Speaker 1: I was knocked to the ground, and when I came
Speaker 1: to my handbag with my person, my credit cards had
Speaker 1: all gone. Just come from the hospital, I need to
Speaker 1: pay my guests bill, and I've got to present for
Speaker 1: my grandson. I just don't know what to do. We'd
Speaker 1: better getting some new ones. And my computer says, now,
Speaker 1: hello and welcome to Stephanomics, the podcast that brings the
Speaker 1: global economy to you. From that clip was part of
Speaker 1: a running joke in Little Britain, the cult BBC comedy
Speaker 1: of the and it was doing the rounds A few
Speaker 1: days ago in a mini Twitter storm over an interview
Speaker 1: I did with the British finance Minister, the chance of
Speaker 1: the Exchequer, Rishi Sun. In it, he had explained why
Speaker 1: he had to wait until next year to raise UK
Speaker 1: welfare payments in line with rocketing inflation, rather than maybe
Speaker 1: giving families the help right now. It wasn't because it
Speaker 1: was too expensive. It needn't cost anything at all. It
Speaker 1: was that the system wouldn't let him. Computer says no. Well,
Speaker 1: you can hear his answer to that and my other
Speaker 1: questions in a minute. Also, how the mood cooled noticeably
Speaker 1: when I asked him about recent revelations that his wife
Speaker 1: had been using a loophole in UK tax law which
Speaker 1: enabled her to avoid millions of pounds in UK tax
Speaker 1: on her foreign earnings. After the Chancellor will be heading
Speaker 1: halfway around the world to hear from the United Nations
Speaker 1: Commissioner of Human Rights, the former President of Chile, Dr
Speaker 1: Michelle Bacheley. I've been talking to her at the New
Speaker 1: Economy Gateway event in Panama about Russian war crimes, American
Speaker 1: abortion rights and whether the new president of Chile can
Speaker 1: succeed where she didn't worth sticking around for. But first,
Speaker 1: here's the Chancellor and if you want to picture the scene,
Speaker 1: the two of us were so seeing in a very
Speaker 1: swanky new shared workspace in the English city of Stoke
Speaker 1: on Trent, previously the home of English Pottery, now best
Speaker 1: known as the headquarters of the Betting Company at three
Speaker 1: five Chancelor, thanks very much for doing this. We've had
Speaker 1: the GDP news today. There's obviously a lot of factors,
Speaker 1: global factors creating uncertainty for the economy, but we have
Speaker 1: also created some of our own in the UK and
Speaker 1: the debate about the Northern Ireland Protocol is obviously casting
Speaker 1: casting a shadow. Have you analyzed at the Treasury what
Speaker 1: the economic implications of tearing up the protocol would be.
Speaker 1: First of all, on the protocol, I think the government's
Speaker 1: position is that as it's currently operating, it's poses enormous
Speaker 1: challenges to the stability of the situation in Northern Ireland.
Speaker 1: You can see it's become a barrier to re establishing
Speaker 1: power sharing in Northern Ireland doesn't have cross community consent
Speaker 1: and that's a very serious situation that needs resolving. Our
Speaker 1: preferences is to have and always has been, to have
Speaker 1: a negotiated settlement with our European friends and partners, and
Speaker 1: no decision has been taken about you know what the
Speaker 1: future direction might be. And we've got your second question. Look,
Speaker 1: of course that's that's my job to provide the Prime
Speaker 1: Minister in the government with analysis on policy regarding the economy,
Speaker 1: and you'd expect me to do that and everything, and
Speaker 1: of course we do, and we're constantly monitoring everything that's
Speaker 1: going on and analyzing that as we go. But we
Speaker 1: we understand that you could get legislation next week to
Speaker 1: make it possible to tear up the protocol, and that
Speaker 1: seems to be what the Foreign Secretary is supporting are
Speaker 1: you Are you lobbying hard on behalf of the economy
Speaker 1: to prevent that. I think it's important people know that
Speaker 1: no decision has been taken. Our preference has always been
Speaker 1: to have a negotiated settlement, and you said that the
Speaker 1: Treasury job to analyze these things. When the protocol was signed,
Speaker 1: it was very clear that these checks were going to happen,
Speaker 1: that there would be this kind of impediment to trade.
Speaker 1: So that's something that's that's no surprise at all. I
Speaker 1: think when it comes to the protocol where to recognize
Speaker 1: that there's a there's a unique situation in Northern Ireland
Speaker 1: and everyone acknowledged that at the time, and it required
Speaker 1: a degree of flexibility and a constructive attitude on all
Speaker 1: sides to recognize the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland to
Speaker 1: come up with a solution that would work. And I'm
Speaker 1: hopeful that continued dialogue and negotiation can't resolve the situation
Speaker 1: result and the negotiated But just when you're weighing up
Speaker 1: the impact on the economy as a chancellor, seems clear
Speaker 1: that you would be pushing for the continuation of the
Speaker 1: protocol rather than throwing all of our trade relationship into uncertainty. Well,
Speaker 1: it's it's important to me, as it is important to
Speaker 1: the government, that we also protect the Good Friday Agreement,
Speaker 1: that we resume power sharing in Northern Ireland, that we
Speaker 1: make sure that Norther Ireland's placed in the Union in
Speaker 1: the United Kingdom is secure. And it's clear that the
Speaker 1: Protocol as it's currently operating is is causing on all
Speaker 1: those things. And that's why we, you know, we wereain
Speaker 1: committed to trying to find resolution on that. It's a
Speaker 1: serious situation and that's something that across government we all feel.
Speaker 1: One of the reasons why a big trade war with
Speaker 1: Europe would be the worst possible timing is the cost
Speaker 1: of living crisis. Our economists estimate that the cost of
Speaker 1: living squeeze altogether is going to cost the average family
Speaker 1: well over twenty one pounds this year. You've got, as
Speaker 1: a result, real disposable income falling by four percent. We're
Speaker 1: also expecting to see the economy shrink in the second
Speaker 1: and fourth quarter. We've already saw today, it shrinks, started
Speaker 1: to shrink in March. I mean, do you look back
Speaker 1: now and wish that you had got more ahead of
Speaker 1: this crisis in the spring statement, rather than yet again
Speaker 1: having to rush out some emergency medicine under pressure from
Speaker 1: from the rest of the government. Well, no, I think
Speaker 1: it's important that the policy remains responsive to the situation
Speaker 1: that we're seeing. And in the spring and in February,
Speaker 1: we had a sense of what was happening. In particular,
Speaker 1: we had clarity on energy prices because the price cap
Speaker 1: was increased in April by about seven hundred pounds and
Speaker 1: we announced in advance of that the support that was
Speaker 1: going to accompany that increase, and it's worth about three
Speaker 1: fifty pounds for a typical households, about half the increase.
Speaker 1: And then on top of that overall I've just said
Speaker 1: it's two thousands. So that doesn't feel responsive. But that's
Speaker 1: just one aspect of what we're doing. And if you
Speaker 1: if you look what's happening in a few weeks time,
Speaker 1: for example, there's a very significant tax cart coming in
Speaker 1: for thirty million people in work. That's well, it means
Speaker 1: that most people in work, the vast majority, seventy of them,
Speaker 1: will see a net tax cut in facts worth three pounds.
Speaker 1: The combination of our fuel duty freeze and fuel duty
Speaker 1: tax cut, the largest ever cut to fuel duty that's
Speaker 1: worth another hundred pounds for a typical family. The national
Speaker 1: living wage has just gone up but a few weeks ago.
Speaker 1: Again that's worth about a thousand pounds a year to
Speaker 1: someone working full time on the national living wage. So
Speaker 1: you put all these things together, there's quite a lot
Speaker 1: of support in place. But I've always said I'd stand
Speaker 1: ready to do more as the situation evolves, particularly with
Speaker 1: energy prices where the price cap will will most likely
Speaker 1: go up again in the autumn. And I'm focused now
Speaker 1: on I'm out and about across the country, listening to people,
Speaker 1: hearing what's on their mind, what they're worried about, to
Speaker 1: make sure that we can get our policy right. And
Speaker 1: that's the thing that I'm focused on now. Don't You've
Speaker 1: mentioned that lots of the measures actually were to help
Speaker 1: working families, but we have there's a big hit for
Speaker 1: anyone who's reliant on on state benefits. And that's a
Speaker 1: very simple thing that could have been done that actually
Speaker 1: would have been cost neutral, would have been to spread
Speaker 1: the uprating across two years, so instead of getting a
Speaker 1: well below inflation increase in benefits this year, and what
Speaker 1: will probably be a well above inflation increased next year.
Speaker 1: You could have spread it over two years, and I
Speaker 1: know there may have been some technical problems with that,
Speaker 1: but have you worked out how to do that, because
Speaker 1: it obviously can make Actually there are quite the technical problems.
Speaker 1: That sounds like an excuse, but the operational is actually
Speaker 1: technically complicated and it's not necessarily possible to do that
Speaker 1: for everybody. And actually many other systems are built in
Speaker 1: a way that they can only be done once a year.
Speaker 1: And the decision was taken quite quite a while ago
Speaker 1: before you managed to put the further you designed the
Speaker 1: furlough scheme. For most of the world of the UK
Speaker 1: popular work. The welfare system works in a in a
Speaker 1: very different way, and we're constrained somewhat by the operation
Speaker 1: of the welfare system, so it can't be done for
Speaker 1: everybody in that way, but we are still supporting people.
Speaker 1: I recognize there's always going to be families in a
Speaker 1: particular circumstance that it's you know, I can't particularly forecast
Speaker 1: sitting at a desk and in the treasury, and that's
Speaker 1: why we've given councils before and now up to a
Speaker 1: billion pounds of discretionary funding because the local councils are
Speaker 1: best place to know those very vulnerable families who for
Speaker 1: whatever reason aren't quite getting the help they need. So
Speaker 1: those councils now have the funding that they can provide
Speaker 1: direct support to those families a little bit extra as well.
Speaker 1: And you've talked about council's We've done a very careful
Speaker 1: look at what's happened on the leveling up agenda across
Speaker 1: the country, since everything that we can get on very
Speaker 1: latest because obviously most of the time you have got
Speaker 1: rather old data. But the things that go right up
Speaker 1: mostly to the spring of this year, the gap between
Speaker 1: London and Southeast and everywhere else is growing on every
Speaker 1: measure except life expectancy and the number of people on benefits.
Speaker 1: And that's only because London has leveled down. Those things
Speaker 1: have got worse. In London. Here salaries on our monthly
Speaker 1: salaries have fallen behind the London and Southeast by another
Speaker 1: three hundred pounds. I mean, it's an impossible task that
Speaker 1: you've been landed with this leveling up agenda and you're
Speaker 1: not It doesn't feel like the government's really putting the
Speaker 1: money in the effort in to make a difference on
Speaker 1: any of these measures. So I haven't seen your report yet,
Speaker 1: so forgive me for not having cited exactly the figures,
Speaker 1: and they're slightly different to the figures that I've looked
Speaker 1: at previous slee where what you saw was a much
Speaker 1: stronger recovery and jobs and wages outside of London and
Speaker 1: the Southeast. So I'd be interested to have a look
Speaker 1: at your report. I think in general at the period
Speaker 1: that you're describing is obviously the period of the pandemic,
Speaker 1: and so it's a child that's been a challenging time
Speaker 1: for the economy. But that said, we are very committed
Speaker 1: to leveling up. You know, what does it mean to me?
Speaker 1: It means making sure people wherever they happen to grow
Speaker 1: up and live in the UK feel that they've got
Speaker 1: fantastic opportunity ahead of them and that they also have
Speaker 1: enormous pride in the place where they get to call home.
Speaker 1: You know, we're sitting here and Stoke, which has received
Speaker 1: a huge amount of investment in the town here, or
Speaker 1: the cities here or the collection of towns, and also
Speaker 1: investment in the transport infrastructure. And I've been here multiple
Speaker 1: times to visit local businesses in the community, and actually
Speaker 1: there's an enormous sense of positivity and optimism here about
Speaker 1: what's happening. Were blue bergs, So we obviously we're very
Speaker 1: focused on the financial services on the city. You had
Speaker 1: a fantastic career in the city. You've also been in
Speaker 1: high office for several years. It's very easy to lose
Speaker 1: track of how the rest of the world sees things,
Speaker 1: and I just I have to ask you, it's been
Speaker 1: a few weeks since the story broke, do you have
Speaker 1: a better understanding now of why even your supporters found
Speaker 1: it extraordinary that your family was organizing its tax affairs
Speaker 1: to to limit UK tax So, my my wife's her
Speaker 1: own person. She's an independent businesswoman. She's made a statement
Speaker 1: she's my wife. Is I think people would find extraordinary
Speaker 1: if she was my property, I wouldn't. I wouldn't presume
Speaker 1: to dictate my wife to tell her what to do.
Speaker 1: She's an independent business person and she's always followed all
Speaker 1: the rules. She's paid taxes in the UK on her
Speaker 1: UK earnings and international taxes on her international earnings, very
Speaker 1: much within the rules. But she recognized that, you know,
Speaker 1: there was a call to go beyond the rules and
Speaker 1: she made that decision herself to pay both UK and
Speaker 1: foreign TA. You didn't think it was extraordinary. I just
Speaker 1: wonder whether you think you often talk about being a
Speaker 1: good husband and being a good sitter, and do you
Speaker 1: think being a good citizen, a good husband, a good
Speaker 1: leader is only about sticking to the rules and doing
Speaker 1: what's legal. But I do think about part of being
Speaker 1: a good husband is not presuming to dictate to my
Speaker 1: wife what to do, because she's an independent person and
Speaker 1: I support her decisions. And now to Panama and the
Speaker 1: New Economy Gateway. It's an event that's an offshoot of
Speaker 1: the Singapore New Economy Forum that Bloomberg holds every year
Speaker 1: in November. As I write this, I'm looking at a
Speaker 1: long line of container ships out my window queuing to
Speaker 1: get into the Panama Canal. So yes, it is a
Speaker 1: good place to talk about supply chains and the future
Speaker 1: of global trade. We've been doing that a lot in
Speaker 1: the last couple of days, but we've also been doing
Speaker 1: that a lot on this podcast, so I thought you
Speaker 1: might be more interested to hear my conversation with Dr
Speaker 1: Michelle Bachelor, Commissioner for Human Rights for the United Nations,
Speaker 1: and President of Chiday between two thousand and six and
Speaker 1: twenty ten, since we were talking to an audience in Panama,
Speaker 1: we spent a lot of time on Latin America. But
Speaker 1: I started by asking her whether Vladimir Putin all members
Speaker 1: of the Russian military should not be tried for war
Speaker 1: crimes in Ukraine. Well, I have to say that we
Speaker 1: have had admission there from two thousand and fourteen that
Speaker 1: had been a monitory and reporting all kinds of situations
Speaker 1: and making a lot of reports to the human rights
Speaker 1: councils sense the South of fourteen and after the twenty
Speaker 1: fourth of February, they're still there working there, identifying and
Speaker 1: receiving a lot of information allegations of violation of human rights,
Speaker 1: on on how prison of war have been treated, if
Speaker 1: there are allegations of arbitrary killings or actually usual killings,
Speaker 1: is there any allegations on gender based violence and rapes?
Speaker 1: And our job as the Office of the High Commissioner
Speaker 1: is to to get all that in mention to verify it,
Speaker 1: to see with what are facts that are real and
Speaker 1: which are not, because in this kind of situation we
Speaker 1: need to ensure that the information we share with the
Speaker 1: world and of course with the media as well, are
Speaker 1: facts that are real. But it's not for us to
Speaker 1: say whether something is a war crime or not. There
Speaker 1: is a particular if I would say, methodology to identify
Speaker 1: if delegations are a reality, and we do that. We
Speaker 1: are also asking to preserve evidence because the only possibility
Speaker 1: of defining war crimes is on a tribunal with evidence
Speaker 1: based But let me say something. The war in Ukraine
Speaker 1: is not a war that can be seen only as
Speaker 1: a terrible and it is violation of international humanity law
Speaker 1: and international human wrest law. That is one terrible thing,
Speaker 1: and it has had so many casualties and grievances, etcetera.
Speaker 1: But I have to say the war in Ukraine has
Speaker 1: provoked and will continu needed to provoke a three dimensional
Speaker 1: crisis or food, energy and finance, as oil, fertilizers and
Speaker 1: food prices are character ticketing and there will be serious
Speaker 1: effect in Latin America and the Caribbean, already deeply affected
Speaker 1: by the COVID nineteen pandemic. Pricing christ is particularly affect
Speaker 1: more of a population if we continue with high levels
Speaker 1: of inflation, with lack of enough food, with people having
Speaker 1: not any support there will be a big social unrest.
Speaker 1: I'm certain about that. I mean, when when something happens
Speaker 1: in the country, but the leaders are trusted, that leader
Speaker 1: can speak to the country then say, look, we are
Speaker 1: facing this issue. We did not produce it, but we're
Speaker 1: having the consequences, and we're going to deal with this
Speaker 1: and this and this and this manner that if there's
Speaker 1: no trust in institution, they are not trust in leadership,
Speaker 1: it could be much worse. Just briefly, to go back
Speaker 1: on on Ukraine, I mean, obviously, sitting in Latin America,
Speaker 1: it has its own experience of of being next to
Speaker 1: a very large neighbor and that neighbor involving itself in
Speaker 1: its affairs. And the US has been very vociferous about
Speaker 1: calling for Russian officials to be prosecuted for war crimes,
Speaker 1: despite the fact that the US has itself refused to
Speaker 1: join or be bound by the International Criminal Court. Do
Speaker 1: you do you think that's tenable? Do you think that
Speaker 1: is a constructive contribution? Well, I believe that the definition
Speaker 1: of war crime is not political. It has to be
Speaker 1: udicial after a criminal investigation, and uh and and and
Speaker 1: and that's what we will stand for. And to have
Speaker 1: all the information needed to ensure that there is the process,
Speaker 1: that there are serious investigation, and that all the evidence
Speaker 1: is for source or that whoever the mechanisms that have
Speaker 1: to decide to make those definitions, who have all the
Speaker 1: informations that it is needed if the US is calling
Speaker 1: for it, and yet the US is by definition and
Speaker 1: not willing to have any of its own officials or
Speaker 1: military members be tried on the same terms that that
Speaker 1: that suggests it is political, and that devalues the term. Surely, well,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of politics in all these issues. Of course,
Speaker 1: of course I would like that every country in the
Speaker 1: world is is a member of the i c UH
Speaker 1: and that's not the DISH. And we have three of
Speaker 1: the P five that are not ratifying the SEC and
Speaker 1: the wrong statute. So there is an issue there, and
Speaker 1: even Ukraine has not ratified the wrong institute. But but
Speaker 1: there are other ways, anyway to investigate identified perpetrators and
Speaker 1: hold them account. You talked about the risks that might
Speaker 1: come and the problems that could be exacerbated by rising
Speaker 1: food and energy prices. In this region. We have seen
Speaker 1: a surge in authoritarian tendencies. Nikara was the most recent example.
Speaker 1: When you look at the region, what are you which
Speaker 1: countries are you most worried about and how how do
Speaker 1: you want to how do you think we can start
Speaker 1: to redress that democratic deficit build trust as you mentioned earlier, Yeah,
Speaker 1: of course we are being following. I mean even before
Speaker 1: the war and before COVID, we have been following several
Speaker 1: countries in the region and looking at the human right situation.
Speaker 1: As you may know, these countries are like we have
Speaker 1: been working strongly on Venezuela for for a long time,
Speaker 1: and we have been identifying there which are the issues,
Speaker 1: the challenges, the problems, and also identifying which other possibilities
Speaker 1: to to improve the protection and promotion of human rights. Uh.
Speaker 1: I mean in Venezuela has a good economic growth that
Speaker 1: is welcome. It is key though that this grow needs
Speaker 1: to be used to ensure people can have an adequate
Speaker 1: standard of living. And I continue to encourage the lifting
Speaker 1: of sectorial sanctions to contribute to reliving the needs of
Speaker 1: the most vulnerable people in Venezuela. I do believe that
Speaker 1: sanction individual sanctions can play important role. But when you
Speaker 1: have sectorial sanctions, what it happens is that the people
Speaker 1: who are the most vulnerable ones are the ones who
Speaker 1: are affected because they're not enough money for supporting the
Speaker 1: health system, the social protection system, the education and so on.
Speaker 1: On Nara, Yes, we have many people have been arrested
Speaker 1: in the context of of one elections and these are
Speaker 1: extremely concerning. We have been calling the authority to release
Speaker 1: all those avertuality chain UM. The government has continued to
Speaker 1: cancel the legal status of society organizations and universities and
Speaker 1: we have also called authority to restore those status because
Speaker 1: those organizations have been avituality dissolved or sanctioned. And of
Speaker 1: course there is a new law that cons terms as
Speaker 1: a lot on engeo, further restricting the functioning of civil society,
Speaker 1: contrary to the country's human rights obligations. I think Nicaragua
Speaker 1: must remaining international agenda. Last March, the Humans Council adopted
Speaker 1: resolution that allows my office to continue monitoring on reporting
Speaker 1: on the human situation in the country and it established
Speaker 1: a group of human rights experts with an accountability mandate
Speaker 1: em parallel to the mandate of my office. UM. We
Speaker 1: are also being concerned about the Salvador about the state
Speaker 1: of emergency, which led to more than thirty thousand people
Speaker 1: being arrested and the subsequent amendment to criminal law and
Speaker 1: criminal procedural law. I mean, we recognize I have to
Speaker 1: say I've been haven't been in Offer myself. I understand
Speaker 1: that security and how you deal with delinquency is a very,
Speaker 1: very challenge challenging issue, and I recognize the challenges posed
Speaker 1: by gang violence in sal Salvadore. But we have to
Speaker 1: do things not only I mean, the intention can be good,
Speaker 1: but we have to do it in a way that
Speaker 1: you respect international humorous law. There's so many countries. I
Speaker 1: think we could spend twenty minutes those and people will
Speaker 1: be fascinated to hear what you think. But let me
Speaker 1: just come back on Venezuela, because many people were surprised
Speaker 1: to see you recommend the lifting of sanctions last year
Speaker 1: against Venezuela, despite their not having been a significant improvement
Speaker 1: in the situation. And I noticed that there have been
Speaker 1: ninety three incidents that your Offers has seen related to
Speaker 1: restrictions on Venezuela's civic and democratic space just since last autumn,
Speaker 1: and yet you've said again that you are in favor
Speaker 1: of lifting sanctions. Is that because you don't think they
Speaker 1: are the right tool for Venezuela and do we use
Speaker 1: them too much in other places? Well? As I mentioned
Speaker 1: before Stefanie, we differentiate indie visual sanctions, sanctions to individual
Speaker 1: people who you could think are responsible for violation of
Speaker 1: human rights or and they need to be held accountable,
Speaker 1: from sectorial sanctions. We are against sectorial sanctions, not only
Speaker 1: in Venezuela, in everywhere because what happens at the sectorial
Speaker 1: sanctions usually hurt the poorest. That I have to tell you.
Speaker 1: When I visited Nicara at Venezuela into southern nineteen I
Speaker 1: spoke to people who are not a pro government and
Speaker 1: mothers and doctors of hospitals or children hospitals who were
Speaker 1: affected by the sanctions. Even though it's some sanctions are
Speaker 1: supposed not to include medicine medical supplies, there is a
Speaker 1: lot of overcompliance. Banks do not want to risk anything,
Speaker 1: so what happened. For example, I was speaking to some
Speaker 1: some doctors. They have these children who needed a kidney
Speaker 1: transplant and there was no possibility to do it in
Speaker 1: the country, so they were sending these children children to
Speaker 1: Italy or Argentina. But the banks will won't send the
Speaker 1: money to those places, so they won't accept it and
Speaker 1: many children die because of that. So that's what I mean.
Speaker 1: I mean, when you're doing some sanction, you need to
Speaker 1: think exactly who you are impacting, and usually you don't
Speaker 1: impact the powerful, impact the more vulnerable people. The dynamic
Speaker 1: you mentioned is very visible in Afghanistan. Briefly on the
Speaker 1: political prospects for Venezuela. What are you hoping will be
Speaker 1: the political solution? Do you think you can have a
Speaker 1: free and fair presidential election in four Well, I am
Speaker 1: a chronic chronic optimistic, if I might say, because otherwise
Speaker 1: I will have to give up. I always say use
Speaker 1: these words of Desmond Tuto, who used to say I'm
Speaker 1: a prison of hope. And so I hope that parties
Speaker 1: will sit together understanding that they need to think on
Speaker 1: Venezuela as a whole and which could be the best
Speaker 1: political dialogue to ensure that in twenty twenty four they
Speaker 1: are fair to bearn and very participative elections. And I
Speaker 1: hope this will be resumed soon. You mentioned the challenges
Speaker 1: of office. You're conscious in your criticisms that how challenging
Speaker 1: it is to be. On the other side, we have
Speaker 1: seen new governments come in on a wave of optimism
Speaker 1: in Peru, Ecuador, Honduras and certainly your own native country, Chile,
Speaker 1: and very rapidly lose support. If you look at the
Speaker 1: new President of of Chile, Gabrielle Boreck, he seems to
Speaker 1: have lost support very quickly. And so, as someone who's
Speaker 1: been in very much in that situation, what's your advice
Speaker 1: to him? How can he come through on on that
Speaker 1: optimism that brought him to power. Well, I mean, first
Speaker 1: of all, and I spoke to him that when I
Speaker 1: was chilling summer, I told him there has been so
Speaker 1: huge expectations on your government from enormous amount of people,
Speaker 1: and I have to tell you, Mr Pressing, I told
Speaker 1: him big expectations can never be met because usually there
Speaker 1: are unrealistic expectations because people want changes but in a months,
Speaker 1: in two months, but many of the more transformational changes
Speaker 1: will take a bit longer. They had to deal with
Speaker 1: issues that are very challenging for any government. COVID nineteen
Speaker 1: is still covegn nenteen pandemic. The economy with the covination
Speaker 1: and the consequences of COVID on the economy and the
Speaker 1: employment UH and now the consequences of higher levels of
Speaker 1: inflation due to the war. So clearly, I think for
Speaker 1: any leader, this is a very challenging moment. My only
Speaker 1: recommendation could be always speak openly to the people, to
Speaker 1: explain the challenges and explain what you're going to do
Speaker 1: to address these challenges, but on the other hand, to
Speaker 1: to explain that there are no magical solutions. The other
Speaker 1: thing that has happened, I guess is there's all this
Speaker 1: process of a new Chilean constitution that's been going on
Speaker 1: created also a lot of expectations. It was good because
Speaker 1: the country through that has channeled the social outburst of
Speaker 1: to South and nineteen in a democratic and participatory process,
Speaker 1: but also something very interesting because a completely paritarian the
Speaker 1: one fifty four members of the Constitutional Assembly are fifty
Speaker 1: fifty women and men, and that's it's really new, and
Speaker 1: it means that a lot of processes has included the
Speaker 1: gender perspective and so on. But of course he has
Speaker 1: taken time, and people want solutions now, wants changes now,
Speaker 1: and it will be until the fourth of September when
Speaker 1: there will be the referendum where this new constitution can
Speaker 1: be approved or not by the people. So I think
Speaker 1: they're leaving a lot of challenge. I think do you
Speaker 1: think it would be approved? Do you think it will
Speaker 1: be approved. I hope it will be approved. I think
Speaker 1: it should be approved. I think one of the challenges
Speaker 1: that they have is to be able to communicate better
Speaker 1: to the people so people can understand what is it about.
Speaker 1: Because some people are more concerned, of course, of working,
Speaker 1: having food, you know, the the normal concerns of somebody
Speaker 1: and not being able to get in touch in detail
Speaker 1: with these issues. But I think it's a great opportunity
Speaker 1: and I hope it's approved. So we're going to run
Speaker 1: out of time, but I had to ask you one question,
Speaker 1: especially given given your record in speaking up for for
Speaker 1: women's rights. We've had big demonstrations in the US this
Speaker 1: weekend over the potential for Supreme Court overturning abortion rights
Speaker 1: in in in many states in the US. When you
Speaker 1: look at the continent, some would say the biggest or
Speaker 1: one of the larger democratic democratic deficits that's opening up
Speaker 1: is potentially in the US with the constitution. They're becoming
Speaker 1: quite a polarizing force. Um, do you think the U
Speaker 1: s should perhaps take a leaf out of Chile's book
Speaker 1: and have a have a constitutional Convention have some kind
Speaker 1: of way to address this deficit. Well, let me tell
Speaker 1: you first that the League document from the U. S.
Speaker 1: Supreme Court does not constitute the final decision from the court.
Speaker 1: Uh And and I think that possible decisions taken at
Speaker 1: the national level in the US to revert more than
Speaker 1: five decades of protection of sessional dicty health and rights
Speaker 1: through raw and way are very concerning. And we're really
Speaker 1: concerned about because we believe it could be a massive
Speaker 1: setback for human women's right contrary to the international human
Speaker 1: rights standards. Medium and women in the U S could
Speaker 1: be affected by the decision, especially those with low income
Speaker 1: and belonging to racial and ethnic minorities, because evidence showed
Speaker 1: that highly restrictive laws have a disproportional impact of marginalized
Speaker 1: group of women, in particular women living in poverty. Globally,
Speaker 1: unsafe abortion is a didn't cause of maternal death, and
Speaker 1: evidence has shown that restrictive abortion laws do not reduce
Speaker 1: incidence of abortion, but drive it underground make it more
Speaker 1: likely to be unsafe. Do the US needs a constitutional process, Well,
Speaker 1: I'm not sure there is appetite there for that. And
Speaker 1: I suppose are the American cities of the one who
Speaker 1: needs to answer that, because I know constitutions can open
Speaker 1: many other issues that maybe they don't want to open
Speaker 1: it right now the discussion. But I hope in this
Speaker 1: issue that women's women's rights can be respected because we
Speaker 1: do believe that even um, I mean, everybody can have options, choices,
Speaker 1: and what states need to ensure that women have those options.
Speaker 1: What state cannot do is to impose a certain perspective,
Speaker 1: but needs to ensure that all women's according to their
Speaker 1: own beliefs, religion or decisions on their own autonomy, on
Speaker 1: their voices and so on, can have access to all
Speaker 1: the different options, and not to try to ensure that
Speaker 1: some things are not available, particularly to the most vulnerable
Speaker 1: and poorists and marginalized groups of people in the country.
Speaker 1: United Nations Human Rights Commissioner Dr Michelle Bachelor, thank you
Speaker 1: so much for joining us. It's been it's been wonderful
Speaker 1: to have you. Thank yourself. Fanny. Well, that's it for
Speaker 1: this episode of Stephanomics. Next week will be in Davos
Speaker 1: for the World Economic Forum. I don't know yet what
Speaker 1: we'll be talking about, but I know it will be
Speaker 1: different from Panama and Stoke on Trent. If you want
Speaker 1: more economic news and analysis before then, check out the
Speaker 1: Bloomberg News website and follow as Economics on Twitter. This
Speaker 1: episode was produced by Megas Hendrickson even though you had
Speaker 1: COVID and Summer Saudi, with special thanks to Do To
Speaker 1: Michelle Bachelet and the right Honorable Rishi Sunak MP. Mike
Speaker 1: Sasso is executive producer of Stephanomics and the head of
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Podcast is francesco leav