
	by Thalif Deen
	
	Jun 28, 2014
	
	from
	
	IPSNews Website
	
	 
	
	 
	
	
 
	
	 
	
	
	
	
	The United States and 
	the EU have warned 
	
	they would not cooperate with 
	an intergovernmental working group (IGWG) 
	
	which is to be established to 
	lay down ground rules 
	
	for negotiating a proposed 
	treaty to prevent human rights abuses 
	
	by transnational 
	corporations. 
	
	Credit: Omid Memarian/IPS
 
	
	 
	
	
	UNITED NATIONS (IPS) 
	
	 
	
	The United States and the 28-member European 
	Union (EU) have assiduously promoted - and vigorously preached - one of the 
	basic tenets of Western multi-party democracy: majority rules.
	
	But at 
	the United Nations, the 29 member states 
	have frequently abandoned that principle when it insists on "consensus" on 
	crucial decisions relating to the U.N. budget - or when it is clearly 
	outvoted in the 193-member General Assembly or its committee rooms.
	
		
		"The division of the votes clearly shows 
		that the countries who are host to a lot of TNCs, such as the EU, as 
		well as Norway and the U.S., are against this proposal." 
		
		Anne van Schaik
	
	
	That's exactly what happened Thursday at the 
	U.N. Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva which adopted, by majority 
	vote, a proposal to negotiate a legally-binding treaty to prevent human 
	rights abuses by transnational corporations (TNCs) and the world's 
	business conglomerates.
	
	But following the vote, the United States and the EU, have warned they would 
	not cooperate with an intergovernmental working group (IGWG) which is 
	to be established to lay down ground rules for negotiating the proposed 
	treaty.
	
	Stephen Townley, the U.S. representative in the HRC, told delegates:
	
	
		
		"The United States will not participate in 
		this IGWG, and we encourage others to do the same."
	
	
	There are also a host of practical questions 
	about how an internationally binding instrument would apply to corporations, 
	which are not subjects of international law, and how states would implement 
	such an instrument, said Townley, special assistant to the legal adviser at 
	the U.S. State Department.
	
	The vote was 20 for, 14 against and 13 abstentions in the 47-member HRC.
	
	
	 
	
	The United States and EU members, including,
	
		
			- 
			
			France
 
			- 
			
			Germany
 
			- 
			
			UK
 
			- 
			
			Italy
 
			- 
			
			Ireland
 
			- 
			
			Austria
 
			- 
			
			Estonia 
 
			- 
			
			the Czech Republic
 
			- 
			
			South Korea 
 
			- 
			
			Japan, 
 
		
	
	
	...voted against the resolution.
	
	Spearheaded by Ecuador and South Africa, the resolution received positive 
	votes from,
	
		
			- 
			
			China
 
			- 
			
			India
 
			- 
			
			Indonesia
 
			- 
			
			Kenya
 
			- 
			
			Pakistan
 
			- 
			
			Philippines 
 
			- 
			
			Algeria, 
 
		
	
	
	...amongst others.
	
	The Arab nations, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and 
	Kuwait, along with Mexico, Peru and the Maldives, abstained.
	
	Anne van Schaik, accountable finance campaigner with Friends of 
	the Earth Europe, told IPS the voting list,
	
		
		"makes clear we are up against powerful 
		forces".
		
		"Who will not back away from using old bullying techniques?" she asked.
	
	
	She said the EU has clearly stated it will not 
	cooperate in implementing the proposal.
	
	And after the vote, the United States said this legally binding instrument 
	will not be binding for those who vote against it.
	
		
		"So we can expect some fierce opposition," 
		Schaik said, even as the IGWG plans to hold its first meeting sometime 
		next year.
		
		"But we are cheerful because it is not every day public interest wins 
		over corporate interests which are backed by the EU and the U.S.," she 
		added.
	
	
	Both United States and the EU have argued that 
	the three-year-old U.N. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights 
	is adequate as a yardstick to monitor the business practices - and 
	malpractices - of corporations and big business.
	
		
		"We have not given states adequate time and 
		space to implement the Guiding Principles," Townley told delegates.
		
		He said "while we share and appreciate the concerns expressed by some 
		delegations and civil society colleagues that we need to do more to 
		improve access to remedy for victims of business-related human rights 
		abuses, our concern is that this initiative [for a legally binding 
		treaty] will have exactly the opposite effect."
	
	
	Philip Lynch, director of 
	International Service for Human Rights, told IPS that in order to be 
	effective, it is crucial that any treaty on business and human rights be 
	negotiated with input from all relevant stakeholders and that it cover all 
	business enterprises, not just transnational corporations.
	
		
		"We consider it very important that the 
		European Union participates in this negotiation process," he said, since 
		the EU is both the headquarters for many corporations, and global 
		leaders in the implementation of the U.N. Guiding Principles on Business 
		and Human Rights.
		
		"We also hope that the negotiation of the treaty can complement and 
		build on the consensus underpinning the Guiding Principles, which enjoy 
		strong EU support," he added.
	
	
	Speaking of the proposed treaty, Schaik told IPS 
	this is something that Friends of the Earth has campaigned for years, if not 
	decades.
	
		
		"We have always wanted the U.N. to take 
		responsibility to develop such a mechanism, since they are the only 
		international democratic decision-making body that is able to work on 
		such a proposal."
	
	
	So, it is better than, for example, having 
	legislation adopted by some countries, or regional bodies (if this would 
	have been feasible at all), she added.
	
	Secondly, Schaik said, what is very positive as well is that in the 
	resolution, a roadmap is already laid out for the first steps of this 
	working group.
	
		
		"The division of the votes clearly shows 
		that the countries who are host to a lot of TNCs, such as the EU, as 
		well as Norway and the U.S., are against this proposal," she noted.
	
	
	Asked how the Western opposition could be 
	countered, she pointed out the U.S. warned, even before the vote, that 
	countries who voted against it would not be obliged to respect the 
	resolution.
	
		
		"This is of course total nonsense, but it 
		does mean that both civil society, as well as the countries who voted in 
		favor, will have to do what they can in order for this working group to 
		be successful."
	
	
	She said: 
	
		
		"We have built at very short time a 
		coalition of more than 610 organizations and 400 individuals."
	
	
	She said the treaty alliance is already making 
	plans on how to follow up on this victory, 
	
		
		"and I think particularly for groups in 
		Europe, the U.S. and Norway there is an important task to keep 
		pressuring their countries to respect the resolution."
		
		"We will campaign, set up email actions, present research, organize 
		speaker tours and take to the streets, if necessary, to ensure the 
		working group will be successful," she said.