OK, good afternoon. My name is Shannon Raj, and I am a legal officer at the Special Tribunal for Lebanon in The Hague. And I work there in the appeals chamber and the office of the president. So the subject of my presentation today is the weaponization of social media and options for holding social media entities accountable under principles of international criminal law. And I don't use this turn of phrase, weaponization lightly. And so I'll attempt to justify its use in my presentation. So my interest in this topic actually originates from my time at the STL, because I've been really interested in some of the tribunal's decisions on the liability of legal persons, which I'll discuss towards the end of my presentation. In addition, social media and issues of tech are very close to my heart, because I'm originally from the San Francisco Bay Area. So I have a lot of friends and former colleagues who work in social media, who work in the tech industry. Although that does not, as I think will soon be clear to you, prevent me from wanting to find ways to hold some of those entities accountable under international law, where I think it's appropriate. Lastly, I'll just note that, for those not familiar, the title of my presentation actually derives from Facebook's own slogan, which for a long time was move fast and break things, which in my view is a little bit aggressive and ultimately perhaps fateful. So as has now been widely reported, social media played what the UN called a determining role in the violence that transpired against the Rohingya. As many of you know, hundreds of Myanmar's military officials engaged in a massive disinformation and propaganda campaign to support its ethnic cleansing against the Rohingya. They distributed photos of corpses from fake massacres they said were initiated by the Rohingya. They shared fabricated stories of rape, and they used troll accounts to flood social media with incendiary posts, timing all those posts just to have absolute peak viewership. And what was notable to me as I read those reports was just the breadth of the social media campaign in a really organized fashion by a country's military. And of course, we know that it resulted in the largest forced migration in recent history. So obviously, this is just one small example among many we could pull from regarding the role of social media and international crimes. But it's a useful focal point and kind of case study for what I'm talking about. So I want to keep it in mind as we go through some of these issues today. And on that note, there was one other key fact I wanted to point out regarding Facebook and the Rohingya. In 2015, a group delivered a presentation to Facebook executives at their headquarters in Menlo Park, California. And they did a whole presentation where they literally told the Facebook executives that there was a distinct risk in Myanmar, of Facebook being what hate radio was to Rwanda in the days preceding the 1994 genocide. So they received warnings. They were alerted to the ways in which the platform was being used in Myanmar. And by all accounts, they didn't act strongly enough or quickly enough. And there were excuses offered later that they didn't have enough manpower, enough translators, and it's outside of the scope of the presentation to go into the validity of those excuses. But suffice it to say that they were warned. So while obviously, ethnic tensions, xenophobia, hatred don't originate online, it's important to note the ways that these tensions are magnified and distorted through the lens of social media. So there's a few features of social media that I'd like to note here. First, most social media platforms are not simply chronological reflections of what its users post to the internet. That would be one thing. And I hear that a lot that, well, the social media platforms, they just reflect what we post. But that's not really true. Most platforms today have highly sophisticated algorithms that are meant to keep you engaged on the platform for as long as possible. And this is something that Alan Sears, if you were in one of the morning presentations, touched on in his presentation. But what researchers figured out is that by feeding you more extreme content based on your preferences and your past engagement with the platform, you would stay on longer and engage more. So the New York Times recently highlighted this when they were discussing YouTube. And they were explaining that, for those of you familiar with YouTube, an auto plays another video. And so it talks about how you would kind of get taken down a rabbit hole, where you would start off watching, for example, a video about space and the planets and five kind of auto play videos later. You would be watching kind of being fed a video about how going to the moon is a hoax or something. So Facebook has similar techniques for keeping you engaged on the site. They call it reducing and amplifying posts. And based on your prior conduct on the site, what the things that you like, the pages that you interface with and visit, Facebook might think it's worth amplifying certain types of posts for you, making them appear at the top of your feed or more regularly and reducing others. And so as you know, it's constantly collecting data on you and targeting its content to keep you specifically engaged. So what does this mean for atrocity crimes? Well, it means that social media plays a role in driving people towards more extreme content. So in addition to fake news being spread, an addition of fake accounts being created, like those by Myanmar's military, Facebook will specifically target those posts towards certain demographics that it thinks may be vulnerable or susceptible to its messages. So in the wake of all these reports about the role of social media in fueling violence against the Rohingya, a lot of people started to compare them to news entities that played a role in spreading propaganda and hate speech in other conflicts of the past. So one journalist said, you can hardly fail to see the parallels between the use of social media in Myanmar and that of hate radio in Rwanda. And I've heard that comparison a lot. But are these entities really analogous to traditional forms of media? Of course, many people get their news from social media, unfortunately, and it is a means of spreading information. But there's some really key differences. And it's worth noting that in his testimony before US Congress, even Mark Zuckerberg, when asked his Facebook and media company, he said, no, I consider it a technology company. So in order to assess how accountability for social media platforms would look, I took a look at some of the traditional media cases in ICL on the subject of incitement and hate speech. So these are cases prosecuted under the theory of direct and public incitement. And a classic one, of course, is the 1946 Nuremberg Conviction of Julius Stryker, who was the publisher and editor of the Sturmer and Anti-Semitic Weekly newspaper. And according to the International Military Tribunal, he infected the German mind with the virus of anti-Semitism and incited the German people to act of persecution. And similarly, in December 2003, the ICTR convicted three media executives from RTLM, The Hate Radio in Rwanda for their role in inciting bloodshed. It held that editors and publishers have generally been held responsible for the media they control. But in doing so, it really pulled out in importance, the importance of intent, the purpose of the communications that they were channeling. And so for example, they look at the media publisher's purpose in transmitting the material. So was it for purposes of historical research, disseminating news or holding public authorities accountable? And they found that not only in that case was genocidal intent evident from the actual broadcast, so from the propaganda being spread by RTLM, but also from the individual statements made by each of the accused. And going back to the Julius Stryker case before the IMT, similarly, the tribunal found that Stryker himself was clearly a staunch Nazi and a supporter of Hitler's policies. And they used that in their finding of intent. So analogies in these media cases to social media just isn't a very good fit, because I don't think most of us could plausibly argue that Facebook executives, you know, specifically are intending to exterminate the Rohingya. So it presents really a challenge to bringing any sort of accountability mechanism based on a theory of incitement. So what my paper, which is a working paper, a working research, what I argue is that rather than seeking to hold social media entities accountable under principles of incitement, perhaps a more appropriate option is to reconceptualize social media as a weapon and to consider these cases as not analogous to media cases, but to armed supplier cases. And this would come under a theory of complicity and a lot of these armed suppliers have been charged with aiding and abetting. So traditionally the elements of aiding and abetting are providing practical assistance, encouragement or moral support, which has a substantial effect on the perpetration of the crime and with knowledge that these acts assist in the commission of the crimes. And the key you'll note here is the lower intent requirement for aiding and abetting. So unlike incitement, it requires not the intent to assist in the commission of the crime, but just the knowledge that these acts assist in the crime. So taking our case study of Facebook and the Rohingya, for example, you know, we noted earlier that the UN already determined that the platform had a determining role in the violence. So I certainly think that would meet the requirement of providing practical assistance. And in light of those presentations that were made to the executives at an early stage, it cannot really be denied that the company had knowledge of the way that its platform was being used. So there's a number of cases that we could look to in which weapon suppliers were charged with aiding and abetting, but I just wanted to highlight a few of them. First, the Zyklon B case was before a British military court. And in that case, it was about the poison gas used for mass extermination at Auschwitz. And in that case, the supplier was actually able to evade liability by pleading ignorance of the end use of this product, which I thought was very interesting because the supplier said, yes, we knew that the poison gas was being sent to the concentration camps. Yes, we knew about the concentration camps, but we thought it was being used as an insecticide. All those people, we've got to keep bugs out. So that surprised me, but they were able to evade liability. But of course, even that would stand in contrast to cases like Facebook, where knowledge of the end use was made quite clear to the company's executives. The Shinovich case at the ICTY, a Serbian commander was accused and convicted of providing weaponry, including tanks to assist the VJ and they organized and equipped the units. He was convicted of aiding in a bedding. The trial chamber held that it constituted practical assistance in light of the fight against the KLA and NATO. And of course, the Charles Taylor case before the Special Court for Sierra Leone, the trial chamber found that Charles Taylor was aware of the RUF's operational strategy, which was to terrorize civilians and their intent to commit crimes. And that nevertheless, he gave the group guns and ammunition that fueled its terror campaign. So let me just briefly describe some of the key advantages to conceptualizing social media as weapon suppliers. First, as I mentioned, the intent requirement under a principle of aiding in a bedding would be lower. In that regard, we're talking about the ad hoc and the hybrid tribunals requirement. So the ICC has a higher intent requirement under the relevant article. At that court, it actually requires that the assistance be provided for the purpose of facilitating the commission of the crime. Some of you would also be aware of, there was a line of ICL cases, which for a while actually had a heightened intent requirement for aiding in a bedding. They required that the perpetrator commit acts which were specifically directed to assist in the commission of the offense. But that requirement was actually dropped by the Shinovich case. And they said that that requirement was in conflict with the prevailing jurisprudence and customary international law. And that seems to now be consistently the view that has been emerged. The same conclusion was reached by the Taylor case. So another advantage to prosecuting social media as a weapon supplier is that knowledge is now a lot more difficult to deny. So in an article in which he focused on arms suppliers, William Shabbos said, with regard to violations of international law, establishing knowledge of end use today, it's much less difficult, both because of the scale and nature of the assistance in these cases in international law and because of the intense publicity around these cases. You have specialized reports like from the UN and of course you also have mainstream media. So he concluded that a court should probably have little difficulty concluding that entities like diamond traders, airline pilots and small arms suppliers would have knowledge of their contribution to a conflict. And I would argue that the same would hold true for social media. Third, the analogy seems very apt because of the lucrative aspect of both arms suppliers and social media. They're similarly situated in that their primary intent is generally not the commission of crimes, but the generation profit. Further, of course, under aiding and abetting liability, no physical presence is required. So an arms supplier need not actually be present at the site of the crime to be held responsible. And that of course is very valuable when we're talking about social media entities where the click of a keyboard can have ramifications on the other side of the world. Lastly, both traditional weapons suppliers and social media entities may be especially incentivized to alter their behavior if we apply ICL to their conduct. And I'm really optimistic about this actually because in light of some of the public backlash, they've Facebook and other social media platforms have already begun to take steps to alter their algorithms, remove content, employ more translators and so on. And a friend of mine who was previously employed at the ICC was actually recently hired by Facebook and she moved to California to help them in addressing this backlash. And she sent me some documents about what they're doing and they're all public, but she explained that they're working on creating a public appeal content board where people could appeal content decisions to an independent body of experts. And those experts would only be obligated to users of Facebook, not the company. So Facebook is holding workshops now around the world in Singapore and Delhi, Nairobi, Berlin and others to get feedback on issues of human rights and figure out how this board would work. So of course it's up to you whether and other people whether these steps will be effective or there'll be enough. But my point is just that in terms of deterrence, normally when international law is applied to a set of actors, it's not so often that most defendants would say, let me reform all my practices, let me take all this into consideration so that I can ensure that I'm not in violation of international law and human rights standards. So this seems like a really good application of the international criminal law, jurisprudence in terms of deterrence. The elephant in the room just briefly is of course the prosecution of social media as entities. And this is something we can talk about more in the Q and A. But as you know, corporate liability was dropped from the Rome statute, both because of lack of political will and concerns about complementarity. But there's a number of indications to suggest that there's an increasing movement towards the liability of legal persons under ICL. And some of the jurisprudence from the STL is really relevant in this regard. So we can talk about it more in the Q and A, but some of those contempt cases refer to a growing number of states criminalizing the acts and conduct of legal persons and an emerging shared international understanding on the need to address corporate responsibility. So I'll just conclude by leaving you of course with the horrific tragedies out of Christchurch, New Zealand last week because this was an attack that was really born of and made for the internet. It was streamed to Facebook Live, a post on 8chan, directed users to the Facebook stream. A video of the shooting was rapidly spread across YouTube and Instagram. And the manifesto was spread throughout Twitter. And so as one commentator said, we can really only have an honest analysis of the sources of this violence if we understand how it grows and spreads. And the worst of social media is not a mirror image of us, but it's really a distortion. So he said it's a fun house mirror that bulges and squeezes and disfigures us in ways that mock our humanity. So my thoughts on this subject are just to try to apply ICL to bring social media more in line with our humanity. And I look forward to your questions. Thank you.


Iem� because our presentation shows how it can be done and how we can move forwards. I would just like to look at the theme Down in Manchester UK research frameworks. I'd just like to think about how we might extend those to Europe and in fact beyond on a worldwide canvas. My first slide is chosen for deliberate reasons because it's a picture of Slater's Mill in poor tucket which was built in the 18th century by Samuel Slater who's called in Belford example Belfmill in the Dirlwood Valley and sink of course to America and established mine which copied exactly the technology used in the Archv 가서 mill in the Dirlwood valley a better example of technology transfer or industrial espionage it you'll not find and point is if you want to understand the development of the industrial revolution in America I can't explain it without reference to England and in particular the Durham valley and more specifically Belpa. Belpa claim to fame. This reinforces a point made by Dan. We have a variety of research frameworks in the UK and I'll show you a sample. Top left we have an example of a topic-specific research framework in this case prehistoric ceramics dyl languageswyr Gyntgen yn talked right, we have some examples of regional research frameworks that the East Midlands, Historic Environment Research스 Remark and that is an inconspicuous framework that can address all aspects of the historic environment. We have sub-regional frameworks and we show that the Dermot Valley Mills World Heritagearlaise Research framework And for those of those who are if not familiar with the Dermot Valley Mills, it's just here. In the middle of the UK ac ym ni'r unrhyw ffordd o'r ffordd o rhaidl o'r Refoloidd. Rhaid i'r rhagleniol fel cerddorol, o'r rhaid i'w ddweud o'r ffordd, rydych chi'n argynnu'r ffordd o'r rhagleniol o'r Rhagleniol, o'r rhagleniol o'r Rhagleniol, o'r Rhagleniol, ac o'r Rhagleniol o'r rhagleniol. i'r ffordd, ynglynig, Scotland, a Wales. Both Scotland and Wales have national research frameworks. England doesn't. It's starting from the bottom up, whereas in Wales and Scotland, they start from the top down. Perhaps the most interesting thing, actually, is this one here. It's the North Sea prehistory research and management framework. I like that it leads the way because it's a research framework that I've developed in England, the Netherlands and Belgium. A series of key themes which can only be understood by looking at either side of the continent. I'll come on to that, some of those themes in a moment. Many of the UK frameworks emphasise the wider European context and I'll give you one example, which is the Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group research framework. That's top right. One of the key themes is the organisation of production, distribution and exchange. One of the key purposes of that is to explore the ceramic interactions with the continent in earlier and later free history. It poses a number of key questions. I've shown, included, several here. Questions such as how can imported vessels help to define links within Britain and with continental Europe, for example, the earliest neolithic pottery, beaker pottery, late one says too early, iron age pottery. Is imported pottery common in a particular area or period? How does the varying occurrence of imported pottery relate to the changing intensity of contact between places over time? What are the social and economic mechanisms underlying the importation of pots? Difficult, let's just say. Finally, how does the distribution trade or exchange of pottery differ regionally? All of these issues require research across national boundaries and perhaps the classic example, it has a day all to itself in this conference, unfortunately it clashes with this particular session, beaker pottery, and in particular the implications of DNA in terms of movement of people, perhaps, rather than just pots, almost likely both. And it's created quite a splash DNA analysis, and that's in British archaeology, which shows the spare beaker pottery film, possibly an Iberian harp, and so it's quite appropriate for a Barcelona-based conference. And he'll be able to explain the examples of beakers. OK, and then my next example, before I end with a few concluding suggestions, is coming back to the Dermot Valley mills, because the textile industry in the Dermot Valley revolutionised mill design in the early to the mid 18th century. It also revolutionised working practices across Europe and the world. Textile factories in many countries of Europe, such as France, Belgium, Germany, Austria, and Russia were all based on the archrite model that was developed in the Dermot Valley. And we can see close links between sites such as Cromford mills in the Dermot Valley, and Rattigan in Germany, or between the Velper mills and Portucket, which I mentioned in my opening slide. And all these issues raised serious potential for working joined up research frameworks, which joined up the whole issue of industrialisation in the UK, continental mainland, and America, and also the Far East, because I'll come on too shortly. A couple of slides just to illustrate those themes. Bottom left you have Cromford mill, built by a sewage archrite in 1771, from 1799 to 1790. And that technology was transferred to Cromford, another site called Cromford, what's a surprise in Rattigan in Germany. Not only was the name transferred, but also the technology by a variety of other underhand and sneaky methods. And that was by Joseph Brugelman, who began production in 1784. He was a great example of the connection between Germany and England. And the Velper mill, as I mentioned, and here you see the north and east mills. North mill in 1804, east in 1912. And then you see the Slater mill in New England, which was, as I've mentioned before, the technology was brought to eastern Siebel by the school of migrants of December of Slater and Thomas Marshall. But we can go further than that, and we can look at worldwide connections in the Delwood Valley. It's a bit of a controversial subject, but the wealth of the Delwood Valley was based upon a common, which was grown in plantations principally in the New World, but also elsewhere, and employed slave labour. And, as you can see, we have quite a lot of documentary evidence for that practice. There are records in the dossier. Record records, for example, which give precise details of the tonnages of cotton that were produced in South America, Central America, and the southern states of the USA. And great opportunity there for looking at trading connections between these areas and the relationship between Britain and the slave trade, et cetera, et cetera. So lots of international themes which can be addressed by reference to the documentary evidence surviving in the mills of the UK. So the bottom one on the bottom left shows the origins of the more cotton supplies of the strut mills between 1793 and 1798, and that's based on cotton weight data which has kind of miraculously survived in the Derbyshire Record Office. But just to make the point that we can extend our interest even further, there are also links between cotton production in India, too. And we're having a variety of projects which have been looking at the links between Indian communities in the UK and the cotton industry. What are their responses to visiting the upright mills? Let me different to ours, I suspect. So this is one of the products, products of one of these projects which is a series of poems, reflections by members of the Hindu Samaj community in Sheffield. And it makes very interesting reading in terms of their perspective on the industrial revolution in Britain. So how can we move forward? I've got three bullet points when I've come up with a fourth after yesterday's climate change session that I was at. I think my feeling is that we can foster the development of international research frameworks. We can follow the lead of volume services, the North Sea joint framework, and which, of course, enabled a crucial collaboration in terms of understanding the development of Doggerland, that's now a submerge bloc of mainland Europe, which was a crucial repository of information both environmental and archaeological about the development of Mesolithic Europe. We can also, second point, support the development of updatable digital resources, and we will come on to discussion this afternoon about the common digital platform which is being developed in the UK. And, of course, it needs to say that any digital framework which we're based is therefore accessible globally, which helps. We can also encourage projects within international focus that investigate questions embedded in national or regional research frameworks. I'll give one example here, the site term with the rather curious acronym of Prothego, which I was involved in. It's one of these Horizon 2020 projects, and it basically was studying the impacts of geohazards and climate change upon European world heritage sites. The canvas was the entirety of Europe and the total population of world heritage sites. And it was based on four case studies, Roman Forum, the Alhambra of Spain, and near the settlement in Cyprus, and the most exciting of all, but there were many meals at the world heritage site. So, we were in luxury as a company, and the German value group was filming to be a twin with the Alhambra and Rome and the Roman Forum, just where they should be. So that's the sort of thing which I think should be encouraged. And one final point, which occurred to me very falsely yesterday, I went to the climate change session, which lasted the whole day session, and there's a workshop at the end of it. One of the actions of this group has been to establish a community with the EAA, basically an interest group, I suppose, with the climate change and heritage group. There are about a dozen of those on the EAA website if you search them, which I did this morning. And I wonder whether it's worth considering today whether we would like to think about a research framework community group, because that provides a European platform for this activity. The Climate Change and Heritage Group provides it as a platform for posting reports, publication, news on events, and that paralleling a big splash in burn in a year's time. And so that all fits together, I think, and it is a way, as a method for communicating research frameworks to people disseminating that and encouraging their application. So that's all I have to say. Thank you.


Salam alaikum khwaten huzraat. Wasim As-Sin welcomes you to Marketing for Non-Profit Organizations, MKT 628 at the Virtual University of Pakistan. The topic at hand today is what differentiates NPOs from commercial organizations. We know that there is a big difference between the two sectors. And until the time we understand the differences, we just cannot go ahead with applicability of marketing principles with adaptations to the sector of NPO's and therefore the two objectives which naturally flow out of the topic are number one, what really is it that classifies NPO's into the class they belong and what are the unique managerial insights needed to manage NPO's. And number two objective is what is so unique about NPO marketing. Like I said these two objectives are very interrelated and intertwined and therefore the narrative which I'm going to give you in relation to the topic is going to answer all the questions about these two objectives. We know that NPO's are different from the commercial organizations because NPO's are basically all about fulfilling a certain social cause. They exist to serve a certain purpose and around that purpose they try to achieve the mission and the mission of course embodies that particular purpose. There are so many different causes for which NPO's exist and they follow different kinds of missions. They are quite very different from commercial marketers because commercial marketers operate in areas which are known to so many different stakeholders within the different industries commercial marketers operate in. If they operate in the car manufacturing industry they understand the dynamics behind marketing of cars. If they operate within the detergents industry they understand the dynamics. But when it comes to NPO's it is a different ball game altogether. You have a very specialized kind of a purpose that we serve and you have a very special mission that fulfills that purpose. To achieve that mission therefore you have to have a very special kind of a marketing program which is quite very different in nature from the one you may have for the commercial sector. Another reason for the differences between NPO's and commercial organizations is that NPO's have to depend quite a lot on outside support in the form of donations, grants and contributions, donations from individuals, associations, foundations, etc., etc., grants from the governments, governmental agencies and contributions from the private sector. I would like to take you back to the narrative which I gave you earlier and which is all about cost marketing. Cost marketing is engagement of the private sector with the NPO's on fulfillment of a certain cost. So that is how you generate contributions from the private sector. This is a subject which I am going to cover as a separate topic later. However, the effect remains that the outside support mechanism makes it absolutely essential for NPO's to have a character which is basically different from that of the commercial organizations. Having given you this brief overview, I would now like to talk about the factors which really are responsible for the differentiation between NPO's and commercial organizations. The first factor which is responsible for the primary difference is what you may call the donation seeking role of NPO's or in the words of a marketing expert, the donated nature of organizations. As the terminology implies, organizations look for funds from the sources which I just talked about as part of the overview. As a result of that, donors develop stakes in the organizations and they start interfering and intervening into the operations. Even if they have a complete harmony of views on the purpose and the mission of the organization, the divergence of views on the way operations are going to be executed causes a divide between strategies and their executions. This is a situation which generally puts NPO managers into a state of frustration. They get disappointed because they think in all professional right and wisdom, they should be the ones to execute the strategies which already have been agreed upon. As a matter of fact, it was on the basis of those strategies that they approached the donors who agreed to donate funds to the organization. Once they have done that, there is no point on their part to be intervening when it comes to execution of the strategies. The factor means they do. For the simple reason that profitability is not an issue in NPO's. It is the achievement of the mission and we also know that achievement of the mission may take a very long time. It could be years and therefore what happens is that donors and board of directors involve themselves in order to assess and gauge the performance that is taking place during different phases of the operations. This involvement is something which may be considered as interference on part of managers. It has been seen that donors could have been cited interfering to the point of suggesting staff recruitments and appointment of advertising agencies. Like I said, in all the professional right and wisdom, this should be the domain of professional managers and not the donors, but the factor means they do interfere causing like I said, a divide between policy guidelines, strategies which flow out of those policy guidelines and execution. Donors think they are playing a very positive role whereas managers think the role is less than positive. However, without going into who is right in that kind of hypothetical situation and who is not, donors have been seen interfering to the point of telling marketing managers which segments of the market to approach first. In other words, they have been telling whether they should go and approach urban market first and give it precedence over the rural market or vice versa. Now this is kind of a decision which is typically that of marketing managers and not donors. But that's the way it's been happening in the sector of NPO's, it does happen and it may still happen. So what happens is that managers within NPO's could have to deal not only with customers for the delivery of effective service, they also have to deal with donors all the time because of their interference and intervention. This is something which does not happen in the commercial sector. Now this is not to say that commercial managers do not really have to deal with members of the board or top management in order to take them on board in terms of execution of the strategies which have been decided upon. But in the NPO sector, things are a little different because managers could have to generate funds from the donors and that support mechanism makes it a little more difficult and more challenging for the NPO managers to execute their marketing programs. Let me explain the whole situation with the help of the graphics which is going to make my narrative a little more interesting. As you can see from the presentation, I'm showing the two sectors. The one is for profit, the other one is non-profit. The for profit sector has the two activities. The one is strategies and programs and this is what is done at the highest level which includes of course the marketing manager and the product and brand managers. The second level is the deal with customers and this is a manifestation of the area of external marketing. This is where all the variables of marketing mix come into play and managers are in a position to get the desired results and this is where they fulfill their overall business goals and objectives. As long as the organization is in the profitability zone, everything is fine, everybody is happy. As long as they have the right financial ratios and earning per share, etc., etc., there is nothing wrong with the performance measures or success parameters as far as commercial organizations are concerned. This is not the case for the non-profit sector. As you can see, first of all they have to deal with the donors. They also have to do a lot of working on the strategy side and as a matter of fact they work first of all on strategies which is the middle box on this side of the graphics and after having worked on the strategies which are a reflection of the policy guidelines given by the members of the board, they go to donors to seek their support because they have to convince the donors about the purpose and the mission of the organization and then strategies which they have put into place to be able to serve the purpose and achieve the mission. But then donors keep coming back and that is where intervention takes place, the kind of intervention I was talking about and this is where marketing sovereignty gets compromised and this is what marketing managers or marketing staff members do not really like and prefer. And then they also have to deal with customers in order to deliver the service or the program for which they are working. Needless to say that they can mostly work on the social welfare side. I mean there are the situations in which they deal with the selling products and services like hospitals and the dispensaries but the ultimate objective is the mission they work for and that is social welfare. So as you can see this is a little more convoluted and has the one additional layer in comparison with the for profit area and this is what makes the job of marketing managers a little more challenging. Because of this challenge the NPOs are different from the commercial organizations. The second factor which causes the differentiation between NPOs and commercial organizations is the factor of public scrutiny. The fact is that this factor is an extension of the one I just talked about. I mean because of the support mechanism on which NPOs could have to depend a lot they look up to the donors and donors keep coming back and back over and over again. Here again they involve themselves in order to assess and gauge performance of management during different phases. The members of the board could also involve themselves a lot just in order to do what donors also do so that the organizations get under a very high level of scrutiny. Now this is not to say that this is something negative. This certainly has a very positive side to it. Because of the fact that it takes a very long time for the mission to be completed managers could have to undergo a lot of stress during different stages of the implementation program and the fact is that when donors and board members involve themselves it is not really intervention it is involvement. So from the positive standpoint we should be looking at the whole thing as involvement and engagement and not interference and intervention. When we look at the whole thing from that standpoint we realize that managers get a lot of support from the board members and donors. Again needless to say that donors and board members are the people with a lot of socio-political clout in most of the cases and therefore they are the ones who really help NPOs achieve many of the objectives and help them overcome many of the hurdles and stumbling blocks which they may find while they deal with different agencies especially governmental agencies. Because of the red tape and because of the procedural rigmarole the managers from the NPOs have to go through with all those layers of the red tapeism and board members and donors come to their rescue and help. So from that standpoint it is a very positive thing that happens and it also takes a lot of responsibility and encumbrance from the managers who are not solely held responsible for the outcome because the board members and donors keep engaged throughout the whole process of implementation. This is where the importance of developing good relations with the board members and donors come in. As part of the one topic I did talk about the necessity for developing very good working relationships with the donors and the board members because it is helpful for the organizations. Therefore it is a great challenge for the management of NPOs in particular the marketing management of NPOs to develop good working relationships with the donors and board members. This brings in a lot of transparency and this brings in a lot of confidence and support to the working managers. The third factor which again is extremely important as the preceding to I have just talked about is the level of desirability of marketing. What this reflects is a negative thinking on part of the board members and the donors that the applicability of marketing is not really as essential in the NPOs sector as it is generally portrayed. This is a very myopic kind of an approach which can hurt NPOs and not help them at all. If they think that marketing is not essential only because it incurs a lot of expenditure then they are at a loss to understand the benefits which applicability of marketing brings to NPOs. This kind of negative thinking is on the wing nowadays but still there are skeptics who think that the marketing is not really needed. What really are the reasons which dissuade these people from believing that the marketing is absolutely essential and it should occupy a very central role in the overall management of NPOs. There are two factors one is that marketing is all about advertising and promotion. The second factor is that of marketing research which they find very intrusive. Now let me explain these two sub factors of the desirability of marketing factor. Number one marketing is all about advertising and promotions is a very short-sighted approach because these people do not seem to have grounding in marketing. Even if they do not have a solid grounding in the area of marketing they should be able to understand and appreciate that applicability of marketing in its entirety, in its composite form is what an organization really looks for and what an organization really needs. Just looking at advertising and promotion is a very myopic approach. It presents marketing in a very truncated form. It is just one ingredient in the overall recipe that we use to apply principles of marketing because we are just talking about advertising and promotion. We are not talking about the total offering that we have to talk about different programs for which we exist. We have different purposes, I mean different organizations have different purposes to serve and therefore different missions to follow and whatever is the purpose and the mission of the organization that has to be presented to all the stakeholders in a well-packaged form. Just like on the commercial side you come up with a product which looks very attractive and then you price it in a very friendly way that consumers are attracted and then you distribute the product in a way that the customers find it convenient to go and buy it and then you promote that product in order to persuade and convince your customers that that is the right product and they should buy it in preference over competitors products. But that is not the case in NPO's. It may be the case that NPO's are operating in a very competitive environment and there are so many different NPO's working with the same purpose but the fact remains that the product or the offering or the marketing program that they are working on has to be presented to all the stakeholders in a very composite form as a well-packaged offering or a well-packaged product. At the same time they have got to be very sensitive about distribution of that product. For example, if you were part of a blood bank would you expect all the people to come to you to donate blood or would you like to have different units in different parts of the city where people find it convenient to go and give blood? I think you'll go for the latter because that amounts to having good distribution and by the same token when you are pursuing your customers in terms of advertising and promotion you have so many different tools whereby you try to convince your customers it is not just advertising there are so many different tools which you bring into play in order to come up with a mix of variables or a mix of total composite recipe in which you need to be able to effectively execute your programs. Coming to the next point which is about marketing research these detractors or opponents of marketing research think that it is expensive so again it incurs a lot of expenditure and this is something which the marketing managers already know or they should know and then they also seem to think that the market research is very intrusive in nature especially in the context of the social welfare market researchers could go to rural areas could asking poor simple village folks about their lifestyles their habits their preferences and the social values there are so many social issues which are sensitive and therefore those people are not in a position to give the right answers and in most of the cases they give erroneous answers and because of those erroneous answers the research findings are not as accurate as they should be. Well there is an answer to that and the marketing managers do have at their disposal certain tools which they apply in order to extract the right information and they also have a way to convince the people that they are there in order to alleviate their sufferings and not to add to their problems whereas people might think that the research which is being carried out might add to their problems and give them reasons to be superstitious and suspicious. The next factor is that of volunteers as you might know NPO's could find it much less expensive to go for volunteers who are willing to work for NPO's NPO's do not incur extra cost by having volunteers to work for them even if there are certain costs involved those are minimal and given the fact that NPO's could have to look outwards in order to get financial support they have a tendency to go for volunteers. The fact is that in the western markets there is a tendency nowadays on part of the youth to be involved with different NPO's and that provides them with very good working experience in the first place and in the second place it provides them to place something positive on the CV's. This is something which I talked about earlier as part of the building blocks for the overall course. The point here is that it works in both ways because the youth are attracted toward the NPO's to gain certain experience and talk about something positive on the CV's and NPO's could find it attractive because they do not really have to incur additional costs in a big way. However, there's a challenge involved here and the challenge is all about the working. Volunteers who work for NPO's are not really trained to work for the programs NPO's are executing. So in the first place NPO's could have to bring all those people into the mainstream of their operations by giving them orientation. Not all the volunteers are highly disciplined people with professional orientation and therefore it becomes quite very challenging for the managers to integrate their working into theirs thereby causing the certain problems. Second, the volunteers could may not be the very highly disciplined people but even if they have the tendency to learn and apply to the one that has been imparted as part of the orientation, if they lack discipline, they always will cause problems for the organization. So this is another challenge which NPO's could have to come to grips with while they operate. They do not have the luxury of applying carrot and stick approach which they generally do while dealing with paid staff. Since volunteers are not paid, this approach also does not work. So the challenge for managers remain to integrate these volunteers into the mainstream of their operations. The next factor which differentiates NPO's is that of the nature of exchange. This is something which is the essence of the whole course and many of the concepts that I am going to talk about and we all are going to learn are going to revolve around the value of exchange. What is an exchange in the first place? Well all I can say is that the whole marketing is all about exchanges. You pay an amount of money in order to get something in return of economic benefit and that something comes to you in the form of a product or a service. So the economic benefit which you get out of the exchange is the satisfaction of your need through that particular product or service. The question is, is this the case with NPO's? The answer is it is not. The nature of exchange with NPO's is very different. So what is it that you ask your customers for? You do ask your customers for a price and for them it is a cost but the cost may not be money all the time. It comes to the customers in so many different ways. You ask your customers to sacrifice something in return for something good. This is the essence of the purpose of NPO's. And what is that good? That good is all about social welfare. Either you change your behavior in order to be the better citizens or you change your behavior in order to help the society at large, whatever you do it is beneficial in social terms. And the question here is what is the price you ask for? Well the price you ask for in return for something good is sacrifices of different kinds and there are four different kinds of sacrifices which consumers or your target audience have to give in order to get something good in return. Number one is the economic sacrifice. This is the amount of money that you pay to a charity or the money you pay to buy a product or a service from a charitable organization and the economic benefit you get in return is you know good health or prevention of an ailment and so on and so forth. So this is an economic benefit which is very similar to that of the one to get on the commercial side. The other sacrifice that your consumers give is that of the value system. In other words, they have certain values which they harbor and are not really willing to change because whereas you as marketing managers could have the challenge to change those values because you think those are kind of negative values or not very highly positive and therefore you must be the ones to get in to pay some positive values into your consumers by having them change the old values. For example, they may have a value that a large size of the family is always good whereas you may think or rather you do think that the small size of the family is better than a large size of the family. So that you're out there trying to change that value convincing the your target audience that they should have a smaller family and not a larger family as part of your family planning program. The other value which your consumers may really subscribe to is women should not work or the women should not get into business because whereas you might try to convince them there is nothing wrong with women either working in organizations or becoming small entrepreneurs. Therefore what is happening is you're trying to change the whole value system. So in other words the price they have to pay is the sacrifice of old values in place of new adopted values which are beneficial for them. So this is the benefit they are going to get in return for an exchange of old values with the new ones. The third kind of sacrifice is saying goodbye to set behavioral patterns and attitudes for example the driving badly on the roads or smoking for example or taking drugs. You have to convince your target audience that they have to change their behavior and attitude toward the actions they are taking because those are not beneficial for them. You may have to convince them to quit smoking, be a better driver or not use drugs etc. These are the kind of established behaviors which are to be changed and the sacrifice which people have to give is the established behaviors. They have established behaviors because they get certain benefits out of those and they have to be convinced that the benefits they think are good ones are not the ones that they should look for. There are other benefits too and by exchanging the old or the patterns of the set behaviors and adopting the new ones they will be better off. This is a challenge for the non-profit managers and a sacrifice which may be perceived on part of the target audience. The fourth kind of sacrifice is about time and energy. Let's go back to the factor of the volunteers and they will know that the people have to give time which again is money and they have to spend energy in order to work for a certain organization. Likewise we have the ad hoc directors and they also are going to spend a lot of time and energy when it comes to working for an NPO. So this is a case of sacrificing time and energy. Under these circumstances and in relation to this particular factor we also have to look at the benefits which the people think they derive by changing their behavior. While they go for the exchange what is it that really motivates them to change their behavior? Well the benefits that could come to them in so many different forms of which three or four are very important. They might perceive psychological benefits, they might think that the benefit is in the form of being something good to the society which is basically their social responsibility and because of being wealthy they have to do something for the society at large and the benefit could also be perceived as a religious obligation. Marketing managers could have to be smart and very analytical when it comes to pinpointing the kind of benefits which target audience thinks they are getting out of the exchange because by differentiating these benefits they will be in a position to segment their market. Now this is a factor which really underlines the importance of the applicability of marketing as a composite concept. If we go back to the factor of desirability of the marketing which is challenged and questioned by many stakeholders I think we get the answer here. How can we proceed with the application of the marketing principles in their total form and shape until we understand what are the segments we are approaching because there are people within the overall population or your target audience who look at the benefit in the different forms. For example, one segment may look at the whole thing of giving donation as something socially acceptable and socially elevating as a matter of fact. They might think that they improve their self-image and they get a lot of importance in the society by giving big donations and in that particular instance what NPOs might do give publicity to that particular segment of the market and those individuals within that particular segment who are after publicity and who want self-importance and elevation of social status. Then at the same time there could be a segment within the target population which is very submissive and which subscribe to the religious values and men never like to be publicized as the ones giving huge donations. So you deal with two different segments in two different ways by having two different marketing approaches because you are managing two different segments. So coming back to the importance of application of marketing principles in a composite form, this is the one example and this is a challenge as a matter of fact which the marketing managers have to deal with. In commercial marketing things are very different because consumers could generally derive one kind of benefit which is economic in nature. Marketing managers at NPOs therefore have got to be very conscious of determining the kinds of benefits their target market perceives deriving out of the exchanges because only in that case they will be able to come up with accurate segmentation and in order to be able to do that they have to carry out market research. So that negates the point of opponents of the marketing research which I talked about earlier as one of the factors differentiating NPOs from commercial organizations. The next factor which is a differentiating one is the lack of relevant information. This again relates very much to the necessity of the marketing research in the sector of the NPOs. The fact is that marketing research within the NPO sector takes on an added importance because of the fact that you have to unearth and reveal the social behaviors and the attitudes and perceptions and preferences of your target audience in the context of social welfare and not in reference to the use of a tangible product. So that really makes the job of the marketing research absolutely essential in the NPO sector for every different purpose and every different mission that you have to carry out research in order to reveal these attitudes and behaviors so that you can offer them better exchanges and it is possible only by having relevant information which generally is lacking within the sector. In the commercial sector conversely there are so many sources of laying your hands on information which comes to you within the form of publications and in the form of experience of the managers working for the organization in the form of a collective experience of your distributors and traders dealing with the organization and so many different factors. This is not the case with NPOs because you are working for something very highly specialized and different for which you have to carry out primary research in order to know what is it that really takes your audience to change your behavior. And before they can change their behavior you have to determine what is it that makes them behave in the way they do. So therefore the absolute need for marketing research. The problem here is that in many developing countries carrying out research is a big challenge for managers for the reason which I cited earlier. There are many respondents who look upon the marketing research as something presenting more problems than it solves because of the thinking that it is intrusion into their privacy. In particular when you are dealing with people from the rural areas in the developing countries and you are working on sensitive issues like family planning, immunization of their children and HIV aids just to decide a few of the very important world-renowned NPO sector initiatives. And working on those you run into the people who are not really willing to respond to your questions because of certain values embedded into their social system. It is part of the social system either not to interact with the outsiders or not to give them correct information on your lifestyle or your social values, your habits and your attitudes. And that is why the market researchers have a lot of problems dealing with these kind of respondents. There has to be an answer to this kind of a predicament. And the answer lies in making use of certain market research techniques which are conducive for carrying out this research under the kind of circumstances I just cited. One such technique is known as the market-oriented ethnography. This is the kind of research tool which is applied in order to reveal all those factors which influence social cultural values of a certain ethnic group. So you try to reveal their habits and their social values on ethnic lines. How do you do that? A big question. You do that with the help of informants. Informants are the people who are part of that particular group, but who are smarter, who are a little extroverted, and who are also educated, and who are reliable to get you the information you're looking for. Therefore, it is a very big task to go for the right kind of informants because in the absence of them, the exercise is not going to be accurate. It may still be erroneous. The other marketing technique that the managers have at their disposal is observing respondents when they come to the point of consumption. The point of consumption is where the exchange takes place and marketing people are dealing with their respondents. Their behavior and attitudes at that time reveal a lot. And although it is for the future reference, but nevertheless, the marketing people have a lot of accurate information which is a reflection of how people behave. But while they talk about their values and their preferences, their attitudes, because at that point, they practically reflect all that. So it is upon the marketing people, rather research people, to be very smart at analyzing the right kind of behavior which is going to arm them with the right kind of information for future reference. The next factor is the factor of reversal of attitudes and behaviors. As the terminology suggests, the basic job of the marketing people within the NPO sector is to completely reverse the attitudes and behavior of their target audience. And needless to say, it is a huge task. They have been underlining over and over again. They have to convince the people about new behaviors which they think are more beneficial for the target audience. It is much less difficult to have your target audience develop a preference for your brand of product in relation to the competition than having all those people quit their established behaviors, change their value systems, and give all those kinds of sacrifices, all I talked about in exchange for something which marketing people think is good for them. So what is the equivalent of this kind of a situation on the commercial side? On the commercial side, the managers come up with all the variables of the marketing mix and give a good product which is well-packaged, which is very well-priced and widely distributed and is supported by good promotional programs. This is how the marketing people come up with something very appealing. Conversely, on the NPO side, they have to bring into play the variables of marketing mix, just like their counterparts that they do on the commercial side, but with a lot more challenges and skill and efforts. And these challenges, skill and effort, could basically emanate from the kind of challenges, all the challenges that I've been talking about so far. You really need to educate your people, first of all, the efficacy of a program, and then follow that with a very effective communication program in order to reinforce that education. Let me give you one very simple example of which we'll clarify what I'm talking about. If you were to work on a program of prevention of the ailment, which could be diarrhea, you first of all would like to educate to your target audience about what diarrhea is all about. You have to educate them and convince them that diarrhea could be life-threatening. And in order to prevent this ailment from taking place, you have to take ORT, which is Oral Rehydration Therapy. And ORT is something which is going to take care of this problem. It is good, it is effective. And you also have to educate them about the fact that in the absence of ORT, diarrhea might cause death. Because it is life-threatening. So this is the kind of program which you should be coming up with in relation to the purpose which you are serving and the mission you are following for achievement. May it be a prevention of the ailment case and may that be immunization case or may that be conservation of energy or water case, whatever it is, because you've got to educate your target audience about the desired behavior, so that they become influensible and start taking the action which is desired of them. After having heard the whole narrative, I'm sure you will agree with me that NPOs are different from commercial organizations. And the differentiating factors basically emanate from two major dimensions. One is the special purpose of the organization for which NPO exists. And the second is the support mechanism which makes it very important for NPO's to depend on donors and funders. It is a lifeline for which they have to seek the outside support and they just cannot survive or sustain themselves until the time they get the kind of requisite funding which they get from the government, international agencies and different associations, the foundations, the individuals and also from the corporate sector. So, flow out of these two major dimensions, all the factors which I talked about. Number one that NPO's could have a donation to the seeking character which makes them depend upon the donors and funders and that really underlines the need for the managers to be very good at developing relationships with the board of directors and the donors. And they should rather look at the whole thing in a very positive light and not negative. If they think negativity is creeping into the whole equation that they can always take up the matter in a very subtle manner with the people who are concerned, meaning the board of directors and donors. The second factor is all about the level of scrutiny. The level of scrutiny of an NPO is very high because of the fact that it takes very long time for the mission to complete because NPO's are not working for profitability, they're not selling tangible products which at the time of the sales transaction complete a certain process. Could the NPO's work in a very different way and the involvement on part of the stakeholders to the meaning board members and the donors has got to be at a very high level and that again should be taken in a positive light because it solves the more problems I personally think than it creates and therefore again the managers have to be good at cultivating board members and the donors. It provides them with a wonderful opportunity to have insights into how donors work. Donors as you know are governments, governmental agencies, and other private sector corporations although it is also very important for those people to have very acute kind of insights into the working of NPO's but NPO's in the first place have got to have the first hand knowledge of how those people work so that they can use them to their advantage and then there's a factor of desirability of the practice of marketing. It goes without saying that we have to give marketing a very central role for the reasons that I gave you as part of my narrative and the fact is that you people are educated enough to know what I'm talking about and the importance of putting all the variables together and to come up with an effective and compatible recipe can hardly be emphasized and you do appreciate that, I'm sure about it. Then we have the factor of the volunteers because we have to see to it that volunteers who come to the organization are fully integrated into our operations, into the mainstream of things that we do day in and day out. And then we have the factor of the nature of exchange and that is the essence of whole marketing practice within the NPO sector. We have educated ourselves about the price that our target audience gives to get something in exchange and that price comes to them in the form of different sacrifices. They sacrifice money, they sacrifice time and energy, they sacrifice a value system and they may sacrifice established attitudes and behaviors. We also have educated ourselves about the fact that the information we require in order to be effective for the marketers is never complete and the more so is the case in the NPO sector than it is on the commercial side. We really have to follow the practice of the marketing research and the short come up with a set of continuous programs which can enable us to reveal all that and we need to know why people act the way they do because only that way we can come up with programs that will change the way they think and do things and that is the ultimate objective of NPO marketing to have the behavior change in favor of the purpose of the organization. And then we also have educated ourselves about the fact that we need to educate our target audience and then reinforce the educational programs with the help of communication to make sure that the target audience fully understands what we have come up with and whatever we are offering is going to solve the problems and is not going to create problems because we have to overcome the misperceptions and superstitions to be very precise of the target audience. And in order to be able to do all that we as managers have to have very special and unique marketing insights into the area of non-profit sector only then can we succeed as effective marketers. Thank you very much and I look forward to talking with you again.


Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, and the Mrs. Reagan. Ladies and gentlemen, the National Anthems of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay and the United States of America. Mr. President, as the elected leader of a free and democratic Uruguay, you have our respect, our admiration, and our heartfelt welcome. Uruguay is a friend and a country that shares with us the heritage, traditions and values of the Americas. Our countries, as is true of so many in this hemisphere, were born of independence movements seeking to break away from colonial power. Yet those who founded our two countries fought not only to be rid of domination, but also for freedom. Our histories run parallel. Both are the stories of people struggling to be free, people striving to live up to the ideals expressed at the time of their nation's birth. Today, the people of Uruguay are reaffirming their faith in democracy. And all those who love liberty applaud this giant step forward. President Sangenetti, we appreciate that your official delegation includes representatives from the judicial and legislative branches, as well as your executive branch of government. Division of powers, protection of the rights of all citizens, and a healthy respect for the opinions of others, are hallmarks of a truly free society. And that is what you and the current leaders of Uruguay are building. In recent years, we have witnessed an unprecedented expansion of democracy in the Americas. Just a decade ago, only one-third of the people in this hemisphere lived in democracy. Today, 90 percent of the people live in countries that are democratic or in transition to democracy. We should not be satisfied until all Americans, and that means every living soul from the North Slope of Alaska to the tip of Deira del Fuego live in freedom, as is their birthright. In this hemisphere, the days of dictatorship, left or right, are numbered. The peaceful process used to reestablish democracy in Uruguay can serve as a model for others. Authoritarian regimes should take notice. Yet, while we celebrate the progress that has been made, no one should overlook the decisive battle in the cause of human freedom now taking place in Central America. The outcome will determine, ultimately, whether the people of that region will enjoy a future blessed with peace and development or, instead, be engulfed in tyranny and conflict. We who enjoy the fruits of liberty understand that just and lasting peace is built on freedom. Our search for peace in Central America must, above all, be an effort to continue the expansion of democratic freedom that has reached four of the five nations of this troubled region. We must continue to press for a negotiated solution, and in this work we must uphold our democratic values and insist that they be the basis for any agreement that is worthy of our support. The Western Hemisphere still holds the promise of liberty and opportunity that drew our forefathers and mothers from the old world. Uruguay, like the United States, is a nation of immigrants. They came to our shores in quest of freedom and looking for the chance, through hard work, to improve their well-being and that of their families. Uruguay's commitment to economic growth and revitalization is well appreciated here. You have set out to attack not just the symptoms but the underlying causes of your country's economic problems by protecting Uruguay's good name and credit worthiness by avoiding simplistic solutions and quick fixes, and by strengthening your private sector. You are building the confidence at home and abroad needed to carry your country into better and more prosperous times. Mr. President, in a speech to your people on April 7th, you said, the state sets the direction, but it does not move the boat. The boat is moved by the private sector. Well, this appreciation of the essential role of profit, motive, and enterprise bodes well for Uruguay. Already, your country is enjoying its first real economic growth in four years, and there's every reason to be optimistic that this upward trend will continue. Let me just add that, as Uruguay's largest trading partner, nothing makes us happier than to see your country prosper. Mr. President, I'm looking forward to getting to know you and discussing some of the issues that are of importance to both of our countries. These are exciting times, and we're proud to have you here with us, and thrilled that Uruguay is again in the family of free peoples. President Sangadetti, welcome. Our countries were born at the same historical time. They were part of the same liberal revolution that inspired them, the same ideals. The century and a half of independent existence, since then, has shown us faithful to those same principles, and that's why we were in the same attitude in the two great world wars of this century, ideologically defined ideals of the people's philosophy. If this is so for any Uruguayan citizen, it's bad for those like me who come here, as President of the Republic, representing a people who have imposed with their vote the difficult task of driving peacefully to our republic after a government of fact to a full and secure institutional regime. You know, Mr. President, that in these 15 months, Uruguay has done everything, has made a great effort, and has made a beautiful exchange experience in peace, with the full and restricted functioning of its institutions and rights, without violence for anyone. Uruguay is the heir to a long democratic tradition and has particularly suffered from the fall of its institutions. He feels today that he has returned to that old history and that he has done it in an exemplary way that enriches that tradition. For this reason, Mr. President, as you have pointed out, it is not here only the title of the executive power, nor its ministers, but also the President of the Supreme Court of Justice, the President of the Chamber of Deputies, representing the main party of the opposition, and the first senator of my party, son besides the last President Uruguayo who was here in this house 31 years ago. This climate of coexistence between powers of government and democratic parties is the best testimony that we can show the world of what we have achieved in such a short time. It would not be legal if it were not, however, that our country still lives serious problems and that they derive so much from their own matters as international. It is not easy, Mr. President, to fight for consolidating democracy, sadly achieved, and to order domestic economy, when they still persist, economic or financial conditions external that, in some cases, are difficult, and in others, the fruits of the internal process of our people. We must respond to the legitimate popular emergencies by recovering the levels of life lost and face, at the same time, the heavy indebtedness that we have inherited within a commercial world, increasingly more protectionist and closed. The tendency of his government, Mr. President, has committed to face and to whose purposes we have added to preserve thus the advantages of an open and fair world trade, which we all will undoubtedly benefit from. On many of these problems we came to change opinions with Ted and his government, speaking with the sincerity with which we always speak, especially to a country that we consider as always friendly, with which we can discredit sometimes, and for the same we have the duty of being loyal, to talk with a clear dialogue and constructive spirit. We know that in this democratic country public opinion is very important and will understand our reasons. Thus, as we have the conviction that your government will be able to consider them to study together the means to improve our relations and overcome the consequences of these evil that we face. Whether the international trade opens or all of us should resign to live locked up in a new feudalism, the most powerful, perhaps last longer, but condemned to live in an aggressive, unstable and full of violence, the smallest, like us, condemned to a mediocre life, but all ultimately pointing towards poverty or lack of freedom. George Washington highlighted the importance of this aspect more than two centuries ago and said, the good politics of humanitarianism and interest itself recommend a harmonious and liberal exchange with all nations. However, even in our commercial policy we must maintain a equitable and impartial position, without seeking to concede favors or exclusive preferences, respecting the natural course of events. Therefore, we do not claim philanthropies or stop in tutorials of any kind. We only need co-operative partners, strong in capital and technology, with which we can work together to forge a better world, guided by the same ideals of freedom that inspired our elders. Mr. President, in a world attributed to our country, I am, as it was in the past, land of peace and democracy, that peace and that democracy that today we would like to see empire in all of America, achieved by us, the Latin Americans, as a result of our historical commitments and our responsibilities towards the future. Uruguay will continue to add to all political efforts in favor of peace in the world and especially in our America. Peace and democracy are indissoluble terms, we will not have one without the other. Uruguay once again affirms its conviction in both objectives that are today, the virtual column of its reason for being as a free and independent nation. It is this spirit that today we greet you, your government and this people, friends of ours, from the origins of our nations and our states. It is a great honor for any Uruguayan citizen to come to this house. There are strong reasons for this. Our countries were born during the same span of history and were part of the same liberal revolution which inspired them with the same ideals. Our century and a half of independent life since then has demonstrated our faithfulness to those principles. Because of this, we stood together in the two great world wars of this century, milestones which have defined the political philosophies of the peoples of the world ever since. If this is true for any Uruguayan citizen, how much more so is it true for someone like me arriving here as the president of the republic and representing a people that has, by its vote, entrusted me with the difficult task of peacefully guiding our republic back after a de facto government to a full and stable institutional life. You know, Mr. President, that during these last 15 months all of Uruguay has made a great effort and lived a wonderful experience of peaceful change with the full and unrestricted interplay of its institutions and rights with violence toward none. Uruguay is heir to a long democratic tradition and therefore suffered all the more from the collapse of its institutions. Today it feels it has returned to its old legacy and has done so in exemplary fashion, one that enhances those traditions. For this reason, as you yourself have pointed out, Mr. President, you have before you today not only the chief of the executive branch but also the president of the Supreme Court of Justice, the president of the House of Representatives, who represents the main opposition party and my party's leader in the Senate, who happens to be the son of the last Uruguayan president to visit here 31 years ago. This environment of harmonious cordiality among the different branches of government and democratic parties is the best evidence we can offer the world of what we have achieved in such a short time. I would not be sincere, however, if I did not mention that our country is still experiencing serious problems that stem from both domestic and international causes. It is not easy, Mr. President, to strive for the consolidation of our hard-won democracy and to put our domestic economy in order while external economic and financial conditions subsist that in some cases hamper and in other cases actually cancel out the fruits of our own internal efforts. We must respond to the legitimate and urgent call of our people to recover their past standard of living and at the same time confront the heavy debts we have inherited all within the context of an increasingly closed and protectionist world trading system. These are trends which your government has committed itself to fight, a position we wholeheartedly endorse in order to preserve the mutual advantages of fair and open world trade. We have come to exchange views with you and your government on many of these problems. We shall speak frankly as we always do, the more so in a country we have always considered a friend. We may at times disagree, but precisely because of our friendship we feel that it is our duty to speak to each other with loyalty clearly and constructively. We know that public opinion is very important in this democratic nation and will therefore understand our positions. We are also confident that your government will take them into consideration when we look together to a life of mediocrity, but all of us sooner or later will be staring poverty in the face. George Washington foresaw the importance of this over 200 years ago when he said, sound policy, humanitarianism and our own self-interest all suggest a harmonious and liberal exchange with all nations. However, even in our trading policy we must keep a fair and unbiased position without seeking or granting favors or exclusive preferences, respecting the natural course of events. For this reason, we seek neither charity nor protectors of any kind. We need only cooperative partners, strong in capital and technology with whom we may work together to build a better world guided by the same ideals of freedom that inspired our forefathers. Mr. President, in a troubled world, our country is today, as it has been in the past, a land of peace and democracy. We would wish to see the same peace and democracy all over the Americas, achieved by us Latin Americans as the result of our own historical commitments and our sense of responsibility to the future. Uruguay will continue to participate in all political efforts aimed at promoting peace in today's world, especially within our America. Peace and democracy are inseparable. We cannot have one without the other. Uruguay today reaffirms once again its faith in both principles, which constitute the backbone of its very existence as a free and independent nation. Mr. President, it is in this spirit that we greet you, your government, and our friends, your people. Thank you.


Part of the effect the last of us is going for is of being an individual going through a pandemic. We don't get these scenes where the doctors are saying this is a virus, this is a bacteria, whatever. It's not interested in that side of it so much. I don't think it does have much responsibility to be accurate. I mean it's science fiction, it's a post-apocalypse if you you know when you look at something like I guess 28 days later might be a good comparison 28 weeks later. We don't necessarily expect the science there to be accurate. I think what we always expect is the veneer of accuracy. I think where it might be more interesting to look at accuracy would be games like Plague Incorporated where that is basically talking about transmission vectors a lot of the time.  You always want a long incubation period that's you know once you can get out there into the world without scientists realizing you're there it works very well and that would be a game where I would look much much more for accuracy about pandemics than something like The Last of Us because in The Last of Us it is really kind of a background to the story the game is telling which is about Joel and Ellie whereas in something like Plague Inc. it's more important I guess and it kind of makes the game more fun if the parameters you're playing with are you know more representative of the real world around it in realism. Yeah so I think the guy who developed our base path I forget his name but I think he went to talk to the Center for Disease Control in the US so I think he was really into the epidemiology and science behind it so I mean do you think that maybe game makers should work more or work closer with scientists to ensure that at least there's a passing nod to what would really happen I mean in this case are you saying this case maybe not but even if they just said oh this this you know we're going to make this vaccine it's going to take some time but you know we're going to do it with at least a nod towards realism do you think that that would be okay. Well I think even more than a nod I mean it very much depends on the type of game you're making again you know if you if you are making a kind of brainless sci-fi shooter nobody is really playing that with science if you're making something and I think The Last of Us does have ambitions to be a kind of deeper game with deeper themes I mean obviously the themes here are more emotional they're about the father daughter bond but it is it is a scenario where you can see it could present some of the ethical questions around vaccination and science in a different way and at the end it kind of you know at the end is determined that the way they're going to get the vaccine. Is this what we say spoilers is that to anyone who may or may not have finished it. Yeah I mean this is the spoiler of them all and the at the end of it I mean it's so ludicrous they decide that the way they can get the vaccine is basically by killing Ellie that's what the doctors want to do. We're talking that a bit maybe. They want to chop out the bit of her brain that's infected and at that point you're just you know it's so far gone compared to what it you know the other direction it could have gone in and the reason for that is that the long decade long process you're talking about to really get a vaccine just wouldn't work in this context. It doesn't lend itself to a snapping narrative. Yeah okay I mean you think maybe the movie Contagion is a good one to think about I think that involved a lot of scientists they did talk about that and they tried to keep that as close but still managed to make an entertaining movie I mean you know and you're right there there's some of it which was of course that that would and that's always the balance isn't it because these are creative industries at the end of the day you know who are we to restrict that creativity and you know it is for entertainment and for enjoyment and it is a nice way to engage with like science and areas relating to diseases and vaccinations but I think at the end of the day it is a creative industry and you know the final outcome for them is entertainment really is our entertainment. So as researchers then maybe this this half of the group who know about this stuff very well and intimately kind of a knowledge of peer review processes and journals and stuff I mean what are your thoughts on that then so what Richard just said in terms of it's it's not necessarily that important. I would say I think the thing that games could address very well is the ethical side of science rather than the actual facts if you like you know games are never going to replace you know our traditional methods of learning the book the lab what they can do is present so let's say the ethical issue of using a human test subject rather than an animal that's something where a game can put you in a position to make that decision and it might make you think about it might make you think about it a little differently and it's something that games are very effective and I can't see a way another medium could do that. Is that because I think the cliché is you have an emotional attachment to this you you are doing the whatever it is you are saying yes or no to the to cutting the yeah but it's also just putting you in a situation in a more concrete manner I mean it's all very well for us to talk about human test subjects in the abstract but if you are playing a game with some sort of medical element to it and you end up in a situation where let's say you're in charge of a colony you want to make a vaccine it's going to take you know 10 years but if you you know if you license your medical staff to use human test subjects maybe you can get it out in three to five do you want to do that and you know what are the consequences of that further down the line for your colony that's the kind of that's the kind of way that gaming and science could intersect too I think the ethical side of science is something games can handle very well the actual nuts and bolts of it I don't think you're going to end up with an entertaining experience or necessarily an educational one and does that upset you guys at all I mean you said it's pure entertainment yeah no I mean I don't play a game to have a science lecture so yeah I do plenty of that in my nine to five so you know a lot of the time you know I play video games like I played a lot of playing football which I really enjoy and you know you do it as an enjoyment if there's like a scientific basis personally I find that a fantastic bonus but you know a lot of the time you guess you kind of think you don't really expect everyone to have the same interests as you and the same kind of interest in generally kind of you know science and vaccination that kind of thing so you know I think it's good if there is elements of that you know because it's just nice to kind of highlight it and kind of bring it give it some kind of you know profile I think it's a really interesting area but especially like young people or you know who are interested in in science but I think certainly it doesn't bother me at all no I'm happy to play my games yeah I think when I look for maybe either from a computer game or from or from kind of literature or films it's it's not a sense of scientific realism it maybe it's sort of a sense of sociological realism if anything a sense that you that you're experiencing something of how human beings you know would deal with a particular situation so that so the scenario can be something completely out of this world but so long as the people in it are recognizably human or if it's a game that you're you're making recognizably human choices that's maybe what what seems really important to drag you in and to make you think about it and that it can be scientifically implausible around that so long as it feels real so it's the emotional aspect it's the most important bit there okay by yourself and yes I understand it's games and creativity and people don't expect it to be realistic I think it disturbs me where there's there's a gross would you go with the rise of the the sports for example no that that doesn't no that's not I rolled my eyes because I know and that's funny I mean it's funny and it doesn't matter I think it disturbs me if there's an idea comes out that is wrong that would make people believe a vaccine comes from a brain of somebody or because there's this anti-vaccine people saying you know vaccines are made from the brain of monkeys which is you know completely untrue and and anything that sort of supports this sort of ideas is a bit so so in force this there itself I think what we maybe as scientists have to travel with is the mad scientist yes you know with the crazy hair and if the scientist is shown as the yeah the you know doing the everything or or or most of the time after a film like contagion or whatever film with the pseudoscience people come come and say oh so why don't you do that that seems so easy also yes people who know a PCR in 15 minutes don't know how long a PCR takes sorry guys that's a very inside joke which trust me that's an overnighter at least isn't it normally so for me the scientific accuracy yeah if personally it does disturb me a bit in movies but because I I think yeah maybe that's just my brain and I think it's I absolutely agree with you depends on people some people they don't doesn't matter and some it matters but when when if it gives really an idea that is really can't counter helping on on some important aspects like for example vaccination of course I'm attached to it then I start like thinking like you say okay if they want a vaccine they have to take their brain and I'm not again not the brain thing for the vaccines I agree completely with that I had no idea that that was an anti-vaxxer thing this thing about monkey brains and you know while while I would say games don't necessarily have a responsibility to get the science accurate I certainly think what if they're contributing to a myth like that which is harmful in the real world I don't imagine the developers would be very happy to find that coincidence out either so the bandwagon was being or it was being attached to it for whatever reason yeah well I think I think they were just thinking of you know what what will be a great motivation for Joel in the final scene which is you know I mean it's terrible isn't it I hate the the last thing of them you know they have to get Ellie's brain I wouldn't have minded it if they said we just need to kill Ellie you know but it was the fact they focused on the brain which was just yeah I think it could lead the brain or killing it probably the same well it is that it yeah she does focus on on a fungal disease I think we've talked about before that these are very unknown diseases like I mean a virus is the easy one everyone knows you know you can think of dozens of science fiction movies from the Andromeda strain onwards that deal with kind of a new terrifying virus or whatever it is but I think fungal diseases are kind of I think the silent killer is the cliche but it's absolutely true I mean as you just said they affect millions of people there's there's very few drugs or treatments for them there's very you know no vaccines at all I don't believe so in a way what I've taken out of it actually I'm quite pleased that that they've not highlighted because that's not the wrong way they're not highlighting it is a fungal but they've actually touched on something that that not many other people have you know what I mean it's it's kind of this relatively unknown thing that only very very sick people tend to get so I'm quite pleased about that and I think you know to to to count your points it it doesn't bother me pretty much at all too much really it's not 100 accurate like it's you know I watched Star Trek for fun that's you know sometimes that turns out that is accurate you know but that's not really why I'm watching it is it you know we do it all day we talk about it all day it's nice to switch the rain off but I think one thing we did talk about that 20 years and 10 years for the vaccine development they used the 20 years as a big point and saying it's still it doesn't exist you know no cure exists we're still doing this I presume that's a very important sort of mental choice for them to show that this is a devastating society yeah I mean the 20 years thing is really about the character development I mean at the start you see Joel probably the worst moment in his life when he loses his daughter I think they there are two reasons the 20 years are really important the first is that you know when you see him again he's a kind of dead-eyed older man who clearly doesn't have much to live for and the other one which is much more important really is that Ellie is 14 and this is the world you know she doesn't have any memory of the world we see at the start of the game the I mean it's not a post pandemic society for her it's just society it's what she's grown up with and that's that's used to enormously good effect throughout the game when Joel and Ellie are walking through in some of the quieter moments and they'll see stuff and she has no idea why it's there he's telling her why it was there and she you know you can see her trying to visualize this world we live in now I mean it's the game was set in the year it was released and part of the effect it's going for is having a human being imagining our world removed from that world and so the 20 years again it's not really a science thing it's purely about the story they want to tell which is about these two characters but it does freeze frame in 2013 for this is what 2013 wouldn't like yeah in 20 years time somebody yeah and just woke up into it almost I mean yeah yeah and and also I think there's probably an aspect of because you're going around shooting this