EURONEWS – CD Aves, A Portuguese football team has become the latest victim of the harsh economic reality of the coronavirus pandemic with other football clubs in Europe also fighting to stay afloat.
CD Aves, which is based in northern Portugal, has seen players leave after it was unable to pay their salaries on time.
Just two years after the high of winning the Portuguese Cup, the club is now going through a huge financial and institutional crisis.
It has now been announced that it won’t be able to play the last game of the season in Portimão.
Aves is already relegated but the match is decisive for Portimonense and the other clubs involved in the relegation battle.
Club and SAD, the company that runs professional football, don’t see eye to eye and the COVID-19 pandemic has only complicated an already difficult situation.
In France, Ligue 1 side Bordeaux is also at open war with its majority shareholder.
The situation of the historic club has seen thousands of supporters take to the streets in protest and was a campaign issue in the last local election.
For now, the “Girondins” have been saved by a last-minute investment but the management has already warned that austerity is here to stay.
It seems to be an inevitable path in European football as more clubs face the new economic reality of the pandemic.
Even at FC Barcelona, the club with the highest payroll in world football, the crisis is making itself felt. Its bright constellation of stars has suffered a 70 percent wage cut during the suspension of La Liga, Spain‘s top tier league.
A Uighur woman with her children at the Unity New Village in western China’s Xinjiang region: APChina is facing mounting global criticism over its treatment of the Uighur population in Xinjiang province – with claims of forced labour camps and mass sterilisation.
Boris Johnson’s government has accused Beijing of “egregious” human rights abuses against the minority group, while Donald Trump’s administration has imposed sanctions on Chinese officials linked to alleged oppression.
So who are the Uighurs? And what sort of evidence lies behind these claims? The Independent took a closer look at a group largely forgotten by the world until recent weeks.
Who are the Uighur people?
The Uighur are an ethnic minority group of Muslims living in China’s north-west region of Xinjiang. There are an estimated 11 million Uighurs in the region – almost half of its total population.
Uighur Muslims have been there for hundreds of years and speak a language related to Turkish. It is believed their ancestors may have come from a previous homeland of the Turks in the northern part of central Asia.
Some Uighurs don’t accept that Xinjiang – officially an “autonomous region” – is part of China, citing evidence that their ancestors lived in the area before Chinese Han and Tang dynasties established their dominion in the area.
What sort of abuse is thought to be taking place?
There is credible evidence that up to one million Uighurs and other Muslim minorities are being held in “re-education” detention centres in Xinjiang, according to a report by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
Beijing has denied any mistreatment – claiming that these camps are “vocational training centres” which help stamp out extremism by Islamist separatists, as well as giving people new skills.
A man driving a vehicle in an Uighur neighbourhood in Aksu, Xinjiang province (AFP via Getty Images)However, a 2018 report by Amnesty International report found that arbitrary detention of Uighur Muslims across the province was widespread. The exile group World Uyghur Congress claims detainees are held without charge, and forced to undergo attempted indoctrination by shouting Chinese Communist Party slogans.
When recently confronted with disturbing video footage showing blindfolded men kneeling and waiting to be led onto trains in Xinjiang, China’s ambassador to the UK told the BBC the video could be “fake”. The video was authenticated by the Australian security services.
What’s behind the claims of ‘mass sterilisation’?
There is evidence Chinese government is taking draconian measures to slash birth rates among Uighurs as part of a sweeping campaign to curb its Muslim population.
A report released in June by China scholar Adrian Zenz claimed the Chinese authorities were forcing Uighur women to be sterilised or fitted with contraceptive devices across Xinjiang.
A recent Associated Press investigation discovered women in the province have faced fines and threats of detention for breaching limits on having babies. It also found the authorities force intrauterine devices (IUDs), sterilisation and even abortion on Uighur women.
Protesters attend a rally in Hong Kong to show support for the Uighur minority in China (AFP/Getty)What political action has been taken?
The US has imposed sanctions on Chinese officials, companies and institutions linked to China’s treatment of Uighurs in the Xinjiang region. On 20 July, the US Commerce Department added 11 Chinese companies to the US economic blacklist.
Earlier this week UK foreign secretary Dominic Raab accused Chinese officials of committing “gross, egregious” human rights abuses in Xinjiang – but the British government stopped short of introducing sanctions against officials accused of abuse against the Uighur.
France also condemned the treatment of the ethnic group. French finance minister Bruno Le Maire said it was “revolting and unacceptable” – and called for “international independent observers” to be allowed to inspect conditions in Xinjiang.
What about private companies using Uighur labour?
More than 180 human rights groups have urged brands from Adidas to Amazon to end sourcing of cotton and clothing from the Xinjiang region and cut ties with any suppliers in China that benefit from what they claim to be “forced labour”.
While most fashion brands do not source from factories in Xinjiang, many of their supply chains are likely to be tainted by cotton picked by Uighurs that is exported across China and used by other suppliers, a coalition of organisations said in a letter.
More than 80 per cent of China’s cotton comes from Xinjiang. “Brands and retailers recognise there is a massive problem in the region, and that their supply chains are exposed to a grave risk of forced labour,” said Scott Nova, head of the US-based Worker Rights Consortium (WRC).
Anne-Marie Deutschlander, the acting regional Director for Europe of the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), appealed to the Polish authorities to facilitate access to asylum procedures.
UNHCR urged Poland to give asylum-seekers access to territory and asylum.
European Court of Human Rights decided that Poland’s denial of access to asylum procedure to several asylum-seekers had been a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.https://t.co/DkQaj1JBQz
This came one day after the European Court of Human Rights ruled that by denying access to asylum procedures, Poland violated several articles of the European Convention on Human Rights.
“Refusal to grant them entry at the border, without properly assessing their claims, is in dichotomy with the country’s obligations”, maintained the UN Official.
The deeply Catholic country has named security concerns for restricting entry to refugees.
News media cited a non-governmental organization in reporting that since 2016, the annual number of asylum applications has fallen from a 8,000 to 14,000 annually to 4,000 a year.
Managing borders
UNHCR has consistently reiterated the legitimate right of States to manage their borders.
However, under international law, States are also obliged to protect those who seek asylum by permitting them access to territory and safe reception.
This obligation is fulfilled by accepting an application for granting the refugee status from a foreigner, passing him or her across the border and providing a safe shelter for the time of examining his case, according to the UN refugee agency.
Applying for refugee status is a fundamental human right of those who flee their country for fear of persecution.
It is guaranteed by the provisions of international law, including the Geneva Convention of 1951 to which Poland is a party.
UNHCR reminded that safe border management and providing safe haven for refugees are not mutually exclusive and that the agency remains ready to assist any Government in effectively combining the two.
Now is the time to implement policies and commitments to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and implement the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, the new President of one of the UN’s main bodies said on Thursday.
Ambassador Munir Akram of Pakistan outlined his priorities for the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) as the UN marks its 75th anniversary amid the global economic and health crisis.
“The ECOSOC’s central mandate is to promote ‘better standards of life in larger freedoms’ through international economic cooperation. Never before has the fulfillment of this mandate been more challenging, or more imperative, as it is today,” he told a virtual ceremony.
Mr. Akram said the pandemic and associated global recession will make it difficult to realize the SDGs. The 17 goals provide a roadmap to a better future for all, by 2030.
Meanwhile, global warming is accelerating. He warned that unless countries meet agreed targets on climate change, the planet could become uninhabitable for all living things.
Simultaneous response needed
“The broad policy decisions to address each of these three simultaneous challenges have been taken. Commitments have been made. What is needed now is implementation”, said Mr. Akram.
“This should be the focus of our deliberations. And, since we need to respond simultaneously, there must be synergy between our responses to the health, development and climate challenges.”
Address rising inequality
The new ECOSOC President also wants countries to address rising inequality, both within and between nations.
“The legacy of colonialism, racism and foreign occupation is a major systemic cause of inequality”, he said.
“I will propose to the Council that we convene a special meeting in 2021 – the 20th Anniversary of the Durban Conference against Racism – to address the root causes of global inequality. Similarly, the 10th ECOSOC Youth Forum should be dedicated to promoting a vision of a more equal, peaceful, united and dynamic world order.”
Support developing nations
Mr. Akram also proposed that the Council should promote action on financing for COVID-19, the SDGs and climate action goals.
However, if the world is to “build back better” after the pandemic, he underlined the need for developing countries to have greater access to renewable energy and other sustainable infrastructure, as well as advanced technologies.
“The ECOSOC should help to build a coordinated approach to ensure the required capital flows to developing countries to recover from the current recession and revive the prospects of achieving the SDGs”, he said.
“In preparation for the annual Forum on Financing for Development next April, I intend to convene a few informal meetings and consultations to advance these objectives.”
New ECOSOC Bureau
This is the second time Mr. Akram has assumed the ECOSOC Presidency, having taken the helm in 2005.
Three Vice-Presidents have also been elected to serve alongside him on the ECOSOC Bureau, which proposes the Council’s agenda and devises a programme of work, among other duties.
They are Ambassador Collen Vixen Kelapile of Botswana, Ambassador Pascale Baeriswyl of Switzerland, and Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya of Ukraine.
Mr. Akram praised his predecessor, Mona Juul of Norway, for her leadership of the Council during what he described as “these extraordinary times”.
Ms. Juul in turn offered a few words of advice, having steered the Council through the initial phases of the pandemic, and at a time of global upheaval against racial injustice, the climate crisis and rising inequalities.
“Be ready to embrace change!”, she told Mr. Akram and the new Bureau. “Let us change for the better and make our recovery based upon values, not value. On compassion, courage, and cooperation.”
Although the pandemic is changing the world, Ms. Juul stressed it has not changed global commitment to realizing a better future for all.
She said now is the time to “fix the world’s fragilities”, from access to universal health coverage and quality education, to reversing environmental degradation, and power imbalances that disproportionally affect women and girls.
“To recover better, we must build forward. To a greener, fairer, more inclusive and more resilient tomorrow,” she said. “If we do not change now, then when?”
In a resolution on the conclusions of the extraordinary European Council meeting of 17-21 July 2020, adopted by 465 votes against 150, with 67 abstentions, MEPs pay tribute to the victims of the coronavirus and to all the workers who have been fighting the pandemic. They underline that “people in the EU have a collective duty of solidarity.”
Positive step for recovery, inadequate in the long term
In the text, which serves as a mandate for the upcoming negotiations on the future EU financing and recovery, Parliament welcomes EU leaders’ acceptance of the recovery fund as proposed by Parliament in May, calling it a “historic move for the EU”. MEPs deplore however the “massive cuts to the grant components” and call for full democratic involvement of Parliament in the recovery instrument which “does not give a formal role to elected Members of the European Parliament”.
As for the long-term EU budget, they disapprove of the cuts made to future-oriented programmes and consider that they will “undermine the foundations of a sustainable and resilient recovery.” Flagship EU programmes for climate protection, digital transition, health, youth, culture, research or border management “are at risk of an immediate drop in funding from 2020 to 2021″, and that as of 2024, the “EU budget as a whole will be below 2020 levels, jeopardising the EU’s commitments and priorities.”
Parliament cannot accept a bad agreement
Parliament thus does not accept the European Council’s political agreement on the 2021-2027 MFF as it stands and “will not rubber-stamp a fait accompli”. MEPs are “prepared to withhold their consent” for the long-term EU budget, the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) until a satisfactory agreement is reached in the upcoming negotiations between Parliament and the Council, preferably by the end of October at the latest for a smooth start of the EU programmes from 2021.
In the case however that a new MFF would not be adopted on time, MEPs recall that Article 312(4) of the TFEU provides for the temporary extension of the ceiling of the last year of the present MFF (2020), and that this would be fully compatible with the recovery plan and the adoption of the new MFF programmes.
Rule of Law
Parliament “strongly regrets” that the European Council significantly weakened the efforts of the Commission and Parliament to uphold the rule of law, fundamental rights and democracy in the framework of the MFF and the recovery plan, recalling that the Rule of Law Regulation will be co-decided by Parliament.
New sources of EU revenue and repayment of EU-debt
MEPs reiterate that Parliament will not give its consent for the MFF without an agreement on the reform of the EU’s own resources system, including the introduction of a basket of new own resources by the end of the 2021-2027 MFF which is necessary to cover at least the costs related to the recovery plan.
They believe that the EU Heads of State and Government have failed to tackle the issue of the recovery instrument repayment plan and recall that without further cuts to key programmes or increasing the Member States’ contributions to the EU budget, new own resources is the only acceptable option to Parliament.
Mid-term revision indispensable
Parliament demands that a legally binding MFF mid-term revision enters into force by the end of 2024 at the latest and stresses that this revision must include the ceilings for the 2025-2027 period, the introduction of additional own resources and the implementation of the climate and biodiversity targets.
Following the agreement in the Council on the EU’s long-term budget and the Recovery Fund, the European Parliament will vote its political response tomorrow, 23 July, in the plenary session.
Five political groups in the European Parliament, EPP, S&D, Renew, Greens and GUE-NGL, agreed on a common response to the Council’s deal. The EPP Group Vice-Chair Siegfried Muresan, responsible for budgetary issues said ahead of the plenary vote:
“I take note of the agreement reached in the Council on the EU’s budget and the recovery fund however, the ball is in the European Parliament’s court now. Simply put, we does accept the EU budget proposal in its current form. The 27 national leaders secured their national interest, now it’s up to the EP to secure the interest of Europe as a whole.
Five political groups in the EP hold a broad majority to enter the negotiations with the Council in order to deliver an EU budget that serves our citizens.
Five key points are difficult to accept for the EPP Group.
Firstly, the EPP Group does not accept the EU budget as it stands. We demand increases, especially in the areas that have suffered the biggest cuts, like Erasmus, Horizon, Just Transition Fund, Defence Fund or the Healthcare. Secondly, it is unacceptable that the rule of law clause has been considerably weakened. It is a priority that this mechanism is strengthened and allowed to be activated by “reversed qualified majority”. Thirdly, more commitment is needed to put in place new own resources as soon as possible in order to pay for the interest rates and start the repayment of NGEU. Fourthly, the EP must be involved in the decision on the recovery facility through delegated acts. And finally, should there be no agreement between the Council and the EP by the end of October, a ‘Plan B’ budget must be available to ensure continuity of the current programmes.
One thing is clear, the European Parliament will have the last word on the EU budget and there will be no agreement in the EP without negotiation and improvements.”
In the debate with Council and Commission Presidents Charles Michel and Ursula von der Leyen, the deal reached at the recent European Council meeting on the recovery fund was qualified as “historic” by many MEPs as for the first time, member states have agreed to issue €750 billion of joint debt. With cuts made to the long-term budget (multiannual financial framework, MFF) however, most were “not happy”.
“We are not ready to swallow the MFF pill”, said Manfred Weber (EPP). Also, S&D leader Iratxe García would not accept the cuts, “not at a time when we need to strengthen our strategic autonomy and reduce disparities between Member states”.
Many highlighted that the question of reimbursing the debt was not resolved. MEPs insisted that the burden must not fall on the citizens, and that a robust system of new own resources including a digital tax or levies on carbon for the repayment must be guaranteed, with a binding calendar. Furthermore, many underlined that “the EU is not a cash machine for national budgets”, deploring that “frugal” countries do not want to pay the price for benefiting from the single market, and insisting that no funds should go to “pseudo-democratic” governments which do not respect the rule of law and EU values.
Others were more sceptical about new own resources generating enough to repay all the debt and warned that the crisis should not be used as a pretext for further EU integration. Most however stressed that Parliament is ready for swift negotiations to make the necessary improvements to the Council’s common position.
MEPs now vote on a resolution to wind up the debate, which will serve as a mandate for the upcoming negotiations with the German Presidency of the Council of the EU. The result of the final vote will be announced in plenary today at 17.30.
Temporary Basic Income: Protecting Poor and Vulnerable People in Developing Countries,estimates that it would cost governments upwards of $199 billion per month, to provide what UNDP describes as “a time-bound, guaranteed basic income, to the 2.7 billion people living below or just above the poverty line in 132 developing countries.”
The agency describes it as a “feasible” measure, that is urgently needed, with the pandemic continuing to infect more than 1.5 million per week, particularly in developing countries, where seven out of ten workers make a living through informal markets, and cannot earn money if they are stuck at home.
“Many of the huge numbers of people not covered by social insurance programmes are informal workers, low-waged, women and young people, refugees and migrants, and people with disabilities – and they are the ones hardest hit by this crisis”, said UNDP in a press release issued along with the report.
Unprecedented times call for unprecedented social and economic measures…This might have seemed impossible just a few months ago – UNDP chief, Achim Steiner
UNDP has carried out assessments on the socio-economic effects of COVID-19 in more than 60 countries since the pandemic began, with data confirming that workers who lack benefits, have no choice but to venture outdoors, putting themselves and their families at risk.
A Temporary Basic Income would give them the means to buy food and pay for health and education expenses, said UNDP.
It is also a realistic fiscal move: a six-month Temporary Basic Income, for example, would require just 12 percent of the total financial response to COVID-19 expected in 2020, said UNDP, which is the equivalent of just one-third of what developing countries owe, in external debt payments through 2020.
‘Unprecedented times’
“Unprecedented times call for unprecedented social and economic measures. Introducing a Temporary Basic Income for the world’s poorest people has emerged as one option. This might have seemed impossible just a few months ago”, said UNDP Administrator Achim Steiner.
“Bailouts and recovery plans cannot only focus on big markets and big business. A Temporary Basic Income might enable governments to give people in lockdown a financial lifeline, inject cash back into local economies to help keep small businesses afloat, and slow the devastating spread of COVID-19”, he said.
No ‘silver bullet’
UNDP said that a Temporary Basic Income should not, however, be viewed as a “silver bullet solution”. Protecting jobs, expanding support to micro, small and medium enterprises, and using digital solutions to identify and access people who are excluded, are all measures that countries can take.
The agency suggests that some countries could pay for the radical measure by repurposing funds they would have used to service their national debt. Developing and emerging economies will spend $3.1 trillion in debt repayment this year, according to official data.
Debt standstill
A comprehensive debt standstill for all developing countries, as called for by the UN Secretary-General António Guterres, would allow countries to temporarily repurpose these funds into emergency measures.
Several countries have already begun to embrace the concept. The West African State of Togo has distributed over $19.5 million in monthly financial aid to over 12 percent of the population through its cash transfer programme, mostly to women who work in the informal sector.
Spain recently approved a monthly budget of €250 million to top up the incomes of 850,000 vulnerable families and 2.3 million individuals, up to a minimum threshold.
UNDP is leading the UN’s socio-economic response to COVID-19 recovery and implementing recovery strategies in countries across the world.
To help limit the transmission of the virus in Europe and beyond, the EU has closed its external borders to non-essential travel, while ensuring essential goods keep moving across the EU through the introduction of green lanes. Additional resources are foreseen for the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, which provides rapid risk assessments and epidemiological updates on the outbreak.
2. Supporting EU health systems and infrastructures
Another sector badly affected by the pandemic is tourism. Europe is the world’s number one tourist destination and the EU introduced a series of measures designed to help the industry cope during the crisis, as well as a package to reboot Europe’s tourism in 2020 and beyond. Relief measures for the transport sector were also introduced, to minimise the effects of the pandemic on airlines, railways, road and shipping companies. To help people travel in Europe as various countries gradually lift lockdown measures, the Re-open EU interactive tool provides travellers with the information they need to confidently plan their travel and holidays in the EU while staying healthy.
6. Banking package to support households and businesses
To ensure banks continue providing loans to businesses and households to mitigate the economic fallout from the crisis, the Parliament approved a temporary relaxation of prudential rules for European banks. Changes to the capital requirements regulation will enable pensioners or employees with a permanent contract to get loans under more favorable conditions, ensure credit flows to small and medium-sized enterprises, and support infrastructure investment.
To help member states fund their coronavirus crisis response, the EU launched a new initiative, the Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative. It will channel some €37 billion from EU structural funds to provide immediate financial support to EU countries trying to help people and regions face the current crisis.
9. Relaxing state aid rules
As the pandemic was beginning to spread throughout Europe, the EU launched a Temporary Framework on State Aid rules to ensure sufficient liquidity remains available to businesses of all types and help maintain economic activity during and after the Covid-19 outbreak. Member states will be able to grant up to €800,000 to a company to address urgent liquidity needs or grant loans with favorable interest rates.
10. Protecting weakened European businesses from foreign competitors
The economic impact of the coronavirus pandemic has left many European companies vulnerable to subsidized foreign competitors. To help protect businesses, the Parliament called for a level-playing field for all businesses, to avoid distortions to the single market stemming from unfair competition from foreign companies. The Commission also launched a public consultation on how to deal with the negative effects caused by foreign subsidies. In parallel, the EU issued guidelines for member states on foreign direct investment, urging them to thoroughly screen investments from outside the EU to avoid risks to the EU’s security and public order.
