Business and human rights meet<\/p>\n
This is the first of two articles that delve into the heart of
\nthe relationship between business and human rights.<\/p>\n
By Budiono Kusumohamidjojo<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Southeast Asia has witnessed turbulent regional
\ndevelopments over the last three months.<\/p>\n
As some Southeast Asian and East Asian currencies were shaken
\nby crises, Myanmar and Laos were admitted as full members of
\nASEAN on July 23, 1997, raising high in the region the issue of
\nMyanmar's human rights violations.<\/p>\n
Also during this time, the region was (and still is) plagued
\nby \"smaze\" (a term invented by Malaysian friends for \"smog haze\")
\nproduced essentially by greed and \"exported\" from Indonesia by
\nman-made forest fires.<\/p>\n
While business and greed are not of the same creed, business
\nis, in fact, related to human rights.<\/p>\n
The question is, how is the delicate relationship between the
\ntwo issues?<\/p>\n
Or, more precisely, how should it be?<\/p>\n
At first glance, for the layman, the relationship between
\nbusiness and human rights might appear to be like that of oil and
\nwater.<\/p>\n
But a closer look at both issues may lead to a better
\nunderstanding of their interconnectedness.<\/p>\n
Black's Law Dictionary defines \"business\" as any \"employment,
\noccupation, profession, or commercial activity engaged in for
\ngain or livelihood\", so the conduct of business actually
\nconstitutes one of the very basic human rights.<\/p>\n
Or in the words of Michael Novak: \"Private business
\ncorporations are in themselves embodiments of practices of human
\nrights.\" (Business as a Calling, Work and the Examined Life,
\n1996)<\/p>\n
Apparently this kind of business does not bother human rights
\nadvocates, because most people, particularly at grassroots level,
\nengage in business to earn a living, thereby enjoying one of the
\nmost basic of human rights.<\/p>\n
Human rights proponents seem more concerned with the business
\nof conglomerates, particularly the kind of industrial and
\ncommercial activity that pursues profit to such an extent that it
\ncan affect public interest -- in a national, regional or global
\ncontext.<\/p>\n
This article discusses this type of business, which has been
\naccused of being in a state of perpetual conflict with human
\nrights.<\/p>\n
So far, this type of business has won the following worldwide
\nreputation among people at grassroots level: Firstly, it is
\ndeemed responsible for having taken away, and continuing to take
\naway their opportunity to earn a sustainable living.<\/p>\n
Secondly, despite some developed countries' progressive
\nenvironmental legislation, it is hard to deny that many
\nconglomerates, all over the world, are continuing to destroy the
\nenvironment and destabilize ecosystems.<\/p>\n
Thirdly -- and even worse -- the immense capital accumulation
\nof business, which enables players to build cartels and
\noligopolies, has contributed to the widening gap between rich
\ncountries and people, and those who's little is becoming less.<\/p>\n
The notion of capitalism is indeed being trapped deeper into
\ncontroversy.<\/p>\n
And business is being blamed for violating many human rights.<\/p>\n
Nevertheless, business has its own logic, which is exactly the
\nsame as that of mankinds'.<\/p>\n
If someone conducts their business activity reasonably, they
\nshould gain.<\/p>\n
Should they engage in business in an unreasonable manner, they
\nmay well lose.<\/p>\n
The business world also abides by a certain set of ethics,
\nwhich is no different from human ethics.<\/p>\n
Business would not flourish and grow to the dimensions it has
\nnow, if players were continuously cheating each other.<\/p>\n
And it is thanks to business that we enjoy the benefits of the
\ncountless technological advances made in the various fields of
\nlife, not only in transportation and telecommunication, but also
\nin medicine, agriculture and food production, energy
\nalternatives, social security system and others.<\/p>\n
According to reports from some United Nations agencies, about
\n800 million people in the world are undernourished, and this
\nsituation gives business little chance to defend itself against
\naccusations of being greedy and selfish.<\/p>\n
Nobody will benefit from a lasting opposition between
\nbusinesspeople and human rights proponents.<\/p>\n
So business and human rights must be put in a different
\nconstellation, and a more constructive approach to bring the two
\ncloser together must be developed.<\/p>\n
The hurdles in the way of this objective, however, are
\nenormous.<\/p>\n
Big business players are now the most invulnerable actors in
\nthe global theater of life.<\/p>\n
In democracies, presidents or heads of government are
\naccountable to their parliaments or people.<\/p>\n
In countries where democracy is absent, rulers need to keep
\ntheir national situation under constant and absolute power
\ncontrol.<\/p>\n
Business, conglomerates in particular, are not accountable to
\nany institution in the same way.<\/p>\n
Not even to their auditors.<\/p>\n
In this sense they are even more powerful than any president
\nor head of government.<\/p>\n
This has been clearly illustrated by Malaysian Prime Minister
\nMahathir Mohamad's sharp criticism of George Soros in July 1997.<\/p>\n
Has Soros indeed acted against social ethics? Has he indeed
\nviolated human rights?<\/p>\n
For the time being nobody can be sure about the answer to such
\nqueries.<\/p>\n
But people like Mahathir and Soros will have to share this
\nworld together in the future.<\/p>\n
Because the world community will not be able to afford a new
\ntype of conflict between governments, business and human rights
\nadvocates.<\/p>\n
The writer is secretary-general of the Indonesian National
\nWorking Group for Human Rights, Jakarta.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/business-and-human-rights-meet-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}