
UN Everything
posted
4th September 2000
Ignored and UNdermined, its treaties unratified, its fees unpaid,
the sometime saviour of the world has sunk toward irrelevance. The
general assembly is permanently sidelined. The security council
is heeded only when its decisions don't interfere with the plans
of any of its members. Next week's Millennium Summit, the biggest
meeting of heads of state in the history of the world, is likely
to be just another scene in an ever more dangerous game. The UN
has never been more possible and timely, yet more UNlikely to fulfill
its Charter. The UN has literally sold out. UN officials have long
been aware of the problem. They have spent much of the past 10 years
desperately seeking to be taken seriously by the world's great powers.
They are in danger, as a result, of exchanging the role of clown
for the role of villain. The UN's metamorphosis began at the Earth
Summit in 1992. The UN Centre on Transnational Corporations, which
tried to help weak nations to protect themselves from predatory
companies, had recommended that businesses should be internationally
rgulated.
The
UN refused to circulate its suggestions. Instead the summit adopted
the proposals of a very different organisation: the Business Council
for Sustainable Development, composed of the chief executives of
big corporations. UNsurprisingly, the council had recommended that
companies should regulate themselves. In 1993, the UNCTC was dissolved.
In June 1997, the president of the general assembly announced that
corporations would be given a formal role in UN decision-making.
Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, suggested that he would like
to see more opportunities for companies - rather than governments
or the UN - to set global standards. At the beginning of 1998, the
UN Conference on Trade and Development revealed that it was working
with the International Chamber of Commerce to help developing countries
formulate competition and consumer protection law" and to facilitate
trade. The UN, which until a few years before had sought to defend
poor countries from big business, would now be helping big business
to overcome the resistance of poor countries.
The
ICC repaid the favour by asking the world's richest nations to give
the UN more money. In January 1999, Mr Annan launched a new agency,
called the Business Humanitarian Forum. It would be jointly chaired
by the UN High Commissioner on Refugees and the president of a company
called Unocal. Unocal was, at the time, the only major US company
still operating in Burma. It was helping the Burmese government
to build a massive gas pipeline, during the construction of which
Burmese soldiers tortured and killed local people. The business
community," Annan explained to Unocal, Nestle, Rio Tinto and the
other members of the new forum, is fast becoming one of the UN's
most important allies . . . That is why the organisation's doors
are open to you as never before." Two months later, a leaked memo
revealed that the UN Development Programme had accepted $50,000
from each of 11 giant corporations.
In return, Nike, Rio Tinto, Shell, BP, Novartis, ABB, Dow Chemical
and the other companies would gain privileged access to UNDP offices,
acquiring, in the agency's words, a new and unique vehicle for market
development activities", as well as worldwide recognition for their
cooperation with the UN". The UNDP would develop a special UN logo
which the companies could put on their products. After fierce campaigning
by human rights groups, this scheme was suspended. But in July this
year, Mr Annan launched a far more ambitious partnership, a global
compact" with 50 of the world's biggest and most controversial corporations.
The companies promised to respect their workers and the environment.
This, Annan told them, would safeguard open markets while at the
same time creating a human face for the global economy". The firms
which signed his compact would be better placed to deal with pressure
from single-issue groups". Again, they would be allowed to use the
UN's logo. But there would be no binding commitments, and no external
assessment of how well they were doing.
The UN, in other words, appears to be turning itself into an enforcement
agency for the global economy, helping western companies to penetrate
new markets while avoiding the regulations which would be the only
effective means of holding them to account. By making peace with
power, the UN is declaring war upon the powerless while proclaiming
that it is their defender. Hypocracy UNbound."
n end to poverty. These foot-soldiers are mobilisi
|