known as a renowned person of first world war. His played a role in espionage during the Sinai and Palestine movement and the Arab rebellion against the Ottoman Empire during the First World War. His activities and association made him popular. In the rebellion against the Ottoman Empire. He made his name public as Thomas Edward Lawrence. His work for the people of Arab and their lands described him vividly in his writings, his deeds and in the historical aspect of history. His fame internationally coined him as Lawrence of Arabia In a film which was released in 1962, that film Lawrence of Arabia is one the great movies of all time. This film is based on his work and activities in wartime. He was a student of archaeology, history, and culture in Jesus oxford college. While studying in Oxford he spent much of his time in studies. He was fond of learning new languages, cultures, history, and religious wars. During his studies British declared the war against the ottoman empire and Germany, he had two brothers, they joined the British royal military. While serving in France they killed. Their death affected him deeply. He served as a junior archaeologist in Carchemish working for the British Museum on archaeological excavations in ottoman Syria in 1910. When the war breaks out in 1914, he joined the army as a second lieutenant. He was employed at the geographical section of war, for office works he was sent to Cairo as a map officer and liaison. His knowledge about Arabs and Arabia helped British intelligence in Cairo. However, behind the Arab mutiny, he united the Arabs to fight for their rights and their land. Until the primary warfare the total region, as well as today’s Asian nation, Syria, Israel, Asian country, Yemen, the petty Persian Gulf Dubai and Egypt, were nominally a part of the Turkish Empire with its capital at urban centre – nominally, as a result of the British Empire in impact ruled Egypt and also the Gulf states, and possessed the port of city. When the Arab rebellion started in 1916 he was posted to undertake dangerous missions inside the territory of enemies. Arabs revolted against the Ottoman Empire because the Ottoman Empire subjugated some Arab states like Syria, Damascus, and Hejaz. Hussain bin Ali started the Arab revolt against Turks. His interest in his academics made him able and his credibility helped him to do all the dangerous missions. He used to disguise himself as a common person for the secret missions. One of his secret missions was stared when the Arab revolt began in 1916. He used Arab nationalism as a weapon, the reality behind the rebellion, were some certain British people who encouraged and supported Arab revolt against the colonial rule of Turks. When he posted to Cairo, he made his mind that he has to join the group who is already fighting against Turks so he decided to join the group of guerilla campaigners, which was lead by Amir Faisal bin Hussain sheriff his father Hussain was the ruler of Hijaz state(now part of Saudi Arabia). Hussain sheriff said to his people that no power on earth can take away the land of Arabs from Arabs. He was guaranteed from the British if the Ottoman Empire demolishes they would be guaranteed self-rule. Hussain sheriff had four sons named as Ali, Abdullah, Faisal, and Zaid. All these four led and fought the Arab revolt with support of British, on the agreement that after the war they would never intervene in the Arab land. He got major success when he bombarded the railway line in Hijaz(province) which was the only source of food, weapon and only route of travelling from Arab to turkey for ottoman empire. After a year of the Arab revolt, Lawrence advised Alfaisal to attack the port of Aqba. Alfaisal assaulted the port and conquered the city of Aqba in 1917 the most strengthening city among the ottoman empire. Aqaba could have been assaulted from the seaside, but the narrow mountainous defiles leading were strongly defended and would have been very difficult to attack. So they did form the backside of the Aqba fort that strategy which was given by Lawrence led Arabs towards victory. What is now in Jordan. Some of the historians say the Lawrence had sexual relations with his friend and assistant named Dahom whom he taught the camera work and from him, he learned the Arabic language but what so ever for the Lawrence he lead to the great Arab revolt, which led Arabs towards sovereignty and independence. Although, In Arab revolt, there were many people apart from Lawrence who led rebellion like Hussain ibn Ali who founded a secret society in Damascus to fight for Arab independence and power. Apart from demolishing railway line in Hijaz and occupying Aqba, he took part in many militant activities one of the activity was carved out in 1918, Arab revolt occupied Damascus. After the accomplishments of his mission in the Middle East, he joined the royal air force. He got his retirement from the royal air force on February 26, 1935. He was returning to home so he can enjoy the retirement. While returning to the home he faced motorcycling accident on May 13 in 1935, which took his life forever.
According to Oman’s National Center for Statistics and Information, 79,000 foreigners left between March and June of this year.
Jadwa bank in Saudi Arabia projects 300,000 have already exited the country in 2020. Bloomberg reports that the population could decrease by 4% in Oman and 10% in the UAE.
Oxford Economics estimated that some 900,000 people in the UAE, mostly expatriates whose residence visas are tied to their employment, could lose their jobs as a result of the pandemic.
In addition, 40,000 Kuwait-based expats caught in the coronavirus panic have been trapped overseas and have now lost their passport validity as well as visas and residency permits.
Expats comprise approximately 70% of the total population in Kuwait and close to 90% in the UAE.
However, even before the pandemic, life became harder for Saudi expats due to measures like VAT (15%) and foreigner-targeted taxation.
Nationalization programs also started driving foreign workers to seek their livelihood elsewhere. In places like Kuwait and Saudi, the effect is more pronounced.
Varsha Koduvayur, a senior research analyst who focuses on the Gulf states at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), argues that these countries’ nationalization plans will backfire financially.
For example, Nationals who are occupying vacated jobs by expats expect to get paid at higher rates, increasing labor costs for employers.
The first phase of a February 2020 Saudi Shoura (Consultative) Council plan aiming to Saudize 20% of pharmacists in the profession went into effect recently. An extra 30% is envisaged in the second phase of the plan due to start 2021.
Spokesman for the Saudi Ministry of Human Resources Nasser Al-Hazani told state television Al Ekhabriya that the government seeks to employ 3,000 Saudi pharmacists by 2022.
“Since the decree was issued, 1,500 Saudi pharmacists have been employed,” Al-Hazani said.
An estimated 21,530 foreign pharmacists are registered in Saudi Arabia, according to 2018 figures.
Meanwhile, Saudi announced plans to host LEAP 2021 next February, a landmark technology event.
Saudi Minister of Communications and Information Technology Abdullah al-Swaha said: “LEAP will be a key factor in growing the IT sector, boosting ICT’s GDP contribution by SAR50 billion over five years, securing foreign investment, and assisting our Saudization employment ambitions.”
A draft bill approved by Kuwait’s National Assembly in July intends to reduce the presence of foreign workers in the country.
Indians’ presence to be limited at 15% of Kuwait’s population, forcing some 800,000 out of 1.45 million in the country to leave.
At present there are nearly 3.4 million foreign workers among the total population of 4.8 million.
Prime Minister Sheikh Sabah Al Khaled Al Sabah recently told reporters that foreign workers must be reduced from 70% of the population to 30%. That translates into expelling 2.5 million people.
State-owned Kuwait Petroleum Corporation and its subsidiaries announced in June that a ban on the future employment of foreign workers would begin in July.
Pink slips are already out for many expatriates working on contracts in Kuwaiti ministries, especially those employed in non-technical fields.
However, expatriates working as experts in the ministries will be terminated gradually, according to the report.
It is expected that more than 50% of expatriates working for subcontractors will be laid off in the next three months as Kuwaitization gathers momentum, the report stressed.
The government envisioned the deportation of 360,000 expats in the short term period which included 120,000 residence violators, 150,000 unskilled workers, and 90,000 over the age of 60.
Emiratisation is a key performance indicator of UAE Vision 2021. The newest targets are to provide 20,000 job opportunities for Emiratis in strategic sectors including civil aviation, telecommunications, banking, insurance and real estate development over the next 3 years, with an average of 6,700 jobs annually. Plans also include allocating a Dh300 million fund to create specialized training programs that empower Emirati job seekers.
The Human Resources Development Committee in the banking and financial sector adopted the Emiratization points system in the banking and insurance sectors, raising Emiratization targets through creating more than 8,000 jobs for citizens during the next 3 years.
The banking sector is already hiring 9,000 UAE nationals.
Something sounds off-kilter with all these strategies if only taking into consideration the loss of GDP growth that will take place when these expats’ expenditures are removed from budget calculations. The UAE does have a more moderate approach to job nationalization which could prove crucial in the long run.
Hadi Khatib is a business editor with more than 15 years’ experience delivering news and copy of relevance to a wide range of audiences. If newsworthy and actionable, you will find this editor interested in hearing about your sector developments and writing about it. email@example.com
On 27 August 2020, OXFAM found that all MENA billionaires’ wealth increased by $10 billion, enough to pay Beirut blast repair bill.
The 21 billionaires in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), all of them men, saw their wealth increase by nearly $10 billion since the start of the COVID-19 crisis, almost double the estimated amount required to rebuild Lebanon’s shattered capital, while 45 million more people in the region could be pushed to poverty as a result of the pandemic, a new Oxfam report revealed today.
“The pandemic has exposed the deep inequalities and massive failures in our economic systems, leaving millions in the region without jobs, healthcare, or any kind of social security, while allowing billionaires to add more than $63 million to their fortunes each and every day since the beginning of the pandemic,” said Nabil Abdo, Oxfam in MENA’s senior policy advisor.
“Unless governments immediately prioritize people over profits and the rich pay their fair share, millions more will be pushed to the brink of poverty and denied their basic rights. For too long profit has been prioritized at the expense of the public good and safety. The result of this could not be starker in the aftermath of the catastrophic explosion in Beirut, which has further exposed the fragility of the economy and will only exacerbate existing inequalities.”
Governments in the region need to act quickly and raise revenues to protect the most vulnerable in society. In Lebanon, if a 5 percent solidarity net wealth tax had been introduced last year, $3.7 billion in tax revenues would have been generated to help rebuild the electricity and water infrastructure and provide services to keep people safe in the aftermath of the blast.
Before the virus hit, the MENA region was already one of the most unequal in the world; and COVID-19 has further deepened the gap between the rich and the poor. 76 percent of the region’s income goes to just 10 percent of the population, with 37 billionaires owning as much wealth as the poorest half of the adult population.
If Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and Morocco had implemented a two percent wealth tax from 2010, these countries could have raised $38 billion in tax revenues, which could have been invested in improving public healthcare and rebuilding social protection systems.
At the same time, measures to protect the poor have fallen short. It is estimated that only 11 percent of stimulus packages in the region focused on social protection and health measures. Against this backdrop, an estimated 89 percent of the region’s 16 million informal workers have been severely affected by pandemic measures. Foreign investment is also projected to drop by 45 percent and 1.7 million people are expected to lose their jobs, 700,000 of them women, costing $42 billion in lost wages.
“The crushing austerity in recent years could have been avoided if the wealthiest in the region had paid more tax, a cost they can easily afford. This alternative could have given countries more flexibility on their spending policies and crucially, seen the region enter the coronavirus crisis with less inequality and debt”, added Abdo.
To avoid millions more being pushed to the brink of poverty, the region’s governments must urgently adopt deliberate inequality-busting policies like healthcare and education for all, and must raise the minimum wage and taxing wealth fairly to build better, more equal economies and societies.
Oxfam’s calculations are based on the most up-to-date and comprehensive data sources available. Figures on the very richest in society come from Forbes’ Billionaires List and Forbes‘ Real-Time Billionaires ranking. We compared the net wealth of MENA billionaires on March 18, 2020, to their net wealth on August 16, 2020.
PWC has estimated the cost of damage to 30-40 destroyed buildings, 3,400 uninhabitable buildings and a total of 40,000 buildings affected by the blast to be $5 billion.
Roslyn Boatman in Tunis, Tunisia | firstname.lastname@example.org | +216 21359002
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.