The Cost of Austerity in Greece
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Downgrading rights: the cost of austerity in Greece Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Article 4: No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, November / N°646a Cover photo: A sculpture guarding the entrance to the Athens municipality’s Cultural Centre shows a blindfolded ‘Democracy’. Since the economic crisis hit Greece in 2009 and austerity measures were violated and democracy has been suffering. Copyright: Panagiotis Grigoriou 2 / Titre du rapport – FIDH I. Introduction --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4 I. 1. Methodology -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7 II. Context-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------9 III. Human rights in crisis: a country under austerity ---------------------------------------- 15 III. 1. Economic, social and cultural rights violations -------------------------------------------- 15 ----------------------------------------------------------- 38 IV. Human rights obligations in a crisis situation: the ESCR case ------------------------- 54 IV. 1 Assessment of Greece’s austerity measures against human rights standards ------------- 55 V. Who is responsible? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 58 V. 1 Overview ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 58 V. 2 Territorial Responsibility: Greece --------------------------------------------------------------- 59 V. 3 Extraterritorial obligations: an overview ------------------------------------------------------- 60 V. 4 Instances of Extraterritorial Responsibility: EU Member States --------------------------- 62 V. 5 Instances of Extraterritorial responsibility: the European Union, its institutions and agencies --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 64 V. 6 Instances of Extraterritorial Responsibility: the International Monetary Fund ----------- 66 VI. Conclusions ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 68 VII. Recommendations ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 70 FIDH/HLHR – Downgrading rights: the cost of austerity in Greece / 3 I. Introduction Europe has recently been undergoing the deepest economic recession since World War II. The terrible consequences that the crisis had not only for the economy but also for democracy and human rights have become increasingly impossible to deny. Moreover, the negative consequences of certain policies and measures taken in response to the crisis for fundamental rights and society as a whole have been underestimated or dismissed as inevitable – and therefore acceptable – collateral damage. Experts have long warned of the potential for the crisis to have adverse consequences for Europe’s social fabric. Now, the magnitude of such impacts is evident across Europe, especially in those countries that have borne the brunt of the crisis, like Greece. Questions about who is responsible and who should be held accountable, what could and should be done to contain such impacts, can no longer be avoided or deferred. a) Dealing with the crisis : an (un-)reasonable approach? Before analysing the crisis’ human rights consequences and the responsabilities attached to them, it is worth spending a few words on the approach taken by governments and international organisations in response to it. demand.1 However, since 2010 a second phase of responses began. Here, saving the international 2 3 institutions to abide by and integrate human rights into policies and programmes and, more generally, the debate on the crisis and proposed solutions to it. Human rights language and concerns have thus remained absent from the diagnoses and prescriptions put forward by governments and the international community.4 In fact, curtailing rights, particularly economic and social rights, appears to have been perceived as the crisis’ inevitable and therefore tolerable consequence. However, reality has shown that the austerity meausres applied across Europe are neither the only possible response to the crisis nor, at least in some cases, the most effective.5 1. European Commission, European Economic Recovery Plan, November 2008. World Bank, Household and Government Responses to the Great Recession in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, 2011. 2. Awid, Centre of Concern, Centre for Economic and Social Rights, Centre for Women’s Global Leadership, Rutgers, ESCR- Net, Bringing Human Rights to Bear in Times of Crisis: a human rights analysis of government responses to the economic crisis, Submission to the High-level Segment of 13th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council on the global economic and , March 2010. Among the crisis’ underlying causes, the authors point in particular to decades of irresponsible external control or supervision. 3. Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, Safeguarding human rights in times of economic crisis, Issue Paper, November 2013. 4. See Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, Safeguarding human rights in times of economic crisis, Issue Paper, November 2013. 5. The IMF, in its World Economic Outlook, October 2012 admitted that economic damages caused by austerity measures to countries implementing them had consistently far exceeded what the Fond’s experts had predicted and that countries having engaged in economical stimulus, like Germany and Austria, had done way better than expected, available at: http://www.imf.org/ external/pubs/ft/weo/2012/02/pdf/c1.pdf. In their book The Body Economic: Why Austerity Kills (http://thebodyeconomic.com/), David Stuckler and Sanjay Basu, from the Universities of Oxford and Standford, argue that increase in government spending, which was the case of Sweden, Japan, Germany and Finland, led to fastest economic recovery and that, conversely, cutting spending prolong recession. Experts have argued that reducing public debt does not lead to increasing economic growth, thus challenging the theory underlying austerity measures, Thomas Herndon, Michael Ash and Robert Pollin, Does High Public Debt Consistently 4 / Downgrading rights: the cost of austerity in Greece – FIDH/HLHR Aside from broader questions about whether the approach pursued in reponding to the crisis is sensible in economic terms, observations in countries where austerity programmes have been systematically implemented have raised serious concerns over whether austerity can truely consolidate public budgets and restore national economies.6 The situation in countries like Greece rather seems to prove the opposite, ie that such an approach risks further deepening the crisis, while undermining fundamental rights7. b) The Crisis: an economic and a human rights failure impacts as a result of the crisis. Impacts include: rampant unemployment, which in countries like Greece has reached unprecedented levels, especially amongst the younger generation; reduction in workers’ protection, safe and healthy working conditions and collective bargaining; severe cuts in public services, social security and social protections; regressive tax reforms that contribute to deepening poverty and exclusion; a lowering of living standards, often falling below what is considered adequate under international law; an increase in homelessness; restrictions to the right to education following reductions in education budgets and teaching staff; and cuts in health-related spending. However, the crisis’ impact on human rights has not been limited to ESC rights. Civil and political rights have also been affected. Social unrest and frustration over austerity measures have given rise to widespread discontent and large-scale demonstrations, which are increasingly met with violent repression by the authorities. Restrictions on other rights, including rights to assembly and association, the right to freely express opinions, media freedom and the right to an effective remedy, are also on the rise, whilst people’s right to participate in decision-making has further been curtailed. Such restrictions, coupled with reduced access to essential services and the state’s manifest inability to cope, fuel mistrust in government. As authorities act without consultation or democratic oversight, and fail to respond to people’s basic needs, their legitimacy is increasingly eroded8. This has in turn pushed people to seek refuge in extremist ideologies that purport to offer alternatives to the current system. States appear to be less and less able to