June 27, 2013 -- Updated 0956 GMT (1756 HKT)
A new age of protests
June 19, 2013 -- Updated 2221 GMT (0621 HKT)
Police fire rubber bullets at a
protester during clashes in Rio de Janeiro on Thursday, June 20.
Demonstrations in Brazil began in response to plans to increase fares for the public transportation system
but have broadened into wider protests over economic and social issues.
Since then, both Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro have agreed to roll back
prices on bus and metro tickets.
HIDE CAPTION
Protests in Brazil
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
- Frida Ghitis: A massive protest can start any time -- just look at Turkey and Brazil
- Ghitis: In this era of connectivity, a little complaint can ignite raging fire of discontent
- She says these recent protests started over smaller issues, not over tyranny
- Ghitis: Technology has made it harder for governments to shape what people believe in
Editor's note: Frida
Ghitis is a world affairs columnist for The Miami Herald and World
Politics Review. A former CNN producer and correspondent, she is the
author of "The End of Revolution: A Changing World in the Age of Live
Television." Follow her on Twitter: @FridaGColumns.
(CNN) -- Presidents, prime ministers and assorted
rulers, consider that you have been warned: A massive protest can start
at any time, seemingly over any issue, and can grow to a size and
intensity no one expected. Your country's image, your own prestige,
could risk unraveling as you face the wrath of the people.
The newest iconic images
from Turkey and from Brazil -- two countries that have promoted
themselves as models to emulate -- include shocking scenes of police
brutality, of government clampdown against peaceful protesters.
We have entered a new age of protests. While politics remain intensely local, individuals are more interconnected.
Frida Ghitis
In Turkey, a small
protest over plans to destroy one of Istanbul's last remaining parks
exploded in size and intensity after a harsh police crackdown shocked
the nation. The sight of police spraying giant clouds of tear gas and
beating peaceful protesters touched a nerve, inflaming simmering
concerns about an increasingly authoritarian regime.
In a matter of days, waves of demonstrations, the biggest in decades, spread across the country. Prime Minister Recep Tayip Erdogan,
who has not lacked for self-confidence over his 10 years in power, came
under sharp criticism over his response to the protests.
Has he grown arrogant with power? Having led his party to consecutive victories at the polls, sucking the air out of the powerful military,
and overseeing Turkey's rise to new heights of prosperity and
international assertiveness, all of a sudden he looked less
awe-inspiring.
Erdogan may have faced
down world leaders, but when he faced his own people he tarnished his
image. He is now accused by many at home and abroad of lacking in democratic instincts.
'Standing Man' protester inspires others
Brazilian FM responds to protests
Photos: Demonstrations in Turkey
The country has new national icons. The newest is the "Standing Man,"
a protester who steadfastly held his ground amid the chaos, standing
for hours gazing at a picture of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. There's the "woman in red," a modernly dressed woman -- symbolizing the secular, world of personal freedom many of the demonstrators seek to defend.
A similar image
emerged from Brazil. A young woman who appears utterly harmless was
sprayed in the face by a policeman dressed in full riot gear.
Just like Turkey, no one
could have predicted the turn of events in Brazil. A country that has
symbolized Latin America's dramatic rise from poverty, where
left-leaning governments have combined social programs and
market-friendly policies, nearly eradicating extreme poverty, suddenly erupted in a wave of popular fury. The government of President Dilma Rousseff faced the largest protests in 20 years. And it all started over an increase in bus fares.
The protests over bus
fares touched on worries about a slowdown in the economy, about
persistent inequality, corruption and costly projects in preparation for
hosting the upcoming World Cup and Olympic Games.
Rousseff, a former revolutionary herself, has been taking a much more conciliatory approach
than the pugnacious Erdogan. On Wednesday, government officials in San
Paulo and Rio de Janeiro announced that they would revoke the hike in
bus fares in their cities.
In this era of
connectivity, a small complaint can explode. Politicians may outmaneuver
rival parties during election campaigns. They can claim a majority at
the polls -- as Erdogan doesn't tire of remarking he has -- and they can
ply their trade on the global stage. But they now have to deal with
their citizens' demands in a much more public way.
Popular claims have new
strength in our age of social media. It's impossible to predict which
issue will find flammable material hiding in shared resentments and
ignite raging fires of discontent.
The water cannons and
the tear gas may disperse the first wave of protesters, but a click of a
smartphone can produce a photo or video that instantly catches people's
attention, potentially attracting even larger protests. The crowd may
grow if its concerns are ignored, especially if police repression is
violent.
One of the challenges
for democratic governments is to balance what may be legitimate
requirements of public order with a reasonable hearing for reasonable
demands.
That is the response that separates the tyrants from the democrats.
Public space occupations
and demonstrations have occurred in nations without democracy. We saw
how regimes responded to protests in places like Egypt and Syria. We
have seen crackdowns in Russia last year and in Iran after the 2009 elections.
These new protests start over smaller issues -- not over tyranny or basic democratic rights.
Local issues have a new
power to surge with little warning, electrifying the crowds, jolting
people out of complacency. Governments can be caught by surprise by what
seem like trivial matters -- a small rise in bus fare or saving trees
in a park.
It wasn't very long ago
when every meeting of the powerful nations, of the International
Monetary Fund and the World Bank, brought out angry anti-globalization crowds. Now, the concerns are more immediate, more personal.
When President Obama arrived in Northern Ireland on Monday for the meeting of the G8 nations, there were more police officers than protesters. The nature of protest has changed.
Governments may have the
power to spy on citizens, to read their e-mails and listen to their
conversations. But they have largely lost their ability to control the
information that is out there. Governments have lost the power to change
the subject, to divert attention, to blame a multinational institution
or another country for the woes at home. Stories now refuse to die.
Protesters, if angered by the government's response, are more likely to
persevere.
Heads of government
cannot control their public image the way they once could. The demigods
are dying. New technology may make it easier for governments to learn
what the people are thinking, but it makes it harder for them to shape
what the people believe.
It's a new age. They should consider themselves warned.
Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.
Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Frida Ghitis.
June 24, 2013 -- Updated 1001 GMT (1801 HKT)
Police fire rubber bullets at a
protester during clashes in Rio de Janeiro on Thursday, June 20.
Demonstrations in Brazil began in response to plans to increase fares for the public transportation system
but have broadened into wider protests over economic and social issues.
Since then, both Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro have agreed to roll back
prices on bus and metro tickets.
HIDE CAPTION
Protests in Brazil
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
- Questions raised over what Brazil really gets out of 2014 World Cup
- Should money be spent on football stadiums or health and education?
- FIFA receives tax exemptions from Brazil
- Romario says: "FIFA comes to our country and sets up a state within a state"
The relationship of
football's world governing body with Brazil is under scrutiny following
the protests that have gripped the country as the South American country
stages June's Confederation Cup -- a test run for the main event next
year.
Initially disgruntlement
of the protesters centered on a 20 centavos (10 cents) rise in bus and
train fares. But a violent response from the police, prompted Brazilians
of all ages took to the streets.
Suddenly the issue was
about corruption, poor public services, increasing inflation, lack of
security and whether the money being spent on the World Cup might be
better invested elsewhere.
Grievances unleashed in Brazil protests
Shocking video shows Brazil clashes
Thiago Silva targets PSG dominance
Pele: Mourinho is 'good for Chelsea'
With a subtext of the
rich lining their pockets, while the poor pay more to use crumbling
public services, the Brazilian government was left scrambling to deal
with what some have dubbed the "Tropical Spring."
FIFA president Sepp Blatter, for one, was askance at the protests.
"I can understand that
people are not happy, but they should not use football to make their
demands heard," Blatter told Brazil's Globo TV.
Tax exemptions
While FIFA argues that
Brazil, as well as Russia and Qatar in 2018 and 2022, will gain benefits
from infrastructure development and tourism as well as the kudos of
staging a global sporting event, the World Cup is key for the world
governing body -- the event is its major source of revenue.
"The exact number I do
not know but around $4 billion," said FIFA secretary general Jerome
Valcke earlier in June, referring to what the 2014 World Cup will
generate financially for the Swiss-based organization.
However, that is a conservative estimate with consultants suggesting the amount could reach $5 billion.
"Of course it's not all
profit, it is commercial revenue related to the cycle of not just the
World Cup, but the cycle between the 2010 Cup and 2014," added Valcke.
FIFA is the real president of our country. FIFA comes to our country and sets up a state within a state
Romario
Romario
Three years ago the World Cup in South Africa raised $3.6 billion, incurring expenditures of $1.298 billion.
For its latest results, FIFA reported a profit of $89 million for 2012, with reserves of $1.378 billion.
The organization had a
revenue of $1.166 billion last year and spending of $1.077 billion. As a
not-for-profit association in Swiss law, FIFA pays no tax on commercial
income from the World Cup.
But some critics
question whether the relationship between FIFA and its World Cup hosts
is mutually beneficial, notably with regard to the lucrative tax
exemptions World Cup organizers are prepared to offer for the right to
stage the biggest single-event sporting competition in the world.
According to Brazil's
Internal Revenue Service the tax exemptions will cost $248.7 million,
though other reports estimate the figure could be as twice as high for
the period between 2011 and 2015. The International Olympic Committee
will receive similar exemptions when the South American country hosts
the Olympics in 2016.
Proponents argue hosting
the World Cup brings billions more dollars into the Brazilian economy,
but $250 million buys a lot of bus tickets.
Brazil's greatest footballers
Brazil's most painful moment
Confederations Cup: Brazil beats Mexico as Fortaleza protests
Brazil in "FIFA's hands"
Ex-Brazilian star
Romario -- now a Brazilian politician -- is one that argues that the
money spent on building stadiums would be better spent on constructing
houses and schools.
"FIFA will make a profit
of four billion reais ($1.8 billion) which should provide one billion
($450 million) in tax, but they will not pay anything," Romario said in a
video posted on the websites of several Brazilian newspapers.
"They come, set up the circus, they don't spend anything and they take everything with them.
"The real president of our country is FIFA," added Romario. "FIFA comes to our country and sets up a state within a state."
Another critic -- academic and journalist Christopher Gaffney, who lives in Rio -- believes that FIFA's much vaunted "Fair Play" slogan should not just apply to on-field behavior.
"FIFA should be obliged
to follow the pre-existing tax laws in the host countries that apply to
international sports non-governmental organizations and their corporate
partners," said Gaffney.
"We saw a response in
the lead up to London 2012 that the British were revolted that the
International Olympic Committee's partners were not going to pay taxes.
"A boycott ensued and the companies agreed to pay taxes on their Olympic related profits.
"There are, of course,
always government subsidies to attract businesses, but legislative
elements like the General Law of the World Cup in Brazil go far beyond
this and effectively redirect public money into Swiss bank accounts."
That analysis drew a swift response from football's world governing body.
"FIFA obtains none of its revenue from public funds of the host country," a FIFA spokesman told CNN.
"The host country
provide the general infrastructure for the event, which remains as a
legacy in the country such as transportation, IT, upgrades on airports.
"Therefore, it is not
true that money is generated in the host country for FIFA and that it
will go then to accounts in Switzerland."
But the exemptions FIFA
insist upon, has surprised one leading European taxation expert,
Professor of European Tax Law Han Kogels, who is based in Rotterdam.
Tahiti's mission impossible
The career of Luiz Felipe Scolari
In bidding for the 2018 World Cup, Russia was up against three other bidders -- England, Netherlands-Belgium and Spain-Portugal.
"In that bid book model
of the FIFA as commercial organization, it claimed a privilege of 100%
tax freedom (no corporate tax, no income tax, no VAT, no excise duties,
no local tax, not any other taxes), irrespective of regular national tax
law, European tax law and international tax law," said Kogels after
examining the Netherlands part of the bid.
"I was (and still am)
not aware of any other international commercial sport event being
subsidized through full tax exemption at the cost of (other) taxpayers,
and did not see any justification for such unequal treatment of FIFA."
Economic benefits
FIFA insisted that tax
exemptions needed to be viewed in relation to the overall economic
benefits that next year's World Cup potentially might bring Brazil.
The world governing body
quoted a study by Ernst & Young Terco that estimated that the event
would inject R$ 112.8 billion ($50 billion) into the Brazilian economy
by 2014, with R$ 28 billion (12.4 billion) spent on infrastructure,
generating R$ 63.5 billion ($28 billion) in income for the population.
"It is important to note
that tax exemptions are only related to certain areas of the
organization, in particular for temporary use of goods and services
during the event," FIFA told CNN.
"Examples include IT
equipment for broadcasters as well as other material mainly broadcasters
and participating teams bring with them, the cars used for the official
transport, uniforms for volunteers.
"Amongst others the prize money of the FIFA World Cup is taxable in Brazil."
Apex/Brasil is using the Cup as a platform for promoting
exportation of Brazilian products, and estimates that the event will
leverage at least $1 billion in Brazilian exports
Brazilian Ministry of Finance
Brazilian Ministry of Finance
"Overall, according to
the Ernst & Young Terco study it is estimated that the host country
will obtain an additional tax revenue of R$ 18.1 billion ($8 billion).
"It should be noted that
FIFA also bears the costs related to hosting and staging of the FIFA
World Cup, including and not limited to the costs of the Local
Organising Committee. This means over $1.3 billion in costs for FIFA."
Cynicism
However, in much the
same way that the Group of Eight economies attempted to bring coherence
to the issue of closing global tax loopholes earlier this month, Professor Simon Chadwick called on governments and sporting organizations to adopt a more systematic approach to tax.
"One of the problems in
Brazil, Britain and, indeed, in many countries across the world is that
there is no coherent strategy or policy in place regarding taxation and
sport," said Chadwick.
"For example, players in
this year's Champions League final at Wembley were given exemption from
paying tax on revenues earned from the game.
"Whereas in 2015,
players in the rugby union World Cup final will not be given the same
exemption. Such a lack of strategy, clarity, consistency and openness
creates a climate in which confusion, contradiction and cynicism begin
to develop."
Given the scale of the protests in Brazil, does the South American country want to renegotiate the tax exemptions?
"Holding a FIFA World
Cup involves agreements that are signed between the organization and the
host country in order to receive the event.," said the Brazil Finance
Ministry.
"The FIFA World Cup has
always been seen by Brazil as a major opportunity to spur investments in
infrastructure and services and to modernize football management in
Brazil."
A fair World Cup deal for Brazil?
June 24, 2013 -- Updated 1001 GMT (1801 HKT)
Police fire rubber bullets at a
protester during clashes in Rio de Janeiro on Thursday, June 20.
Demonstrations in Brazil began in response to plans to increase fares for the public transportation system
but have broadened into wider protests over economic and social issues.
Since then, both Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro have agreed to roll back
prices on bus and metro tickets.
HIDE CAPTION
Protests in Brazil
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
- Questions raised over what Brazil really gets out of 2014 World Cup
- Should money be spent on football stadiums or health and education?
- FIFA receives tax exemptions from Brazil
- Romario says: "FIFA comes to our country and sets up a state within a state"
The relationship of
football's world governing body with Brazil is under scrutiny following
the protests that have gripped the country as the South American country
stages June's Confederation Cup -- a test run for the main event next
year.
Initially disgruntlement
of the protesters centered on a 20 centavos (10 cents) rise in bus and
train fares. But a violent response from the police, prompted Brazilians
of all ages took to the streets.
Suddenly the issue was
about corruption, poor public services, increasing inflation, lack of
security and whether the money being spent on the World Cup might be
better invested elsewhere.
Grievances unleashed in Brazil protests
Shocking video shows Brazil clashes
Thiago Silva targets PSG dominance
Pele: Mourinho is 'good for Chelsea'
With a subtext of the
rich lining their pockets, while the poor pay more to use crumbling
public services, the Brazilian government was left scrambling to deal
with what some have dubbed the "Tropical Spring."
FIFA president Sepp Blatter, for one, was askance at the protests.
"I can understand that
people are not happy, but they should not use football to make their
demands heard," Blatter told Brazil's Globo TV.
Tax exemptions
While FIFA argues that
Brazil, as well as Russia and Qatar in 2018 and 2022, will gain benefits
from infrastructure development and tourism as well as the kudos of
staging a global sporting event, the World Cup is key for the world
governing body -- the event is its major source of revenue.
"The exact number I do
not know but around $4 billion," said FIFA secretary general Jerome
Valcke earlier in June, referring to what the 2014 World Cup will
generate financially for the Swiss-based organization.
However, that is a conservative estimate with consultants suggesting the amount could reach $5 billion.
"Of course it's not all
profit, it is commercial revenue related to the cycle of not just the
World Cup, but the cycle between the 2010 Cup and 2014," added Valcke.
FIFA is the real president of our country. FIFA comes to our country and sets up a state within a state
Romario
Romario
Three years ago the World Cup in South Africa raised $3.6 billion, incurring expenditures of $1.298 billion.
For its latest results, FIFA reported a profit of $89 million for 2012, with reserves of $1.378 billion.
The organization had a
revenue of $1.166 billion last year and spending of $1.077 billion. As a
not-for-profit association in Swiss law, FIFA pays no tax on commercial
income from the World Cup.
But some critics
question whether the relationship between FIFA and its World Cup hosts
is mutually beneficial, notably with regard to the lucrative tax
exemptions World Cup organizers are prepared to offer for the right to
stage the biggest single-event sporting competition in the world.
According to Brazil's
Internal Revenue Service the tax exemptions will cost $248.7 million,
though other reports estimate the figure could be as twice as high for
the period between 2011 and 2015. The International Olympic Committee
will receive similar exemptions when the South American country hosts
the Olympics in 2016.
Proponents argue hosting
the World Cup brings billions more dollars into the Brazilian economy,
but $250 million buys a lot of bus tickets.
Brazil's greatest footballers
Brazil's most painful moment
Confederations Cup: Brazil beats Mexico as Fortaleza protests
Brazil in "FIFA's hands"
Ex-Brazilian star
Romario -- now a Brazilian politician -- is one that argues that the
money spent on building stadiums would be better spent on constructing
houses and schools.
"FIFA will make a profit
of four billion reais ($1.8 billion) which should provide one billion
($450 million) in tax, but they will not pay anything," Romario said in a
video posted on the websites of several Brazilian newspapers.
"They come, set up the circus, they don't spend anything and they take everything with them.
"The real president of our country is FIFA," added Romario. "FIFA comes to our country and sets up a state within a state."
Another critic -- academic and journalist Christopher Gaffney, who lives in Rio -- believes that FIFA's much vaunted "Fair Play" slogan should not just apply to on-field behavior.
"FIFA should be obliged
to follow the pre-existing tax laws in the host countries that apply to
international sports non-governmental organizations and their corporate
partners," said Gaffney.
"We saw a response in
the lead up to London 2012 that the British were revolted that the
International Olympic Committee's partners were not going to pay taxes.
"A boycott ensued and the companies agreed to pay taxes on their Olympic related profits.
"There are, of course,
always government subsidies to attract businesses, but legislative
elements like the General Law of the World Cup in Brazil go far beyond
this and effectively redirect public money into Swiss bank accounts."
That analysis drew a swift response from football's world governing body.
"FIFA obtains none of its revenue from public funds of the host country," a FIFA spokesman told CNN.
"The host country
provide the general infrastructure for the event, which remains as a
legacy in the country such as transportation, IT, upgrades on airports.
"Therefore, it is not
true that money is generated in the host country for FIFA and that it
will go then to accounts in Switzerland."
But the exemptions FIFA
insist upon, has surprised one leading European taxation expert,
Professor of European Tax Law Han Kogels, who is based in Rotterdam.
Tahiti's mission impossible
The career of Luiz Felipe Scolari
In bidding for the 2018 World Cup, Russia was up against three other bidders -- England, Netherlands-Belgium and Spain-Portugal.
"In that bid book model
of the FIFA as commercial organization, it claimed a privilege of 100%
tax freedom (no corporate tax, no income tax, no VAT, no excise duties,
no local tax, not any other taxes), irrespective of regular national tax
law, European tax law and international tax law," said Kogels after
examining the Netherlands part of the bid.
"I was (and still am)
not aware of any other international commercial sport event being
subsidized through full tax exemption at the cost of (other) taxpayers,
and did not see any justification for such unequal treatment of FIFA."
Economic benefits
FIFA insisted that tax
exemptions needed to be viewed in relation to the overall economic
benefits that next year's World Cup potentially might bring Brazil.
The world governing body
quoted a study by Ernst & Young Terco that estimated that the event
would inject R$ 112.8 billion ($50 billion) into the Brazilian economy
by 2014, with R$ 28 billion (12.4 billion) spent on infrastructure,
generating R$ 63.5 billion ($28 billion) in income for the population.
"It is important to note
that tax exemptions are only related to certain areas of the
organization, in particular for temporary use of goods and services
during the event," FIFA told CNN.
"Examples include IT
equipment for broadcasters as well as other material mainly broadcasters
and participating teams bring with them, the cars used for the official
transport, uniforms for volunteers.
"Amongst others the prize money of the FIFA World Cup is taxable in Brazil."
Apex/Brasil is using the Cup as a platform for promoting
exportation of Brazilian products, and estimates that the event will
leverage at least $1 billion in Brazilian exports
Brazilian Ministry of Finance
Brazilian Ministry of Finance
"Overall, according to
the Ernst & Young Terco study it is estimated that the host country
will obtain an additional tax revenue of R$ 18.1 billion ($8 billion).
"It should be noted that
FIFA also bears the costs related to hosting and staging of the FIFA
World Cup, including and not limited to the costs of the Local
Organising Committee. This means over $1.3 billion in costs for FIFA."
Cynicism
However, in much the
same way that the Group of Eight economies attempted to bring coherence
to the issue of closing global tax loopholes earlier this month, Professor Simon Chadwick called on governments and sporting organizations to adopt a more systematic approach to tax.
"One of the problems in
Brazil, Britain and, indeed, in many countries across the world is that
there is no coherent strategy or policy in place regarding taxation and
sport," said Chadwick.
"For example, players in
this year's Champions League final at Wembley were given exemption from
paying tax on revenues earned from the game.
"Whereas in 2015,
players in the rugby union World Cup final will not be given the same
exemption. Such a lack of strategy, clarity, consistency and openness
creates a climate in which confusion, contradiction and cynicism begin
to develop."
Given the scale of the protests in Brazil, does the South American country want to renegotiate the tax exemptions?
"Holding a FIFA World
Cup involves agreements that are signed between the organization and the
host country in order to receive the event.," said the Brazil Finance
Ministry.
"The FIFA World Cup has
always been seen by Brazil as a major opportunity to spur investments in
infrastructure and services and to modernize football management in
Brazil."
Ecuador has a poor track record on press freedom, so why would it help
Edward Snowden? CNN speaks to a local investigative journalist who blew
the whistle in a presidential corruption case. FULL STORY
TOP LATIN AMERICAN STORIES
- Brazil president proposes referendum for reforms
- Mexico eyes China as new tequila market
- Colombia: Police arrest 4 in U.S. agent's slaying
- Football: Brazil advances to Confederations Cup final
- Brazilian president warns against violence
- No new clues about missing teen in Ecuador
- Wanted sex trafficker arrested in Mexico
- Cuba and U.S. meet to discuss postal service
-
COPY http://edition.cnn.com
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário