>X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) >Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 16:31:03 -0500 > > > > > The Global Compact "threatens the mission > and integrity of the United Nations." > > > >Tangled Up In Blue: Corporate Partnerships at the United Nations > > >http://www.igc.org/trac/globalization/un/tangled.html > >Published by TRAC-Transnational Resource & Action Center September 2000 > >This report was written by Kenny Bruno and Joshua Karliner. > >Thanks to: Debi Barker, Beth Handman, Miloon Kothari, Julie Light, Alison >Linnecar, Mele Smith, Elisabeth Sterken > >Available for download in PDF format (817KB, 18pgs) > >Table of Contents > >Executive Summary Introduction Four Fatal Flaws of the Global Compact Global >Compact Corporate Partners Other Partnerships The UN's Guidelines >UN-Corporate Partnerships Chart A Brief History Ideology and Politics of >Corporate Partnerships Toward a Corporate-Free United Nations > >Appendix A: The Global Compact Appendix B: Citizens Compact Partial list of >groups endorsing the Citizens Compact Endnotes > >Executive Summary > >Secretary General Kofi Annan has encouraged all UN agencies to form >partnerships with the private sector. The centerpiece of this initiative is >his Global Compact, launched with the agencies for environment (UNEP), labor >(ILO) and human rights (UNHCHR) in July, 2000. This report argues that >corporate influence at the UN is already too great, and that new >partnerships are leading down a slippery slope toward the partial >privatization and commercialization of the UN system itself. The Secretary >General's office and UN agencies such as UNICEF, UNDP, WHO, and UNESCO are >partnering with corporations known for human, labor and environmental rights >violations. The Global Compact and its cousin partnerships at other UN >agencies threaten the mission and integrity of the United Nations. > >The Global Compact > >The Global Compact has four major problems: > >1.Wrong Companies: The Secretary General has shown poor judgment by allowing >known human rights, labor and environmental violators to join. 2.Wrong >Relationship: Clearly the UN must have interactions with corporations, as >when they procure goods and services or to hold them accountable, but it >should not aspire to "partnership." 3.Wrong Image: The UN's positive image >is vulnerable to being sullied by corporate criminals, while companies get a >chance to "bluewash" their image by wrapping themselves in the flag of the >United Nations. 4.No Monitoring or Enforcement: Companies that sign-up get >to declare their allegiance to UN principles without making a commitment to >follow them. > >The New Guidelines > >The new guidelines for UN cooperation with corporations state that companies >that violate human rights "are not eligible for partnership." Mr. Annan >violated the guidelines just a few days after they were published by >inviting Shell to join the Global Compact and its envisaged partnerships. >The UN claims that it lacks the capacity to monitor corporations' >activities. This creates a Catch-22 situation. Without monitoring capacity >the UN will not be able to determine, under its guidelines, if a corporation >is complicit in human rights violations. The Guidelines also provide for >the limited corporate use of the UN logo. This presents a potential >marketing bonanza for companies like Nike. > >Toward a Corporate Free UN > >If the Global Compact and other corporate partnerships represent the >low-road, then there are four key steps that can be taken to build a >high-road. > >1.Support the Code of Conduct on transnational corporations and human rights >being drafted by the UN Subcomission on Human Rights. 2.Support UN-brokered >multilateral environmental and health agreements which can reign in abusive >corporate behavior on a global scale. 3.Pressure the US government to pay >the UN the money it owes with no strings attached. 4.Support and promote >The Citizens Compact, which calls for a legally binding framework for >corporate behavior. > >Introduction > >As we move into a new millennium, "We The Peoples" of the United Nations are >asking a momentous question: Will corporations rule the world or will they >be subordinated by governments and civil society to the universal values of >human rights, labor rights and environmental rights? > >Or, to ask it another way, do the Nike swoosh and the UN olive branch emblem >belong together? Are McDonald's and Disney companies that represent >universal educational and cultural values? Do giant oil companies like >Shell, BP and Chevron hold the keys to sustainable development? > >UN Secretary General Kofi Annan thinks the answers might be yes, and he is >leading a major effort to form partnerships between the United Nations and >the business community. The "business community," in this case, does not >mean the small and medium sized companies that still maintain some loyalty >to the local community. It is made up of the giant transnational >corporations-companies that have deepened their enormous power through the >process of economic globalization. Many of them have been targets of protest >in Seattle, Washington D.C., Bangkok, and dozens of other cities. > >Mr. Annan has said that "in a world of common challenges, the UN and >business are finding common ground" and that "confrontation has been >replaced by cooperation and joint ventures."1 The Secretary General has >encouraged all UN agencies to form partnerships with the private sector. >These are some of the same UN agencies which NGOs and citizen movements >respect for their dedication to UN values. They include those dealing with >the environment (UNEP), labor standards (ILO), refugees (OHCHR), sustainable >human development (UNDP), children (UNICEF), public health (WHO), >industrialization (UNIDO), and science, education and culture (UNESCO) (see >UN-Corporate Partnerships Chart). > >Mr. Annan has personally spearheaded the highest profile of these >partnerships, the Global Compact. On July 26th, eighteen months after he >floated the concept in Davos, Switzerland, Mr. Annan appeared with >representatives of some fifty corporations and a handful of non-governmental >partners to officially launch the Compact in New York. > >Many long-term supporters of the UN who care deeply about the institution >and the values it represents, were not there. Many believe that the UN is >the only international organization with the potential to provide some >democratic control over corporations. The UN could be a counterbalance to >the destructive force of the WTO and corporate globalization. But as an >alliance of groups wrote to Mr. Annan in July, the Global Compact and its >cousin partnerships at other UN agencies "threaten the mission and integrity >of the United Nations." Corporate influence at the UN is already too great, >and the new partnerships are leading down a slippery slope toward >privatization and commercialization of the UN system itself. > >As an alternative to the Global Compact, an alliance of groups has invited >the Secretary General to join a "Citizens Compact" on the UN and >corporations. (See Appendix B) This alliance has opposed the Global Compact, >the UNDP's Global Sustainable Development Facility and several other >partnerships. > >In early 1999, Kofi Annan warned of a "backlash" against the "global >market."2 The events of Seattle, Washington and elsewhere show that a >backlash against corporate globalization is in full swing, and that citizens >movements are determined to overthrow corporate rule. It would be a tragedy >if the UN allowed itself to become a target of the backlash by allying >itself with corporate and commercial values. UN values of peace, democracy, >human rights, labor, environment and health are more popular-and more >globalized-than ever. The UN must maintain its unique dedication to these >values, as its Charter demands. > >..... snip ....... > >Complete document http://www.igc.org/trac/globalization/un/tangled.html > > > > > ..................... > Bob Olsen, Toronto > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > If not here, where? > If not now, when? > If not us, who? > ..................... > > > _______________________________________________________ KOMINFORM P.O. Box 66 00841 Helsinki - Finland +358-40-7177941, fax +358-9-7591081 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kominf.pp.fi _______________________________________________________ Kominform list for general information. Subscribe/unsubscribe messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anti-Imperialism list for anti-imperialist news. Subscribe/unsubscribe messages: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________________
