
Issue No 54		19 May 2000

LaborNET	Ask Neale	Tool of the Week

Human Rights

Good Guys, Bad Guys

By Stuart Rees and Shelley Wright - Extracted from 'Human Rights, Corporate Responsibilities' (Pluto Press)

Everywhere we look -in our newspapers, on the television, in reports by business leaders, academics and politicians - advocacy of human rights seems to be on a collision course with governmental and business interests.

In the latter months of 1997 in Sumatra and in the Kalimantan province of Indonesia, forest fires, lit to hasten the forest clearing objectives of large logging and cash crop (especially palm oil) companies, contributed to an environmental disaster. Smoke enveloped a large area of South-East Asia. People died from the heavy pollution and thousands more were treated in hospitals. The economic interests of the ASEAN ruling elites who owned logging companies and pulp and paper mills were described as an ecological time bomb (Aditjondro 1997). In early 1998, following the collapse of the Indonesian economy, the IMF imposed huge debt repayment burdens on the Indonesian people even though it was the corporate interests surrounding the Soeharto regime, with the cooperation of his family and friends, who were largely responsible for the collapse.

In Australia permission has been given to the mine uranium at Jabiluka site in the Kakadu region of the Northern Territory. Kakadu is a World Heritage-protected site and one of Australia's most beautiful and significant geographical areas. The legislative enactment of the federal government's 'Ten Point Plan' (in response to the High Court's Wik decision) resulted in substantial amendments to the Native Title Act in 1998. Aboriginal people's right to negotiate native title claims was seriously curtailed. In the first half of 1998, efforts by Patrick Stevedores to change labour practices on the Australian docks involved mass sackings, the use of balaclava-clad security forces and the asset-stripping of the labour hire companies. These and other practices, in particular the company goal to contract non-union employees, were regarded by international labour unions as abrogating human rights.

In the United States, the Clinton administration attempted to broker an agreement between Unocal, a California-based energy company, and the Taliban government of Afghanistan to build an oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea across Afghanistan to the Indian subcontinent. These negotiations were opposed by women's organisations on the basis of the Taliban's complete disregard for women's rights. On International Women's Day, 8 March, in 1998 women's groups made the taliban's treatment of women and girls a focus of their protest. They demanded that the Clinton administration refuse to sign any oil pipeline agreement until international standards of human rights were recognised regarding Afghani women's education and employment. In a further deterioration of human rights, the Sunni Taliban government has been accused of ethnic cleansing on a massive scale in northern Afghanistan, which is largely Shiite. A number of Iranian diplomats were kidnapped and killed, resulting in increased tensions on the border between these two countries. It would appear that the oil pipeline will not be going ahead in the near future.

Regarding its policy on trade with China, the Clinton administration adopted a compromise position: talks should occur notwithstanding human rights abuses. President Clinton calls this 'constructive engagement'. Despite this, a highlight of President Clinton's visit to China in 1998 was the high profile given to human rights and the widely publicised discussion of these issues between Clinton and President Jiang Zemin. These talks referred to both the massacre in Tiananmen Square in 1989 and ongoing human rights abuses in Tibet (White House Transcript 1998)). China has reiterated its intention to ratify the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and finally signed (but not ratified) the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1998. Shortly after Clinton's departure the new UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, the former Irish president Mary Robinson, visited China.

However, despite these promising developments, China's record on human rights remains one of the worst in the world. From late 1998 onwards there has been a renewed crackdown on human rights activists, opposition party organisers, labour unionists and even e-mail list subscribers. Bilateral dialogue does not seem to have produced substantial results, and business interests in China continue to ignore the human environmental impact of their activities (China Report 1998). Unrestrained logging along the Yangtse River basin and the primary focus on the 'Three Dams' project on the upper Yangtse appear to be the most significant causes of massive flooding in China in 1998, leading to the loss of thousands of lives and the displacement of millions of people.

Harry Wu, the Chinese human rights activist who has spent over 19 years in Chinese prisons, says that 'constructive engagement' is merely appeasement. Former prime minister Bob Hawke points out, in his chapter ''Interdependence of business and human rights', that the United States in particular also has serious human rights problems, and that castigating China ignores the major gains made in economic and social adjustment in recent years. If 'constructive engagement' is merely appeasement, it is difficult to see how any dialogue on human rights in the Asia-Pacific region is possible.

Points on a continuum

Each of these clashes between government, business and human rights interests could be located at points on a continuum, starting from an absolutist position that sees business and human rights as unrelated; such an extreme view would mean that human rights protection would not be worth pursuing. Further along the continuum lies a relativist position that says that human rights can be taken seriously under some conditions. Further along still there is a no-compromise position which holds that in every sphere of business activity, human rights are binding and should be observed. This tougher position was given recent support by the secretary-general of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, who called on business leaders and corporations to respect human rights through the imposition and enforcement of codes of conduct which incorporate human rights, workers' rights and environmental standards (Swardson 1999).

These concepts-absolutist, relative, no-compromise-are presented as tools for analysis, but to locate every controversy on this continuum would be artificial. There are at least two other issues that are not addressed in this typology. First, in the tension between business interests and human rights advocacy, an imbalance of power usually exists. Corporations are allied to governments who in turn promote the corporate view that human rights can only be addressed after economic growth has occurred. Or, governments and corporations together argue that human rights would automatically improve if economic prosperity were achieved. Compared with the influence of business interests, human rights constituencies often have only the influence that they can marshal from courageous individuals and groups.

Secondly, state responsibility is an enormously difficult issue in the area of human rights. The primary responsibility for ensuring the protection and enhancement of human rights in international law is the nation-state. Only states can sign or ratify human rights conventions, and only states are accountable before international bodies for their activities in this area. The only exception to this is the possibility for criminal prosecution in national courts or before a specially constituted international tribunal on the basis of principles of universal jurisdiction (or similar arguments) by an individual for crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide or similar egregious breaches of human rights. The new International Criminal Court agreed to by nation-states at the Rome Conference of 1998 will be a place where individual criminal liability can be tried and punished. The possibility that corporate entities might be liable as 'individuals' on this basis has never been seriously mooted. Corporate interests, individuals and non-governmental organisations of all kinds are generally invisible in the eyes of international law.

So how can corporate and business interests be made accountable for human rights abuses that they commit or condone? Perhaps the time has come to think of corporations as criminally liable for their individual actions under international law where they are in grievous breach of basic human rights. The activities of Shell Oil corporation in the Niger delta of Nigeria (involving the dislocation and impoverishment of millions of local people, the destruction of the environment, and a conspicuous failure to act when serious abuses of human rights on opposition such as figures as Ken Saro-=Wiwa were committed by the state) need to be more closely examined under international human rights law. The problem is how to begin the dialogue that is necessary for respect of human rights to apply regardless of who the perpetrators or victims of abuse are.

With the caveat about the power and accountability of different groups in mind, it nevertheless appears that controversies in the relationship between human rights and business interests seem to traverse these positions on the continuum. Through negotiation the absolutist stance gives way to a relativist attitude and compromise settlement. Activists contend that human rights are non-negotiable, and in consequence some corporations and private individuals - persuaded by argument - may recognise human rights, cease their most oppressive activities and redefine their responsibilities.

The most recent examples of this is Australia involve negotiations between indigenous groups and business and pastoral interests over native title to land. In the historic decision of the Federal Court, an agreement resulting from three years of negotiation between the Western Yalanji and pastoral leaseholders Alan and Karen Pedersen indicates that dialogue, negotiation and compromise can lead to an equitable arrangement satisfactory to all parties. The traditional owners of the land north-west of Cairns, Queensland, gained the right to 'camp, fish, hunt and protect significant sites', while the Pedersens obtained a secure perpetual lease on the land. With assistance from the Queensland government, a binding native title agreement was reached. This process bypassed the acrimonious debate on native title which resulted in John Howard's Ten Point Plan. This may indicate that, on a grassroots level,talking 'man to man, and not black man to white man, like humans' and reaching a local agreement can result in real respect fro the human rights of all parties(Meade 1998).

Through dialogue a humanitarian position can be reached which shows that what is crucial for the cause of human rights may also be good for business. On the other hand, recognition of human rights standards may well involve giving up short-term gains for long-term benefits. Regulation of the 'free market' in the light of human rights standards may very well result in the imposition of more onerous standards in environmental protection, workers' rights and human rights for children and other vulnerable groups. Recognition of indigenous land and cultural rights, and better standards in relation to women, may also be more than many corporate interests are able or willing to allow voluntarily. This may necessarily involve a challenge to the prevailing orthodoxies of economic rationalism. That states have responsibilities that may involve concerted and joint activities in curtailing the worst excesses of corporate activities may also be in the long-term interests of those businesses. It may be that this is a task for states that businesses cannot be expected to undertake, given the nature of corporate responsibility and the overriding concerns of shareholders. Getting governments and corporations to understand this and cooperate in these endeavours is a large task for human rights advocates to undertake, but one that may be essential if we are to survive the next century.

   Buy the book!

  View entire issue - print all of the articles!

  Issue 54 contents

Interview: South of the Border
Victorian Trades Hall chief Leigh Hubbard on life under Bracks, militant unionism and why more people march in Melbourne.

Politics: Jeff Shaw's Second Wave
The full text of the NSW Industrial Relations Minister's speech to Labor Council announcing the Carr Government's IR reform agenda.

Unions: Reith's Laws: Just Say NO
The ACTU has called on Labor and the Democrats to reject Workplace Relations Minister Peter Reith's anti-industry bargaining Workplace Relations 2000 Bill out right.

History: A Breed Of Their Own
Labour historian Greg Patmore explains what makes his fraternity tick - and why they're still going strong and making history.

International: Sony's Asian Showdown
The Japanese electronic giant Sony is threatening to shutdown production facilities in Indonesia - where a prolonged strike has cost it US$200milliom - and move to next door Malaysia where electronic workers are banned from forming a union.

Human Rights: Good Guys, Bad Guys
Everywhere we look -in our newspapers, on the television, in reports by business leaders, academics and politicians - advocacy of human rights seems to be on a collision course with governmental and business interests.

Review: New Workers, New Challenges
A new wave of thought is arguing that working life is changing - but this doesn't necessarily deal unions out the action.

Satire: Rain Man Withdraws Endorsement of Qantas
After the third major safety incident in the space of a year, Qantas has lost the confidence of the most famous public supporter of its once unblemished safety record, the autistic star of Rain Man, Raymond.

» Carr Moves on Casuals

» Democrats Wavering on Reith Bill

» Exit Visas for Child Care Workers

» GST Pay Claims to Target Allowances

» Tide Turns On Competitive Tendering

» Joy Takes Message To The World

» Mines Out as Rio Tinto Torps Talks

» Political Economy for Activists, 2000

» Unions March for Reconciliation

» STOP PRESS: AK-47s used in coup against union-aligned Fiji Labour Government