Business and human rights meet

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.