Business and human rights meet

This is the first of two articles that delve into the heart of the relationship between business and human rights.

By Budiono Kusumohamidjojo

JAKARTA (JP): Southeast Asia has witnessed turbulent regional developments over the last three months.

As some Southeast Asian and East Asian currencies were shaken by crises, Myanmar and Laos were admitted as full members of ASEAN on July 23, 1997, raising high in the region the issue of Myanmar's human rights violations.

Also during this time, the region was (and still is) plagued by "smaze" (a term invented by Malaysian friends for "smog haze") produced essentially by greed and "exported" from Indonesia by man-made forest fires.

While business and greed are not of the same creed, business is, in fact, related to human rights.

The question is, how is the delicate relationship between the two issues?

Or, more precisely, how should it be?

At first glance, for the layman, the relationship between business and human rights might appear to be like that of oil and water.

But a closer look at both issues may lead to a better understanding of their interconnectedness.

Black's Law Dictionary defines "business" as any "employment, occupation, profession, or commercial activity engaged in for gain or livelihood", so the conduct of business actually constitutes one of the very basic human rights.

Or in the words of Michael Novak: "Private business corporations are in themselves embodiments of practices of human rights." (Business as a Calling, Work and the Examined Life, 1996)

Apparently this kind of business does not bother human rights advocates, because most people, particularly at grassroots level, engage in business to earn a living, thereby enjoying one of the most basic of human rights.

Human rights proponents seem more concerned with the business of conglomerates, particularly the kind of industrial and commercial activity that pursues profit to such an extent that it can affect public interest -- in a national, regional or global context.

This article discusses this type of business, which has been accused of being in a state of perpetual conflict with human rights.

So far, this type of business has won the following worldwide reputation among people at grassroots level: Firstly, it is deemed responsible for having taken away, and continuing to take away their opportunity to earn a sustainable living.

Secondly, despite some developed countries' progressive environmental legislation, it is hard to deny that many conglomerates, all over the world, are continuing to destroy the environment and destabilize ecosystems.

Thirdly -- and even worse -- the immense capital accumulation of business, which enables players to build cartels and oligopolies, has contributed to the widening gap between rich countries and people, and those who's little is becoming less.

The notion of capitalism is indeed being trapped deeper into controversy.

And business is being blamed for violating many human rights.

Nevertheless, business has its own logic, which is exactly the same as that of mankinds'.

If someone conducts their business activity reasonably, they should gain.

Should they engage in business in an unreasonable manner, they may well lose.

The business world also abides by a certain set of ethics, which is no different from human ethics.

Business would not flourish and grow to the dimensions it has now, if players were continuously cheating each other.

And it is thanks to business that we enjoy the benefits of the countless technological advances made in the various fields of life, not only in transportation and telecommunication, but also in medicine, agriculture and food production, energy alternatives, social security system and others.

According to reports from some United Nations agencies, about 800 million people in the world are undernourished, and this situation gives business little chance to defend itself against accusations of being greedy and selfish.

Nobody will benefit from a lasting opposition between businesspeople and human rights proponents.

So business and human rights must be put in a different constellation, and a more constructive approach to bring the two closer together must be developed.

The hurdles in the way of this objective, however, are enormous.

Big business players are now the most invulnerable actors in the global theater of life.

In democracies, presidents or heads of government are accountable to their parliaments or people.

In countries where democracy is absent, rulers need to keep their national situation under constant and absolute power control.

Business, conglomerates in particular, are not accountable to any institution in the same way.

Not even to their auditors.

In this sense they are even more powerful than any president or head of government.

This has been clearly illustrated by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad's sharp criticism of George Soros in July 1997.

Has Soros indeed acted against social ethics? Has he indeed violated human rights?

For the time being nobody can be sure about the answer to such queries.

But people like Mahathir and Soros will have to share this world together in the future.

Because the world community will not be able to afford a new type of conflict between governments, business and human rights advocates.

The writer is secretary-general of the Indonesian National Working Group for Human Rights, Jakarta.