SUBCOMMISSION CONTINUES DEBATE ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS
12 August 1998
MORNING
HR/SC/98/12
12 August 1998
Transnational Corporations and Access to Drinking Water Discussed
Whether transnational corporations were becoming de facto governments themselves or whether national Governments were merely slack in controlling them -- and hence in protecting their citizens -- was discussed this morning as the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities continued consideration of economic, social and cultural rights.
Subcommission Chairman and expert, El-Hadji Guissé, presenting a report on human-rights problems stemming from the activities of transnational corporations, remarked that by operating in several countries such firms created conflicts of jurisdiction and State responsibility, caused difficulties with bribery and corruption, and frequently made it hard to decide if the problems created were national or international in a legal sense. He asked how national sovereignty was to be safeguarded in such circumstances, especially in developing countries.
Another expert, Francoise Jane Hampson, contended that States were under an obligation to protect the rights of people within their jurisdictions from violations at the hands of third parties, including transnational corporations, and that there could be no effective protection without strong and accountable States which secured a balance between market forces and safeguarding of human rights. States had an obligation to regulate, she said.
A third expert, David Weissbrodt, said that "non-State economic actors" such as transnational corporations had a fundamental responsibility to uphold and protect human rights and should be encouraged to adopt policies that ensured the rights of workers and the rights of the people in the communities in which they operated.
Mr. Weissbrodt, Mr. Guissé, and alternate expert Zhong Shukong called for establishment of a sessional Subcommission working group on transnational corporations.
Also presented were studies on access to drinking water and sanitation services, authored by Mr. Guissé, and on the right to food, authored by expert Asbjorn Eide.
Other experts and alternates speaking at the meeting were Ahmad Khalifa, Mustapha Mehedi, Vladimir Kartashkin, and Sang Yong Park.
A representative of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) provided a formal statement, as did the non-governmental organizations Transnational Radical Party and American Association of Jurists.
The Subcommission will reconvene at 3 p.m. to continue its debate on economic, social and cultural rights.
Statements
AHMAD KHALIFA, Subcommission expert, said racism was the worst scourge of the human race; not only had the situation not improved in recent years, it had deteriorated. The new trend among some developed countries of hating foreigners, migrants, and newcomers meant to his mind that these countries were risking a descent into fascism -- if they continued in that vein they would lose their valuable patrimony of democracy. Germany presented a grim picture; racial offenses were up, and the hate groups, such as the skinheads, were becoming more sophisticated in their activities; in the United States, African-Americans who had been there for 200 years still suffered discrimination and prejudice; in France there were continuing problems.
Africa, in this age of the global economy, was falling farther behind, and a root cause was that its peoples were the prime targets of racism. What was needed was a fair deal based on the principles the Subcommission advocated; the international community must provide debt relief -- after all, it was plundering the natural resources of the continent; perhaps it should offer something back. U.S. development aid to Africa had fallen significantly over the last 20 years; that pattern should be reversed; arms sales to the continent should be ceased; efforts to corrupt African Governments should be ended. Although apartheid had ended, South Africa's struggle was only beginning: a small elite class of Blacks was being created and that was turning the leaders, the privileged few, away from the cause of the poor majority. He thought South Africa should once again be given a special item on the Subcommission's agenda.
FRANCOISE JANE HAMPSON, Subcommission expert, raised a question concerning the scope of the regulatory obligations of States under human rights law. With regard to the requirement of States to take positive action in order to secure human rights, the scope of this positive action to act was far from clear. There were four categories: actions by State authorities, such as the armed forces; actions by persons whose actions were imputable to the State, such as a nationalized company; actions by persons whose actions were not directly imputable to the State, but who were carrying out what were normally seen as governmental-type functions - as in the case of privately run prisons; and actions which were not imputable to the State, but where the State had an obligation to protect individuals against likely human rights violations at the hand of third parties.
There was clearly an overlap between the third and fourth categories. If an activity carried with it known and foreseeable risks, the State might be under an obligation to minimize those risks by means of regulations. With regard to transnational corporations, States were under an obligation to protect the rights of people within their jurisdiction from violations at the hands of third parties. The goal was not to legislate or compensate after the event, but was rather an obligation to prevent violations of human rights. States had to investigate human rights abuses in order to secure the rights of those in their jurisdiction and protect them; this was independent of the individual's right to a remedy for a violation of human rights law. There could be no effective human rights protection without strong and accountable States that were the best entities to secure a balance between market forces and control of activities in the name of human rights. The obligation to regulate was an intrinsic part of the obligation to secure and protect; the scope of this obligation needed to be considered by the Subcommission.
EL-HADJI GUISSÉ, Chairman and Subcommission expert, presented a paper on access to drinking water (E/CN.4/sub.2/1998/7). Safe and secure water supplies had always been a requirement for civilization; currently a billion people lacked access to safe drinking water; it was a serious matter; even more lacked access to sufficient sanitation services. Agriculture was the largest consumer of water -- it used some 80 per cent of available resources; industry accounted for most of the remaining 20 per cent. Meanwhile the very right to life was linked to water; non-access to drinking water and sanitation endangered human lives; numerous conflicts around the world had been triggered by shortages of water; and of course the right to health was involved -- safe water was decisive for health; numerous diseases were transmitted by contaminated water. Girls often were denied education because they instead had to spend their days walking long distances to and from sources of water. Developing countries had to undertake broad-based public-works programmes to improve water supplies, and clearly they needed international help to carry out such projects. If something was not done, by the year 2025 some 3 billion people would lack access to safe drinking water.
ASBJORN EIDE, Subcommission expert, introduced his report on an update on the right to food (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/9), saying that given the ongoing developments in defining this right, he had decided not to complete the update
of the study this year but would present a final update at the fifty-first session of the Subcommission in 1999. Statistics had improved since the first version of the study was presented in 1987. Global and national trends in food supplies were a poor indicator of hunger and malnutrition, as only data on access gave any meaning. The human rights system provided a basis to analyze States' obligations to realize the right to food and nutrition; the World Food Summit, held in Rome in November 1996, had been a milestone in efforts to bring attention to the right to food and nutrition as a human right. An accelerating recognition of the concerns about economic, social and cultural rights had taken place between 1996 and 1998.
Economic and social rights were starting to be taken seriously, though not quite at the same level as civil and political rights. Human rights needed to be considered in their totality and were interdependent. It was not true that many parts of the United Nations system dealt with economic and social rights while it was only the human rights bodies that addressed civil and political rights. Many institutions dealt with economic and social questions, but this did not mean that they dealt with rights.
With regard to the study by Subcommission expert Jose Bengoa, it was indeed necessary to confront the globalization of economic power with the universalisation of human rights standards. In the Social Forum, proposed by Mr. Bengoa, it was necessary to develop the concepts of economic and social rights as human rights to avoid rhetoric in this field. In this context, Subcommission expert Mustapha Mehedi's working paper showed that he intended to use a methodology which was in conformity with the understanding of human rights, and it would be positive were this to be elaborated into a study.
Mr. GUISSÉ, presenting his report on the impact on human rights of the activities of transnational corporations (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/6), said that by operating in several countries such corporations created conflicts of jurisdiction and State responsibility; it was hard even to define these economic entities -- none of the texts of international law he had consulted had given a satisfying definition. The natural conflict of interests between the profit motive driving these corporations and the chance for them to avoid State-imposed responsibilities created large problems. Private international law seemed to have devoted the most attention to transnational corporations. There were difficulties with bribery and corruption; a code of conduct was being drawn up for such corporations; the intent was to make them adhere to appropriate standards of ethics and to practice social responsibility; they needed to take into account the impact of their activities on social development and on the environments and economies of the countries in which they operated. Among the human-rights challenges they presented were jurisdictional difficulties -- it was frequently hard to decide if issues were national or international in a legal sense; how was national sovereignty safeguarded, especially in developing countries, in such circumstances? He thought a sessional working group without financial obligations might be set up to study such issues so that the international community would have a paper with all the relevant ideas set out.
DAVID WEISSBRODT, Subcommission expert, said there was a need for a further study in the area of transnational corporations and the protection of human rights. Globalization and modernization had changed the dynamics of international relationships over the past 50 years. Of the 100 largest economies in the world, 51 were transnational corporations (TNCs), which therefore meant they had a great responsibility in the area of human rights protection. Unfortunately, many TNCs participated in human rights abuses by practices such as child labour. TNCs played a critical role in shaping global reality in which economic, social and cultural rights were protected or violated and deserved more attention in the Subcommission. The Subcommission could break new ground by affirming that non-State economic actors had a fundamental responsibility to uphold and protect human rights; the Subcommission should clarify and specify the obligations of these groups. TNCs should be encouraged to adopt policies that ensured the human rights of workers and the rights of the people in the communities in which they operated. There did not exist an accepted body of human rights standards applicable to TNCs, and there had been no study on the relationship between TNCs and human rights. A study by the Subcommission should be done on the practices of transnational corporations, their impact on human rights, as well as possible strategies for standard setting and independent monitoring.
MUSTAPHA MEHEDI, Subcommission expert, said Mr. Khalifa had been right to link poverty and terrorism to racism; he knew well the consequences of terrorism, and expressed his sympathy with Kenya, Tanzania, and the United States following the recent terrorist bombings; international solidarity was necessary for combating such attacks, and he hoped action could be taken so that terrorist networks existing in certain countries could be dismantled. Mr. Guissé should be thanked for pointing out the relationship between access to drinking water and the rights of girls and women, particularly in rural areas; and Mr. Eide was also thanked for his report. While he thanked Mr. Weissbrodt for his support of various joint studies, he did not agree with Mr. Weissbrodt's concerns about appointment of a special rapporteur on the right to education; he felt that if Mr. Weissbrodt had carefully read all of the report in question he would feel differently. It seemed clear that the right to education and education in human rights were complimentary and vital, and study of the topic seemed particularly pertinent on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
VLADIMIR KARTASHKIN, alternate expert, said that the issues discussed in the papers under consideration under item 4 had been extremely contemporary, including figures, diagrams and other studies, and this was an inseparable part of any study. However, the task of a study was to make specific recommendations. In some of the working papers this was the case, especially in the paper of Mr. Bengoa, however, in the others there were no recommendations, or they were very short. The practical value of a study was to make recommendations on the measures that needed to be taken at national and international level to ensure the rights covered in the studies.
Addressing in more detail the working paper of Mr. Mehedi on the right to education, the alternate expert said that there were some sections of the paper where the expert had provided answers, however, there were other areas that needed more elaboration, for example, did the State have to provide higher education to all, even if they had not passed necessary exams? What were the levels of funding that the State had to provide? There was an urgent need to create a system of education in human rights. In Russia in recent years there had been progress with regard to the incorporation of human rights teaching in education. When Mr. Mehedi continued the work on his paper, he could consider recommendations adopted at a national level, such as a Conference held in Moscow from 30 June to 2 July 1998 that had made concrete recommendations to the Russian government, including the need to establish a special federal human rights commission, and a Russian human rights institute. He supported the initiative for further work, and hoped that in his follow-up Mr. Mehedi would suggest specific recommendations that had to be adopted in order to ensure the full enjoyment of the right to education.
SANG YONG PARK, Subcommission expert, said that Mr. Mehedi's paper correctly characterized the right to education as a typical cross-sectoral right, and helpfully explained the reasons for it; the World Public Information Campaign for Human Rights launched in 1988 generally had failed in its aim of heightening public awareness of human rights, and that was understandable in view of the fact that 23 per cent of adults in the world today were unable to read, write, or do simple arithmetic; clearly universal access to adult education was a key to human progress in all sorts of areas; it certainly was a condition for full participation in society. The mass media had a valuable role to play in this area; journalists and professional people could effectively influence the general public, and should use that power to further human-rights education. It was further encouraging that the Commission on Human Rights had decided to appoint a Special Rapporteur on the right to education and that he had been asked to ensure coordination and complementarity with the work of Mr. Mehedi.
ZHONG SHUNKONG, alternate expert, said he had read with interest Mr. Bengoa's report on human rights and income distribution. This paper had analyzed the phenomena of globalization in the context of human rights in several aspects that included: "globalization at the periphery and concentration in centers"; "concentration in economic centers"; "globalization and delocation of production"; "globalization, threats and opportunities"; "globalization and the diminishing power of the state"; and "globalization and cultural identity". This indicated that globalization helped developed countries' outward expansion while having both positive and negative bearings on developing countries. Issues related to globalization needed to be addressed on the basis of equity, equality, and mutual benefit.
The working paper prepared by Mr. Guisse on the impact of the activities of transnational Corporations on the realization of economic, social and cultural rights was truly worthy of notice. The working paper had noted the larger context of transnational corporations' activities; the alarming concentration of wealth in the hands of a privileged minority; the impact of TNCs activities and operations - which could be elaborated in Mr. Guisse's follow-up paper; and striking a proper balance between profit making and proper code of conduct. Counter to some suggestions, the Subcommission was unique in that it was the only body to analyze questions such as globalization, and the right to food from the perspective of protecting and promoting human rights. Mr. Guisse's proposal regarding further work on the study of the impact of TNCs activities merited the support of the Subcommission.
MS. CASSAM, of the (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNESCO), said the organization made no territorial claims to the subject of the right to education and welcomed the Subcommission's consideration of the topic; the right was far too important to be left to a single specialized agency; there were some 900 million illiterates in the world, most of them women and girls, and it was critical that these mothers and future mothers be able to live full lives that were only available through education. Mr. Mehedi had been quite right to point out that education went beyond formal schooling and was in fact a life-long process; it was clear that to exercise rights to development, clean water, environmental protection and tolerance, one had first to be educated. In developing countries, Mr. Mehedi rightly pointed out, heavy debt burdens could not be allowed to hinder education budgets, as was occurring in some cases now. Nothing could be more counter-productive; UNESCO was convinced that the spiralling foreign debt problem had to be relieved for developing countries, especially for purposes of allowing greater educational opportunities in Africa.
AFRIM DJOHBALIC, of the Radical Party Transnational and Transdivisional, said that little of the global and multi-dimensional approach affirmed by the Subcommission last year was implemented in regions where peoples were suffering the consequences of the activities of transnational corporations. Despite the message from the international public following the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa in Nigeria, little if any change had taken place. Neither the Nigerian Government nor Shell had implemented policies to make changes for the Ogoni people who continued to suffer. In West Papua, indigenous peoples suffered serious human rights violations caused by transnational and multinational corporations. The situation in these States could improve if they restored all human rights and fundamental freedoms, including democratization of political life, but the role of multi-national corporations was also important. The Subcommission was therefore urged to take decisive action in the question of setting up implementing and guarding norms regarding the duties of transnational and multinational corporations.
ANDRES PEREZ BERRIO, of American Association of Jurists, said the Secretary-General's report on private business activities had not been impartial but had taken the side of business and profit-seeking interests; it was matter of concern, as he also had obligations to protect the peoples of the world, who were his true constituency; one paragraph took a position against the broad distribution of capital of privatized companies -- that was against the participation of small investors in such companies; he seemed to support monopolization of big companies by transnational capital. Such companies were no longer "infiltrating" the UN, as charged in the past, but were fully and integrally involved in the organization, and influenced its activities a great deal. It should be asked whether the involvement of Price Waterhouse in UN activities amounted to undue private interference. The right of peoples to decide for themselves was being replaced by the right of transnationals to decide for peoples; the Subcommission should follow up Mr. Guissé's study on transnational corporations with the appointment of a special rapporteur. Meanwhile, human-rights education should be based on encouragement of independent and critical thinking.
Correction
Due to an error, Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, expert of the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, was misquoted in press release HR/SC/98/6 of 6 August 1998. The last paragraph on page 1 and its continuation on page 2 of the release should read as follows:
Subcommission expert Soli J. Sorabjee said terrorism could be a worthy subject of Subcommission attention when the panel was making its delicate decisions on what country situations to consider. Terrorism could cause gross violations of human rights, was brutally damaging to innocent people, and was complex in practice and theory and posed difficult challenges for Governments; terrorism must not be combated by counter-terrorism by the State or by brutal suppression of human rights in pursuance of an official policy in that behalf.
The second paragraph on page 8 of the release should read as follows:
It was clear that terrorism posed special problems, Mr. Sorabjee said; it could be a worthy subject of Subcommission attention, as it could constitute gross violations, was brutally damaging to innocent people, and was complex in practice and theory and posed difficult challenges for Governments; terrorism must not be combated by counter-terrorism by the State or by brutal suppression of human rights in pursuance of an official policy in that behalf; yet it had to be accepted that terrorism did pose special problems for countries.
HR/SC/98/12
12 August 1998
Transnational Corporations and Access to Drinking Water Discussed
Whether transnational corporations were becoming de facto governments themselves or whether national Governments were merely slack in controlling them -- and hence in protecting their citizens -- was discussed this morning as the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities continued consideration of economic, social and cultural rights.
Subcommission Chairman and expert, El-Hadji Guissé, presenting a report on human-rights problems stemming from the activities of transnational corporations, remarked that by operating in several countries such firms created conflicts of jurisdiction and State responsibility, caused difficulties with bribery and corruption, and frequently made it hard to decide if the problems created were national or international in a legal sense. He asked how national sovereignty was to be safeguarded in such circumstances, especially in developing countries.
Another expert, Francoise Jane Hampson, contended that States were under an obligation to protect the rights of people within their jurisdictions from violations at the hands of third parties, including transnational corporations, and that there could be no effective protection without strong and accountable States which secured a balance between market forces and safeguarding of human rights. States had an obligation to regulate, she said.
A third expert, David Weissbrodt, said that "non-State economic actors" such as transnational corporations had a fundamental responsibility to uphold and protect human rights and should be encouraged to adopt policies that ensured the rights of workers and the rights of the people in the communities in which they operated.
Mr. Weissbrodt, Mr. Guissé, and alternate expert Zhong Shukong called for establishment of a sessional Subcommission working group on transnational corporations.
Also presented were studies on access to drinking water and sanitation services, authored by Mr. Guissé, and on the right to food, authored by expert Asbjorn Eide.
Other experts and alternates speaking at the meeting were Ahmad Khalifa, Mustapha Mehedi, Vladimir Kartashkin, and Sang Yong Park.
A representative of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) provided a formal statement, as did the non-governmental organizations Transnational Radical Party and American Association of Jurists.
The Subcommission will reconvene at 3 p.m. to continue its debate on economic, social and cultural rights.
Statements
AHMAD KHALIFA, Subcommission expert, said racism was the worst scourge of the human race; not only had the situation not improved in recent years, it had deteriorated. The new trend among some developed countries of hating foreigners, migrants, and newcomers meant to his mind that these countries were risking a descent into fascism -- if they continued in that vein they would lose their valuable patrimony of democracy. Germany presented a grim picture; racial offenses were up, and the hate groups, such as the skinheads, were becoming more sophisticated in their activities; in the United States, African-Americans who had been there for 200 years still suffered discrimination and prejudice; in France there were continuing problems.
Africa, in this age of the global economy, was falling farther behind, and a root cause was that its peoples were the prime targets of racism. What was needed was a fair deal based on the principles the Subcommission advocated; the international community must provide debt relief -- after all, it was plundering the natural resources of the continent; perhaps it should offer something back. U.S. development aid to Africa had fallen significantly over the last 20 years; that pattern should be reversed; arms sales to the continent should be ceased; efforts to corrupt African Governments should be ended. Although apartheid had ended, South Africa's struggle was only beginning: a small elite class of Blacks was being created and that was turning the leaders, the privileged few, away from the cause of the poor majority. He thought South Africa should once again be given a special item on the Subcommission's agenda.
FRANCOISE JANE HAMPSON, Subcommission expert, raised a question concerning the scope of the regulatory obligations of States under human rights law. With regard to the requirement of States to take positive action in order to secure human rights, the scope of this positive action to act was far from clear. There were four categories: actions by State authorities, such as the armed forces; actions by persons whose actions were imputable to the State, such as a nationalized company; actions by persons whose actions were not directly imputable to the State, but who were carrying out what were normally seen as governmental-type functions - as in the case of privately run prisons; and actions which were not imputable to the State, but where the State had an obligation to protect individuals against likely human rights violations at the hand of third parties.
There was clearly an overlap between the third and fourth categories. If an activity carried with it known and foreseeable risks, the State might be under an obligation to minimize those risks by means of regulations. With regard to transnational corporations, States were under an obligation to protect the rights of people within their jurisdiction from violations at the hands of third parties. The goal was not to legislate or compensate after the event, but was rather an obligation to prevent violations of human rights. States had to investigate human rights abuses in order to secure the rights of those in their jurisdiction and protect them; this was independent of the individual's right to a remedy for a violation of human rights law. There could be no effective human rights protection without strong and accountable States that were the best entities to secure a balance between market forces and control of activities in the name of human rights. The obligation to regulate was an intrinsic part of the obligation to secure and protect; the scope of this obligation needed to be considered by the Subcommission.
EL-HADJI GUISSÉ, Chairman and Subcommission expert, presented a paper on access to drinking water (E/CN.4/sub.2/1998/7). Safe and secure water supplies had always been a requirement for civilization; currently a billion people lacked access to safe drinking water; it was a serious matter; even more lacked access to sufficient sanitation services. Agriculture was the largest consumer of water -- it used some 80 per cent of available resources; industry accounted for most of the remaining 20 per cent. Meanwhile the very right to life was linked to water; non-access to drinking water and sanitation endangered human lives; numerous conflicts around the world had been triggered by shortages of water; and of course the right to health was involved -- safe water was decisive for health; numerous diseases were transmitted by contaminated water. Girls often were denied education because they instead had to spend their days walking long distances to and from sources of water. Developing countries had to undertake broad-based public-works programmes to improve water supplies, and clearly they needed international help to carry out such projects. If something was not done, by the year 2025 some 3 billion people would lack access to safe drinking water.
ASBJORN EIDE, Subcommission expert, introduced his report on an update on the right to food (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/9), saying that given the ongoing developments in defining this right, he had decided not to complete the update
of the study this year but would present a final update at the fifty-first session of the Subcommission in 1999. Statistics had improved since the first version of the study was presented in 1987. Global and national trends in food supplies were a poor indicator of hunger and malnutrition, as only data on access gave any meaning. The human rights system provided a basis to analyze States' obligations to realize the right to food and nutrition; the World Food Summit, held in Rome in November 1996, had been a milestone in efforts to bring attention to the right to food and nutrition as a human right. An accelerating recognition of the concerns about economic, social and cultural rights had taken place between 1996 and 1998.
Economic and social rights were starting to be taken seriously, though not quite at the same level as civil and political rights. Human rights needed to be considered in their totality and were interdependent. It was not true that many parts of the United Nations system dealt with economic and social rights while it was only the human rights bodies that addressed civil and political rights. Many institutions dealt with economic and social questions, but this did not mean that they dealt with rights.
With regard to the study by Subcommission expert Jose Bengoa, it was indeed necessary to confront the globalization of economic power with the universalisation of human rights standards. In the Social Forum, proposed by Mr. Bengoa, it was necessary to develop the concepts of economic and social rights as human rights to avoid rhetoric in this field. In this context, Subcommission expert Mustapha Mehedi's working paper showed that he intended to use a methodology which was in conformity with the understanding of human rights, and it would be positive were this to be elaborated into a study.
Mr. GUISSÉ, presenting his report on the impact on human rights of the activities of transnational corporations (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/6), said that by operating in several countries such corporations created conflicts of jurisdiction and State responsibility; it was hard even to define these economic entities -- none of the texts of international law he had consulted had given a satisfying definition. The natural conflict of interests between the profit motive driving these corporations and the chance for them to avoid State-imposed responsibilities created large problems. Private international law seemed to have devoted the most attention to transnational corporations. There were difficulties with bribery and corruption; a code of conduct was being drawn up for such corporations; the intent was to make them adhere to appropriate standards of ethics and to practice social responsibility; they needed to take into account the impact of their activities on social development and on the environments and economies of the countries in which they operated. Among the human-rights challenges they presented were jurisdictional difficulties -- it was frequently hard to decide if issues were national or international in a legal sense; how was national sovereignty safeguarded, especially in developing countries, in such circumstances? He thought a sessional working group without financial obligations might be set up to study such issues so that the international community would have a paper with all the relevant ideas set out.
DAVID WEISSBRODT, Subcommission expert, said there was a need for a further study in the area of transnational corporations and the protection of human rights. Globalization and modernization had changed the dynamics of international relationships over the past 50 years. Of the 100 largest economies in the world, 51 were transnational corporations (TNCs), which therefore meant they had a great responsibility in the area of human rights protection. Unfortunately, many TNCs participated in human rights abuses by practices such as child labour. TNCs played a critical role in shaping global reality in which economic, social and cultural rights were protected or violated and deserved more attention in the Subcommission. The Subcommission could break new ground by affirming that non-State economic actors had a fundamental responsibility to uphold and protect human rights; the Subcommission should clarify and specify the obligations of these groups. TNCs should be encouraged to adopt policies that ensured the human rights of workers and the rights of the people in the communities in which they operated. There did not exist an accepted body of human rights standards applicable to TNCs, and there had been no study on the relationship between TNCs and human rights. A study by the Subcommission should be done on the practices of transnational corporations, their impact on human rights, as well as possible strategies for standard setting and independent monitoring.
MUSTAPHA MEHEDI, Subcommission expert, said Mr. Khalifa had been right to link poverty and terrorism to racism; he knew well the consequences of terrorism, and expressed his sympathy with Kenya, Tanzania, and the United States following the recent terrorist bombings; international solidarity was necessary for combating such attacks, and he hoped action could be taken so that terrorist networks existing in certain countries could be dismantled. Mr. Guissé should be thanked for pointing out the relationship between access to drinking water and the rights of girls and women, particularly in rural areas; and Mr. Eide was also thanked for his report. While he thanked Mr. Weissbrodt for his support of various joint studies, he did not agree with Mr. Weissbrodt's concerns about appointment of a special rapporteur on the right to education; he felt that if Mr. Weissbrodt had carefully read all of the report in question he would feel differently. It seemed clear that the right to education and education in human rights were complimentary and vital, and study of the topic seemed particularly pertinent on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
VLADIMIR KARTASHKIN, alternate expert, said that the issues discussed in the papers under consideration under item 4 had been extremely contemporary, including figures, diagrams and other studies, and this was an inseparable part of any study. However, the task of a study was to make specific recommendations. In some of the working papers this was the case, especially in the paper of Mr. Bengoa, however, in the others there were no recommendations, or they were very short. The practical value of a study was to make recommendations on the measures that needed to be taken at national and international level to ensure the rights covered in the studies.
Addressing in more detail the working paper of Mr. Mehedi on the right to education, the alternate expert said that there were some sections of the paper where the expert had provided answers, however, there were other areas that needed more elaboration, for example, did the State have to provide higher education to all, even if they had not passed necessary exams? What were the levels of funding that the State had to provide? There was an urgent need to create a system of education in human rights. In Russia in recent years there had been progress with regard to the incorporation of human rights teaching in education. When Mr. Mehedi continued the work on his paper, he could consider recommendations adopted at a national level, such as a Conference held in Moscow from 30 June to 2 July 1998 that had made concrete recommendations to the Russian government, including the need to establish a special federal human rights commission, and a Russian human rights institute. He supported the initiative for further work, and hoped that in his follow-up Mr. Mehedi would suggest specific recommendations that had to be adopted in order to ensure the full enjoyment of the right to education.
SANG YONG PARK, Subcommission expert, said that Mr. Mehedi's paper correctly characterized the right to education as a typical cross-sectoral right, and helpfully explained the reasons for it; the World Public Information Campaign for Human Rights launched in 1988 generally had failed in its aim of heightening public awareness of human rights, and that was understandable in view of the fact that 23 per cent of adults in the world today were unable to read, write, or do simple arithmetic; clearly universal access to adult education was a key to human progress in all sorts of areas; it certainly was a condition for full participation in society. The mass media had a valuable role to play in this area; journalists and professional people could effectively influence the general public, and should use that power to further human-rights education. It was further encouraging that the Commission on Human Rights had decided to appoint a Special Rapporteur on the right to education and that he had been asked to ensure coordination and complementarity with the work of Mr. Mehedi.
ZHONG SHUNKONG, alternate expert, said he had read with interest Mr. Bengoa's report on human rights and income distribution. This paper had analyzed the phenomena of globalization in the context of human rights in several aspects that included: "globalization at the periphery and concentration in centers"; "concentration in economic centers"; "globalization and delocation of production"; "globalization, threats and opportunities"; "globalization and the diminishing power of the state"; and "globalization and cultural identity". This indicated that globalization helped developed countries' outward expansion while having both positive and negative bearings on developing countries. Issues related to globalization needed to be addressed on the basis of equity, equality, and mutual benefit.
The working paper prepared by Mr. Guisse on the impact of the activities of transnational Corporations on the realization of economic, social and cultural rights was truly worthy of notice. The working paper had noted the larger context of transnational corporations' activities; the alarming concentration of wealth in the hands of a privileged minority; the impact of TNCs activities and operations - which could be elaborated in Mr. Guisse's follow-up paper; and striking a proper balance between profit making and proper code of conduct. Counter to some suggestions, the Subcommission was unique in that it was the only body to analyze questions such as globalization, and the right to food from the perspective of protecting and promoting human rights. Mr. Guisse's proposal regarding further work on the study of the impact of TNCs activities merited the support of the Subcommission.
MS. CASSAM, of the (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNESCO), said the organization made no territorial claims to the subject of the right to education and welcomed the Subcommission's consideration of the topic; the right was far too important to be left to a single specialized agency; there were some 900 million illiterates in the world, most of them women and girls, and it was critical that these mothers and future mothers be able to live full lives that were only available through education. Mr. Mehedi had been quite right to point out that education went beyond formal schooling and was in fact a life-long process; it was clear that to exercise rights to development, clean water, environmental protection and tolerance, one had first to be educated. In developing countries, Mr. Mehedi rightly pointed out, heavy debt burdens could not be allowed to hinder education budgets, as was occurring in some cases now. Nothing could be more counter-productive; UNESCO was convinced that the spiralling foreign debt problem had to be relieved for developing countries, especially for purposes of allowing greater educational opportunities in Africa.
AFRIM DJOHBALIC, of the Radical Party Transnational and Transdivisional, said that little of the global and multi-dimensional approach affirmed by the Subcommission last year was implemented in regions where peoples were suffering the consequences of the activities of transnational corporations. Despite the message from the international public following the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa in Nigeria, little if any change had taken place. Neither the Nigerian Government nor Shell had implemented policies to make changes for the Ogoni people who continued to suffer. In West Papua, indigenous peoples suffered serious human rights violations caused by transnational and multinational corporations. The situation in these States could improve if they restored all human rights and fundamental freedoms, including democratization of political life, but the role of multi-national corporations was also important. The Subcommission was therefore urged to take decisive action in the question of setting up implementing and guarding norms regarding the duties of transnational and multinational corporations.
ANDRES PEREZ BERRIO, of American Association of Jurists, said the Secretary-General's report on private business activities had not been impartial but had taken the side of business and profit-seeking interests; it was matter of concern, as he also had obligations to protect the peoples of the world, who were his true constituency; one paragraph took a position against the broad distribution of capital of privatized companies -- that was against the participation of small investors in such companies; he seemed to support monopolization of big companies by transnational capital. Such companies were no longer "infiltrating" the UN, as charged in the past, but were fully and integrally involved in the organization, and influenced its activities a great deal. It should be asked whether the involvement of Price Waterhouse in UN activities amounted to undue private interference. The right of peoples to decide for themselves was being replaced by the right of transnationals to decide for peoples; the Subcommission should follow up Mr. Guissé's study on transnational corporations with the appointment of a special rapporteur. Meanwhile, human-rights education should be based on encouragement of independent and critical thinking.
Correction
Due to an error, Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, expert of the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, was misquoted in press release HR/SC/98/6 of 6 August 1998. The last paragraph on page 1 and its continuation on page 2 of the release should read as follows:
Subcommission expert Soli J. Sorabjee said terrorism could be a worthy subject of Subcommission attention when the panel was making its delicate decisions on what country situations to consider. Terrorism could cause gross violations of human rights, was brutally damaging to innocent people, and was complex in practice and theory and posed difficult challenges for Governments; terrorism must not be combated by counter-terrorism by the State or by brutal suppression of human rights in pursuance of an official policy in that behalf.
The second paragraph on page 8 of the release should read as follows:
It was clear that terrorism posed special problems, Mr. Sorabjee said; it could be a worthy subject of Subcommission attention, as it could constitute gross violations, was brutally damaging to innocent people, and was complex in practice and theory and posed difficult challenges for Governments; terrorism must not be combated by counter-terrorism by the State or by brutal suppression of human rights in pursuance of an official policy in that behalf; yet it had to be accepted that terrorism did pose special problems for countries.