Forget Responsibility: Now is the Time for Accountability

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), like all systems that promote self-regulation, results in much discussion and much more disagreement. Essentially, companies that are socially responsible will always take the environment, the rights on their employees, the affects felt by local communities and basic notions of justice into consideration when conducting their operations. Some observers believe that CSR is a hindrance with no relevance and therefore no entitlement to be part of the commercial sphere. Others believe that CSR is nothing more than window dressing which will never have any real impact unless corporations are legally bound by it. And then there are those who consider it a positive tool that can be used to balance the interests of profit and people.

However, the fact remains that corporations can simply choose not to abide by the principles of CSR and there is very little that has been done in the past to counter this. For instance, the Company Law Review Group in Ireland has been set the task to reform and consolidate all existing companies’ legislation in a single companies’ code. The result of this will be the General Scheme of the Companies Consolidation and Reform Bill and should be drafted by the end of 2009. However, to date it is practically impossible to find any reference to CSR, human rights, social responsibility or the environment in the bill; a bill that consolidates all existing legislation relating to company law. Ireland is not alone in its inability to regulate such matters and serves as a reminder of the ineptness of the law to protect such notions when companies are involved.

With that in mind, it is of huge importance that a New York court is currently preparing for a trail (Wiwa v Shell) in which the oil giant Shell stands accused of crimes against humanity over its activities in the oil-rich Niger Delta of Southern Nigeria. The outcome of this case is expected to have a bearing on the issue of corporate accountability and how far it extends. The plaintiffs involved allege that Shell was an active participant in atrocities and abuses carried out by Nigeria's military police. They also hold Shell partially responsible for torture, illegal detention, forced exile and the shooting of hundreds of protestors.

The trial is a civil action based on an obscure law that has rarely proved successful for plaintiffs in similar cases. However, there is great anticipation that the current plaintiffs will indeed be victorious which could result in the award of millions of dollars. And that is only the beginning. What does a positive result for the plaintiffs mean for corporate accountability? Could successful civil proceedings lead to criminal cases? Will Shell lose more than money?

All these questions will soon be addressed and hopefully there will be a clear answer; This is the end of the line for corporate immunity!

No Democracy Without an Independent Judiciary

There can be no effective democracy without an independent and unbiased judiciary that operates in a legal system which respects the equal rights of all. When such conditions do not exist, the courts are often used as a tool of oppression. They are employed as a means of consolidating the authority of those in power and as a weapon against any opposition, be it from political parties or civil society. Such abuse was rampant in South Africa during the apartheid era and typified by the Rivonia trail during the 1960s when the illegitimate government tried to use the courts as a mechanism to damage and silence the ANC.

Thinking of South Africa and the leadership of Nelson Mandela, one cannot fail to see the similarities in the hardships endured by Aung San Suu Kyi in Myanmar. The current case against her could result in her facing a prison term of five years. Unsurprisingly, the opposition leader who has spent 13 of the last 19 years under house arrest, is facing charges that if (and most likely when) found guilty will exclude her from taking part in next year’s elections. This is nothing more than opportunism by the military rule to prevent Suu Kyi from causing them insurmountable discomfort if she was free to contest the elections, which she would have been (her detention order was set to expire on May 27th 2009) had it not been for the actions of the American John Yettaw and the reaction of the government of Myanmar.

John Yettaw acted of his own volition. According to her lawyers, Suu Kyi requested that he leave immediately and only allowed him to stay temporarily due to his fatigue and inability to repeat the swim back across the lake. If Suu Kyi had brought the presence of Mr Yettaw to the attention of the authorities, they would surely have acted in the same way and used the opportunity to prolong her detention, despite their protestations. All week there have been concerns that the court and prosecution were being influenced to conclude the proceedings quickly. This fear was added to when the prosecution suddenly decided not to call their final 8 witnesses, putting immense pressure on the defence team.

Aung San Suu Kyi will not receive a fair trial. Myanmar’s human rights record displays nothing short of contempt for such notions. The international community must speak now and with a united voice calling for her release and demanding that she is not placed back under house arrest.

Great YouTube Links

Check out some great videos from Amnesty International and Friends of the Earth International:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sBPTJP7z4Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFz5jbUfJbk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7mETr1SqXk

2009: A Bad Year for the Protection of Civilians

Not even half way through 2009 and already it has proven to be a disastrous year for the protection of civilians in times of war. From December 27th 2008 to 18th January 2009, Trocaire estimated that the conflict in Gaza took the lives of around 412 Palestinian children, the epitome of non-combatant civilians. By the end of the brief but brutal conflict that consumed the first moments of 2009, the United Nations recorded 13 Israeli and 1,366 Palestinian deaths. On top of this, 40,000 people had been displaced and 200,000 homes were damaged. These figures are made all the more horrifying when the context is outlined.

For example, the ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) reported numerous cases of people in Gaza dying as they waited in vain for ambulances. This was largely due to the fact that breaks in shelling bombardments were not adequate to allow medical assistance reach those in need. This falls considerably short of the requirements under Articles 14 and 17 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of which Israel is a signatory and even if Israel was not to recognise the Gaza Strip as foreign territory, then Article 3 still requires that within its own territory, the “wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for”. It is worth making the point that the ICRC does not make a habit of condemning or criticising countries unless it feels compelled to do so, and as such the reports it made should be taken with utmost seriousness. In addition and with regard to the destruction of 200,000 homes, such devastation could hardly be considered “absolutely necessary by military operations” as is required by Article 53.

Furthermore, Human Rights Watch reported during the conflict that Israel’s military fired white phosphorus over crowded areas of Gaza repeatedly and indiscriminately. Israel was also criticised by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, for the killing of up to 30 Palestinians in Zeitoun when it shelled a house where its own troops had instructed roughly 110 civilians to take shelter. Any claims made by the Israeli Government that white phosphorous was not employed as a weapon or that some civilian deaths were either mistakes or did not occur as reported are hard to believe considering the ban on foreign media and the restriction of humanitarian and aid organisations within the conflict zones.

This is not to say that the activities of Hamas or any armed group that took offensive acts against Israel can be condoned or that the Israeli loss of life does not constitute a tragedy but the simple fact remains that the actions that Israel took were disproportionate and amounted to collective punishment which resulted in over a thousand civilian deaths. This is indefensible.

Following the cessation of hostilities by both sides involved in the Gaza conflict, another aggressive military operation, this time in the north eastern territory of Sri Lanka, assumed the focus of the international community. The government of Sri Lanka this week is now celebrating what it claims to be the defeat of the Tamil Tigers and the end of the civil war but throughout the campaign it acted with complete disregard for the civilian population. In the final week (beginning 11th May) of the campaign alone, it is estimated that 1,000 civilians were killed due to attacks in the Sri Lanka safe zone. Children as young as 5 years old were continuously turning up at camps traumatised and hungry after being separated from their parents as they tried to flee. Indeed the government at one point itself believed there to be 50,000 civilians trapped in the conflict zone. Yet despite this awareness and knowing that its actions were either directly causing civilian deaths or resulting in reprisals by the Tamil Tigers having the same effect, the government in Colombo refused to halt its offensive or change its tactics. Once again, any claims of innocence by Sri Lanka or the remaining Tamil Tigers cannot be verified as independent journalists were denied access to the areas where the fighting took place. However it would be surprising if more details about civilian deaths did not surface in the upcoming weeks and months.

Unfortunately, the end of one conflict has ushered in the beginning of another. As I am writing this article, the latest strife in Pakistan has resulted in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of civilians and both sides are claiming they intend to fight to the bitter end.

It looks as if 2009 is set to continue as violently as it began.

OECD peer review - Not all good news

Peter Power, Ireland's Minister of State for Overseas Development, has warmly welcomed the review of Irish Aid and the Government's overseas aid programme by the OECD's Development Assistance Committee (DAC). He noted that in the review, the DAC praised Ireland for its long history of helping the world's poorest people and he thanked the Irish public for continuing to "save thousands of lives each year".

The review does indeed bestow a lot of praise upon Ireland with regard to its ability to make aid more effective, its policy cohesion and its concentration of spending. However, the review took place two weeks before the Irish Government decided to cut the overseas aid budget by a massive €100 million. Furthermore, the praise was accompanied by a warning from the DAC with regard to the €95 million cut made in February of this year, that Ireland should refrain from any further budgetary action that would undermine its commitment to meeting the United Nations ODA target of 0.7% GNI by 2012.

I hope that Minister Power and the Irish Government will in future not only accept the applause of bodies such as the DAC but also take heed of the committee's warnings rather than showing a continued willingness to cut the overseas aid budget.

Is Jacob Zuma the right man for the job?

With the recent electoral victory by the ANC, South Africa is poised to have its first ever Zulu President, Jacob Zuma. However, although the election was a shining example of democracy in action, will Mr Zuma’s leadership improve the lives of those that cast their vote?

The ANC won a convincing 65.9% of the vote and although this was a lower figure than that achieved by Mr Zuma’s predecessor Thabo Mbeki, it still gives a strong mandate to the ANC to continue in Government. Understandably, there are many South African citizens who would vote for the ANC regardless of whom the leader was and would consider themselves to be one-party people. This is easy to comprehend given the historical significance and achievements of the party. However, when Mr Zuma originally decided to stand for leadership of the ANC, the party itself was split and has been damaged by that division ever since.

Jacob Zuma has an impressive personal history. He was a member of the ANC’s military wing, was imprisoned on the notorious Robben Island and spent 10 years in prison for his part in the anti-apartheid struggle. He, like many others involved in that struggle, also spent a considerable amount of time in exile. However, his rise through the ranks of the ANC’s leadership has been plagued with controversy. In the past few years alone he has faced rape charges (of which he was acquitted) and was sacked as deputy president after being implicated in a corruption scandal. Allegations of corruption have still not abated and probably will not do so during her tenure as president.

On top of this, during the rape trial he attracted condemnation from HIV/AIDS activists and many in the medical world when he claimed that he had taken a shower after having sexual intercourse in order to minimise the risk of contracting HIV. In a country where UNAIDS recently estimated that 5,700,000 people are currently living with HIV and 1,400,000 children under the age of 17 are orphans due to AIDS, it was an extremely dangerous and irresponsible statement to make. Mr Zuma has also often been criticised by Women’s Groups for some of his views and statements towards women.

Despite this, in a country where 23 million are eligible to vote, the Independent Electoral Commission expressed predictions during the election of an 80% turn out. This type of active citizenship is undoubtedly irregular and impressive but for a country that has a Human Development Index rating of outside the top 100 (of 177 countries), the hope is that Jacob Zuma truly is a man of the people rather than just a different man for different people. Hopefully his past service for the ANC rather than his recent controversial existence is what makes up the man that South Africa will soon have as their president.