(Fwd) United Nations threatened by corporate partnerships

[J. Halász Judit]

Subject:                United Nations threatened by corporate partnerships
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
   bobolsen at interlog.com