SUB-COMMISSION HEARS PRESENTATION OF REPORT ON SOCIAL FORUM AS IT CONTINUES DEBATE ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS

Sub-Commission on Promotion
and Protection of Human Rights
54th session
7 August 2002
Morning





The Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights this morning continued its consideration of economic, social and cultural rights and heard Expert Jose Bengoa present a draft report on the first-ever session of the Social Forum as well as a preliminary working paper outlining the methodology and work of the Forum.
Mr. Bengoa said that during the Social Forum, there had been a real interaction between representatives of governments, international agencies, non-governmental organizations and civil society. The discussion had not been abstract but practical and constructive. Next year the Social Forum would discuss rural poverty. The impact of globalization on rural agriculture and the organizations or movements of peasants would also be considered.
Following Mr. Bengoa's statement, several Sub-Commission Experts welcomed the results of the Social Forum and said it opened up a new space for groups which otherwise did not have much access to the international system, and which often were the most vulnerable and suffered the most from the downside of economic globalization.
A Representative of the World Bank said there had been many comments about the World Bank at the Social Forum, especially with regard to privatization of services, the public sector and trade. He stressed that the point of privatization of services was to provide the highest level of basic services to all. It was not only the public sector that could solve such problems.
Sub-Commission Expert El Hadji Guisse responded to the statement by the World Bank by stating that in his country, privatization of the water system had led to greater shortages of water. What was more, the water provided was contaminated and polluted. Africa needed to de-privatize its water and electricity systems and to prevent the privatization of agriculture and health services.
Other Sub-Commission Experts also participated in the discussion about privatization and poverty, raising issues concerning international trade law and human rights, liberalization in trade services, corruption and money-laundering in banking practices this morning. Experts Yozo Yokota, Soo Gil Park, Lammy Betten, David Weissbrodt, Asbjorn Eide, Abdel Sattar, Vladimir Kartashkin, and Florizelle O'Connor made statements.
Non-governmental organizations highlighted the importance of the Social Forum, raised issues surrounding transnational corporations, and referred to grave and massive violations of economic, social and cultural rights in several countries. The following non-governmental organizations addressed the Sub-Commission: the American Association of Jurists, the Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights, the Indian Movement - Tupaj Amaru, ATD Quart Monde, the Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, and the World Muslim Congress. The International Labour Organization also spoke on economic, social and cultural rights.
The Sub-Commission will reconvene at 3 p.m. to continue its consideration of its agenda item on economic, social and cultural rights.

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Under this agenda item the Sub-Commission has before it a just-released report, still in draft form, (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2002/18) on the first Social Forum, held for two days just prior to the Sub-Commission's fifty-fourth session. Among the report's recommendations are that States should adopt national strategies on the right to food, including establishing open and transparent early warning systems, buffers to mitigate shocks and facilitate early recovery from food emergencies, and non-discriminatory support programmes for farming communities; that the UN system, related agencies and other international organizations should incorporate universally recognized human rights norms, including the right to food, into their work, activities and value systems and in carrying out their respective mandates; that guidelines on integrating human rights, including the right to food, into poverty-reduction strategies, now under preparation by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, should be field-tested; that interrelationships between the right to food, the right to health, the right to education and other rights should be kept in mind in the fight against hunger; that recent reports by the High Commissioner for Human Rights on intellectual property and human rights, agricultural liberalization and human rights, and liberalization of trade in services and human rights should be provided formally to the World Trade Organization General Council and to relevant WTO committees and the WTO Director-General; and that there should be affirmative action measures in favour of developing countries in relation to global trade.
There is also a working paper by Jose Bengoa on the Social Forum (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2002/3) which explains the background of the Social Forum and states that it is a needed institution, since it offers a new forum for debate within the United Nations for analysis of the relationship between globalization and human rights, in particular economic, social and cultural rights, in a globalized world. After approval from the Commission on Human Rights and the Economic and Social Council, the Social Forum held its first ever session. The first session of the Social Forum focused on the relationship between globalization and the attainment of human rights, particularly with regard to poverty eradication and reduction and the right to food. The paper suggests that the Social Forum also be involved in discussion concerning, among other things: relations between globalized world trade, the decisions adopted by multilateral organizations and the realization of economic, social and cultural rights; effects of international trade and finance systems and the activities of transnational corporations and multilateral financial institutions on income distribution at national and international levels; international decisions affecting basic resources and social services for the population; consequences of decisions relating to international trade, finance and economic organization for vulnerable groups; international development cooperation; and follow-up to world summits and conferences to do with economic, social and cultural rights.

Statements on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
YOZO YOKOTA, Sub-Commission Expert, said there had been a number of useful comments about the joint working paper on poverty and human rights. Some had stated that the working paper should have dealt with corruption; he agreed that corruption was an important matter, and it had been dealt with at the relevant Tokyo seminar and was to be further explored in the ad hoc group's future work. As for non-State actors as violators of human rights in relation to poverty, he could not agree more that this occurred; the role of transnational corporations in this respect should and would be studied. Remarks that the study should have a gender element were also well-founded, and in the working paper women had been included in the section on vulnerable groups and the matter had been discussed in the part of the paper relating to education.
SOO GIL PARK, Sub-Commission Expert, said that he was concerned about the definition of poverty in the report. He was happy that corruption and the gender perspective were reflected in the report, however, yesterday, non-governmental organizations had highlighted the need of including the right to education. According to the World Bank, poverty was viewed from two viewpoints: the lack in the capacity to buy food; as well as the inability to attain basic necessities and the inability to improve the well-being of the individual. Poverty was not necessarily just limited to material issues, Mr. Park said. He believed that education was the only answer to overcoming poverty and hoped that this view would be reflected in the report.
JAIRO SANCHEZ, of the American Association of Jurists, said peoples and Governments felt they were being submitted to international forces they had few possibilities of controlling, and that the gap between the rich and poor was widening. It appeared it would take 130 years to eradicate hunger from the planet. The relation between democracy and human development to date had not been very democratic, and the main reason was that those who were leading the world were not accountable -- they were directing large multinational corporations. Colombia was experiencing a genocide of trade unionists, and there was great involvement of transnational corporations in violations of human rights in the country. Among other things, Nestle and Coca-Cola had denounced unionists and union efforts.
Transnational corporations (TNCs) should be controlled by international law. The draft declaration on responsibilities of TNCs, even if the word "mandatory" was added, would not be enough; law should be involved and applied. The veil should be lifted from the current draft, which did not give enough power to workers, did not grant enough public control of TNCs, and left the door open for continuing bribery and corruption. The Sub-Commission should adopt a resolution calling for the Working Group developing the draft to implement the totality of its mandate.
LAMMY BETTEN, Sub-Commission Expert, referred to the report of the High Commissioner on the liberalization of trade. The executive summary of the High Commissioner was part of a very important discussion. However, there was not one mention of the International Labour Organization or the various International Labour Conventions. For years, the International Labour Organization had been working hard to establish a place for the social dimension in global trade and had called for a renewed commitment to fundamental rights. In 1995, the World Summit for Development had adopted several instruments for workers' rights. The Director-General of ILO had looked into the measures that could be used to supervise these workers' rights. In November 2000, ILO Expert Advisors had produced a report on how these principles could be protected. The response to this report had been disappointing and it was clear that more needed to be done, particularly in technical assistance. One could not discuss the social dimension of trade liberalization in splendid isolation, Ms. Betten said, and suggested that international agencies were invited to speak on these issues. There was no need to re-invent the wheel. One needed to build, in cooperation with other organizations, on the principles and measures that already existed.
PENNY PARKER, of the Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights, said the Social Forum was urged to devote part of its agenda each session to new approaches, perhaps brief point-counterpoint debates with the participation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and their advisors, along with Sub-Commission Experts. Posters, audiotapes, and culturally rich approaches for NGOs to present ideas also would be valuable. Use of the Internet was important, but it should be kept in mind that extremely poor people usually did not have access to them. Serious attention should be given to new ways of getting Social Forum information into the hands of all interested parties. The Forum should create actual networking opportunities B short breaks to allow participants to introduce and meet each other; informal receptions perhaps could do the same.
A topic for a future session of the Forum should be child mortality. Multiple topics had been selected for the next session, and a more focused approach seemed called for. Factors contributing to preventable child death would be worth discussing and confronting at a future Forum.
JOSE BENGOA, Sub-Commission Expert, introduced the report on the Social Forum, saying the draft report circulated in the room was only a draft. It was not an official document yet, he stressed. In the first place, the report referred to what had taken place during the holding of the Forum. There was also a summary of the interventions. In the report it was clear that one aim, at least, had been reached. They had wanted to have a real inter-action between various actors and he was happy to report the inter-action between representatives of governments, international organizations, non-governmental organizations and civil society. Those who were responsible in their respective countries for social matters and poverty had been present and were working daily on problems related to food and poverty. The discussion had not been abstract but practical and constructive. As to the conclusions, which had been considered at length, the role and mandate of the Social Forum had been reached. It seemed to him that the subject today was well put, that the Social Forum must make it possible that poor peoples' voices were heard. This was an important aim and fully compatible with the mandate of the Social Forum.
The next theme of the Social Forum would be on rural poverty. One representative had mentioned that it was in the rural areas that there were the most glaring levels of poverty. The impact of globalization on rural agriculture and the organizations or movements of peasants would also be considered.
DAVID WEISSBRODT, Sub-Commission Expert, said the World Trade Organization (WTO) now had an enforceable system for resolving disputes raised under trade rules, but one of the troubling aspects of the retaliatory tariffs that could be imposed as punishment was the chilling effect on Government regulation of trade in the public interest. Nearly all countries now were avidly pursuing export markets, and that meant that countries cut costs in any way, even where human life and happiness and the environment suffered. Another problem posed by the creation of the WTO was its failure to address the fundamental conflict that arose when a country had ratified a treaty that conflicted with its obligations under WTO. Some of these treaties could, on occasion, be treaties related to human rights. There was the issue, for example, of the potential deaths of people who did not have access to "copied" drugs because countries respected intellectual property rights and could not afford to pay the high prices for effective patented drugs. Unfortunately, WTO panels and its Appellate Body focused on scrutinizing national measures under WTO law and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), and were composed of experts who did not have much knowledge of, or sympathy for, human rights, environmental, labour, or other non-trade law.
The challenge was to assure the benefits of trade liberalization but at the same time to propose measures that would safeguard national laws and regulations in the public interest, and to ensure the strengthening of the enforceability of international human rights, environmental, and international labour law in relation to trade matters. One option was to exploit GATT Article XX that allowed exceptions to trade law in the public interest; another was to create a more transparent WTO judicial body so that there could be greater public scrutiny and pressure involved in the WTO's resolution of trade disputes. There also could be a systematic embedding of GATT/WTO law in other agreements and treaties with similar legal status -- a recommendation likely to be opposed by powerful forces but nonetheless a logical and coherent step that would restrain the raw power of trade in favour of human rights and other concerns related to the public good. An additional option was to roll back the power of WTO to pre-1995 levels, under which national Governments had considerable leeway as to whether or not to accept the rulings of GATT panels.
In any case the relationship between international trade law and human rights law required more attention from the Sub-Commission, other parts of the UN, the WTO, and civil society to restore the balance that the WTO apparently had upset.
ASBJORN EIDE, Sub-Commission Expert, said the Sub-Commission had become a major forum in examining the problems and possible benefits of economic globalization from a human rights perspective. Very often, measures that benefited some enterprises or persons could lead to further impoverishment of others. The Sub-Commission had to be vigilant in examining possible negative trends. Full compliance with economic and social rights was the best defence against the negative consequences of economic globalization. There had been considerable communication with the World Trade Organization, but one needed to remain aware that it was not in itself a human rights body, and the main purpose for the Sub-Commission must be to impress on WTO negotiators to take human rights into account. He shared the view that a human rights approach to trade must set the promotion and protection of human rights as objectives of trade liberalisation and not as exceptions. A constant examination of the impact of trade liberalization on the enjoyment of human rights was required.
Mr. Eide expressed concern about an increasingly large and powerful private sector that could threaten the role of the government as the primary duty bearer of human rights by subverting regulatory systems through political pressure or the co-opting of regulators. It was his intention to submit a resolution on this theme, following up on last year's resolution, and he hoped for the support of all his colleagues on that matter.
Concerning the Social Forum, he said that it opened up a new space for groups who otherwise did not have much access to the international system, and who often were the most vulnerable and suffering the most from the downside of economic globalization.
ABDEL SATTAR, Sub-Commission Expert, said the report of the first regrettably shortened Social Forum illustrated its value. In a statement at the Forum, he had suggested that it take up consideration of the impact of corruption and money laundering on human rights -- particularly the rights to development and democracy. Corruption was a malignant cancer that blighted hopes and perpetuated poverty. It destroyed confidence in democracy, especially where there was a resulting starvation of funding for education and health programmes in favour of the squandering of funds on projects that offered the best opportunity for kickbacks. Democracies could become kleptocracies. The problem could only be solved by the people; ultimately they had to assert their rights and not merely hope for good governance but use their votes judiciously to ensure it.
Countries that allowed or built tax havens with laws that shielded the concealment of illicit wealth by foreigners should be asked to dismantle those infrastructures. Some steps had been taken. The General Assembly had adopted resolutions calling for international cooperation to prevent corruption. A consortium of Swiss banks recently had arranged to locate a billion dollars in the accounts of a former President of Nigeria and had returned the amount to the Nigerian Government. The United Kingdom had provided Pakistan with copies of 20,000 documents related to the wealth of a former Pakistani Prime Minister's husband to assist in his prosecution. The United States had helped send back a Pakistani Admiral who finally plea-bargained to refund a substantial amount of money he had embezzled. But the process had to go much farther. Foreign banks must be required to provide information on secret accounts of foreign rulers under prosecution for corruption, and more had to be done to block the laundering of drug money.
He therefore endorsed the suggestion that the Sub-Commission adopt a decision to undertake, on a priority basis, a study on corruption and money laundering and its impact on human rights.
VLADIMIR KARTASHKIN, Sub-Commission Expert, said that the presentation given by Mr. Bengoa was very important and reflected excellent work. It was necessary to recognize that thanks to the initiative and efforts of Mr. Bengoa, the Social Forum had had impressive results. The recommendations presented on measures to be taken at the international level against extreme poverty needed to be seriously considered. Globalization could force the gap between peoples. If globalization was not accompanied by democratization in all areas, it would not be possible to overcome the polarisation in society or to overcome human rights violations.
It was necessary to combine the efforts for assisting developing countries and study how it would be done. External assistance was absolutely essential but it was not enough in itself. No less important was overcoming internal causes of economic degradation which led to insufficient development in many parts of the world. Many former colonies, for example, had found themselves in difficult economic and political situations. Among several problems, there had been a prevalence of corruption, as explained by Mr. Sattar. Unless this legacy was overcome, it would be difficult to achieve development. In many countries measures were being taken, Mr. Kartashkin said, and welcomed the development of the African Union's Convention on Corruption. Recommendations included in Mr. Bengoa's report referred to measures needed to be taken on both international and national levels. Methods presented in the report represented the first attempt, they needed to be broadened and made more concrete in subsequent Social Forum meetings. The Social Forum must consecrate some of its time to the steps which needed to be taken on international and national levels, and should consider monitoring measures to ensure their implementation. Mr. Kartashkin believed that if all members of the Sub-Commission participated in the Forum, its effectiveness would be increased.
ALFREDO SFEIR-YOUNIS, of the World Bank, said the Social Forum was of fundamental importance; it was an opening to different people to express their views; it also helped make clear what many of the world's problems were. There had been many comments about the World Bank at the Forum and the Sub-Commission, especially with regard to privatization of services, the public sector and trade. The issue of poverty and ending it had to be put in the context of human rights, as often efforts to end poverty violated human rights. The process was complex, and the study on poverty and human rights had to be holistic and fully and carefully conceived. The World Bank had helped nearly a hundred countries "assess" their levels of poverty over the decades; it had helped some countries do this several times. The Sub-Commission study should not just be another study that floated around and did not in the end come to anything. Poverty had been presented in many different ways, but it was important that poverty be seen as part of a process -- the creation of wealth also created poverty, and one had to see where human rights fit into the process. The creation of capital was vital. The poor often were unable to accumulate capital for a variety of reasons; one had to study how "assignment" of rights might actually interfere with the poor's accumulation of capital. How human rights enhanced empowerment or took power away from the poor was a vital thing to consider. The forthcoming study should not be just another diagnosis; that had been done many times. It should focus on policy, and on what policies would work.
Privatization of services was another contentious issue. The point was to provide the highest level of basic services to all, and in many places in the world these services were provided at very high levels by private sources within communities. It was not only the public sector that could solve such problems. The issue was rather to make sure in each case that all could have reasonable access.
EL HADJI GUISSE, Sub-Commission Expert, said he would respond to the issues highlighted by the World Bank on poverty and privatization. An evaluation of poverty did not mean very much when every day there was more and more poverty, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa. There were more, not fewer poor people. If the World Bank really wanted to participate in the fight against poverty, an evaluation was not enough. Concerning privatization, the Sub-Commission had never claimed that the public sector was the only answer. What had been said was that the private sector had worsened the situation, since it was the most profitable parts of development that were being privatized, including electricity and water systems. What was next, he asked, health and agriculture? What was left to develop? In his country, the privatization of water had led to greater shortages of water. What was more, the water provided was contaminated and polluted, leading to diseases particularly amongst children. Those who privatized the water did not even dare to drink the water themselves, but imported mineral water for their own consumption. Transnational corporations which only sought profits with the complicity of leaders had led to shortages, corruption and increased suffering. Africa needed to de-privatize its water and electricity systems and absolutely prevent the privatization of agriculture and health services.
ALFREDO SFEIR-YOUNIS, of the World Bank, said he would respond in the Sub-Commission's spirit of dialogue. Many of the issues just raised in regard to privatization were shared by the Bank. The Bank could not be responsible for many of those issues, however -- it was a long way from the Bank to many of the poor communities of the world. The mandate of the Bank was to eradicate poverty in the world, and the lending activities of the Bank were aimed at that goal. Clearly the Bank had gone far beyond infrastructure and the material parts of poverty; currently more than 65 per cent of its loans were for nutrition, education, and related public services. Unfortunately there were no clear recipes for ending poverty; if there was such a formula, the Bank would be happy to follow it. Lately it had got to the point where it advised countries on justice systems, with the idea that the poor needed access to justice in order to escape poverty.
The fundamental element of Bank programmes was ownership by the countries involved of the process; now the Bank expected Governments to make major decisions. Meanwhile, the Bank was not going around telling Governments to privatize right now; but it was worth pointing out that in many countries public services were not meeting the needs of the poor; sometimes the public sector was better funded and better organized -- at least the Bank was interested in seeing what the options were in each case. It was not irrevocably focused on privatization as the cure for all ills, but the corresponding view that the private sector could do nothing for advancing human rights was a worrisome one.
SOLI JEHANGIR SORABJEE, Sub-Commission Expert, said it was important to approach the subject of privatization without any dogmatic a priori conclusions. India had gone through a time of public sector enterprising, when millions had been wasted and efficiency had been compromised. Therefore India had had to learn from experience. The test of the pudding was in the eating, what was desirable in one country might not be desirable in other countries.
ASBJORN EIDE, Sub-Commission Expert, said foreign corporate privatization of previously national services was what was being discussed here. It was "external corporatisation", which was a serious and complex matter.
FLORIZELLE O'CONNOR, Sub-Commission Expert, thanked Mr. Eide for his clarification. However, she had to agree with Mr. Guisse because of her experience with privatization. The difficulty was to monitor and assess which programmes worked and which did not have the appropriate human rights approach. It was not acceptable to move from a situation of violation of rights by one's own representative to a situation of foreign violation of rights. The right to health, housing and water - fundamental rights - must not be violated in the removing of the responsibility from internal to external representatives. Protective laws sometimes made the use of traditional medicines unlawful, forcing people to buy medicines they could not afford. Therefore there was a need to recognize in the consultations between the World Bank, Governments and the private sector, the experience of the poor.
LAZARO PARY, of the Indian Movement "Tupaj Amaru", said non-governmental organizations did not have the intention of accusing the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund, but wished to point out that according to the Bank's and the IMF's own statutes, they were created to lend financial assistance to poor countries, to create material conditions for development, and to create prosperity for all peoples. Unfortunately, they had failed to reach these objectives. Why was there a very strong movement against globalization and privatization, against the giving over of basic resources to multinational enterprises gaining power? It was because the World Bank, the IMF and related organizations were more at the service of powerful countries such as the United States than at the service of the world's poor. For years now, for example, structural adjustment programmes had been in effect, and these had greatly transferred national resources to multinational corporations -- and the results had been catastrophic, as in Argentina. If States could no longer be responsible for their economic functions, for health, sanitation, education, then what were States good for? And who would fill the gap in caring for the public good?
THIERRY VIARD, of ATD Quart Monde, said concerning the working document presented by Mr. Bengoa yesterday on extreme poverty and human rights that he was glad about the civil society contribution. The working programme began with the principle of human dignity. Problems with housing and other resources were worsening and led to the increase in poverty. Civil, political and economic rights must be granted to those living of poverty. What was the status of the programme of work on extreme poverty? The action against extreme poverty was limited to the right to life in its biological definition only. The action against poverty must go beyond the mere right to life. Throughout the world, people living in extreme poverty showed that all their human rights were threatened.
Several situations were elaborated which showed how poverty could affect several other human rights such as the right to food, education, housing, and health. There was no right to health when health personnel did not understand the complexities of poverty. Given the experience of those having lived in extreme poverty, was it not appropriate to adopt an approach that aimed for the elimination of extreme poverty based on the respect for all human rights, he asked.
ALFREDO SFEIR-YOUNIS, of the World Bank, said he agreed with the need for a strategy where everyone participated in the design and implementation of development. For the last several years the World Bank had participated in a programme called "listening to the poor" and as a result had modified its methods dramatically. The World Bank had an NGO forum and was fully aware of the need to be engaged with civil society on many programmes. Among those programmes had been an assessment of structural adjustment. He wished to add that no country on the board of the World Bank that had the right of veto. The United States did not, and had only 16 per cent of votes on the board. Yes, many mistakes had been made in structural adjustment. But there also had been huge changes in structural adjustment over the last decade, particularly on issues of public expenditure and servicing the needs of the poor.
To really look at the issue of poverty, one had to get a sense of the perspective. Total development assistance today was only $ 50 billion, the same as five years ago. Private-sector investment, however, had grown from half that level to a level that dwarfed development assistance. And meanwhile, expenditure on weapons was around $ 800 billion per year; the expenditure on cigarettes in Europe was $50 billion a year; support for domestic agriculture by developed countries, which hindered trade and development for poor countries, was $1 billion per day. Clearly, in fighting poverty, the expenditure of the World Bank, however applied, was only a small part of the picture. It was the whole system, especially private investment, that affected the status of the poor.
JOSE BENGOA, Sub-Commission Expert, said the discussion held this morning had been lively. It was important for the Sub-Commission to have held this discussion. The relationship between corruption and poverty had been dealt with by Mr. Sattar, Ms. Mbonu and Mr. Kartashkin and would be included in the work of the Social Forum. Concerning poverty, there was no doubt that corruption was a major cause of persistent poverty. The debate on privatization of services and tariffs was close to the issue of poverty, and it was important to include this debate both in the Social Forum and in the Sub-Commission itself. There were both national and international responses which needed to be looked into. Another issue - the relationship between economic growth and poverty - was a highly interesting topic. He was not quite clear about the mechanical relationship between both ideas. There was no direct relationship between economic growth indices and poverty. A more humanistic approach was needed and must be raised in the debate of the Social Forum. Overcoming poverty did not depend only on economic factors, he stressed.
In that context, the issue mentioned by Mr. Park - the need for the right to education to be part of the right to life - was a huge challenge. Usually the right to life was seen to include at a minimum food, water, health and shelter. However, the right to education should perhaps be included in this list. Concerning the relationship between the full enjoyment of all human rights with the right to life, obviously the respect for the totality of all human rights embodied the path to empowerment. However, in order to get to the very heart of poverty, such a concept was not really "operational". It was a challenge to establish the relationship of all human rights, understood as something global, and the right to life, understood as a very basic right. Mr. Bengoa suggested that international corporations be added to the agenda of the next Social Forum.
MARTIN OELZ, of the International Labour Office, said the ILO was very interested in the Sub-Commission's discussion on globalization. The benefits of globalization were often off-set by effects that left some people worse off than before. One liability was that labour standards often were weakened, non-existent, or not applied under the pressures of the international economy. A lot of this had to do with informal employment, and a lot of it affected women. The ILO had done and was doing much to protect labour standards in the increasingly globalizing economy.
One recent development was the ILO's working party on the social dimension of globalization; in February, the ILO had created a world commission on the subject, composed of 25 independent figures of great prominence and co-chaired by the Presidents of Finland and Tanzania. The commission embodied a response of the people as they tried to cope with globalization and its effect on social landscapes everywhere; it was to review and compile facts and attempt to reach effective consensus on what globalization was doing and on how to share globalization's benefits and reduce its negative effects. The commission would next meet in October. Further information could be found on the ILO's web site.
ROLANDE BORRELLY, of the Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, said the direction and the work of the Sub-Commission on transnational corporations and the Working Group on the subject had become too trendy. Trendy enough to evoke some scepticism. If there was a consensus on a text, it seemed it was through watering down its content. The policy position taken by the Sub-Commission on the relationship between monitoring and the Global Compact was also questioned. If one considered recent texts it seemed that the Sub-Commission attached no importance to the Global Compact. This raised two problems: even if one considered that the Global Compact was a personal initiative of the Secretary-General, it had been fully endorsed by the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Moreover, the philosophy of the Global Compact was very distant from what should direct the work of the Sub-Commission, particularly its suggestion to create partnerships with corporations. Corporations were "invited" to respect human rights, however, there were no monitoring mechanisms. What had led the Working Group to change the categories of transnational corporations, she asked. The Sub-Commission must consider all activities that took place within countries and where controlled by foreign companies. Transnational corporations had two levels of responsibilities: a responsibility to individuals and a responsibility towards the community as a whole.
KAUSER TAQDEES GILANI, of the World Muslim Congress, said that economic, social and cultural rights were being trampled in Kashmir, and Kashmiris therefore had the right to demand justice from India. India had pursued a scorched-earth policy; the presence of 700,000 soldiers in the occupied valley had made life difficult; citizens could not move freely and the self-sustaining independent economy of Kashmir that had existed before 1947 had collapsed and tourism had disappeared.
The natural resources of Jammu and Kashmir were being exploited by India. Among other things, hydro-electric projects were planned with the assistance of multi-national corporations. The point was to exploit Kashmir's resources while giving nothing to the people; while India used Kashmir for hydro-electric power, Kashmiris were facing shortages of electricity and water. The Sub-Commission should take Kashmir into the mainstream of its agenda.



* *** *