by Agus Miswanto
A. INTRODUCTION
Almost 20 years, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has been experienced in deadly civil wars, which of toll death have been claimed over 5.4 million people [1]. Lasting conflict flared up again and again. Many Reports from the zone of conflict illustrated widespread looting, rape and killing of civilian targets. Then, the international community also has struggled to come up with an adequate response to the case, like giving aid, peace keeping force, disarm conflict, and even criticizing the role of multi-national company fueling conflict in the area.
The role of multinational companies in fueling this violence is key issues, due to the immense natural resources in this nation. Moreover, various foreign powers, as well as internal, have sought to gain an advantage from conflict exist in this area. Even, Rwanda and Uganda as neighboring country also involved in deepen and tighten the conflict. Even, both countries were dubbed to have secret agenda regarding of economic interest, especially in terms of resources, diamonds, minerals and other vast rich resources. Therefore, due to the rich resources of DR Congo, the conflict and the rebels had long been successful in setting up financial administrative bodies in their controlled areas, especially with regards to trading with multinational companies, while DR Congo had also been able to finance his side of the conflict [2].
Therefore, this essay would like to describe and to know the discourse the global ethics of MNC conduct in light of human development, human right and human security in which they operates. Then how international community respond the misbehave of MNC, and what have been done to eradicate such condition.
B. CONFLICT IN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO AND GLOBAL ECONOMIC INTEREST
Many groups from local and regional could not operate in conflict and warfare without access to international mineral markets. The multinational corporations has significant role and extremely important in conflict trade in the DRC. They are deeply involved in war of economic interest. They supply goods and services and provide market outlets to warring government authorities, rebels and warlords who, without these companies, would have neither the foreign capital to finance a war nor the profit incentive to sustain one.
Multinational companies (MNC) have involved in providing arms and money by paying taxes and licensing fees to rebellions in the DRC. International business has, through its contracts, deals, and provisions, served to finance and sustain these actors involved in the Central African conflict. International companies have also viewed rebel-held territory as de facto sovereign states and used local leaders as conduits for illicit trade. This practice not only violates the right of DRC sovereignty under international law, but has also served to bolster the rebel’s control in certain areas [3].
There are many companies from different countries that operate in DR Congo. For example, American Mineral Fields (AMF) and Afrimax have immense benefits from the conflict in DRC. Since Laurent Kabila’s coup in 1996, American Mineral Fields (AMF), for instances, has started operating in the DRC. The AMF that had link to President Clinton business that had been supporting Kabila to get power, got a billion dollar concession from Kabila to mine copper, cobalt, and zinc. Therefore, American Mineral Fields directly benefited from America’s military and intelligence support for Kabila. It was very clear that America’s support for Kabila was just to get economic interest. Since, after turning over the Mobutu regime by Kabila, North American-based mining companies had access to open up Congo’s vast mineral riches [4].
Furthermore, Afrimex, the U.K. based company, continues to get trading minerals that exacerbates the conflict in the DRC. For this case, Afrimax just considered economic interest, although it has breached guidelines of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). In South Kivu, Afrimex could control 40 percent of all tin exports, and then it becomes the second largest tin exporter in 2004 and 2005. Afrimex was charged directly contributed to funding armed rebel groups which committed human rights abuses, such as extortion, killing, torture, and forced mass displacement. Because Afrimex has paid taxes annually to the RCDG a $15,000 licensing fee and a percentage of its total value of exports since 1998 [5].
The example of the two multinational companies from US and British involved in conflict describes weakness of international ethics standard in regulating multinational companies [6].The MNC has contribution in violence and atrocities in the DRC, but they never receive any sanction. In 2001, the UN has listed 85 companies that had not achieved and violated international standards of good corporate behavior [7], especially guidelines for the ethical behavior of multinationals established by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The report categorized the involvement in violations into two categories, such as provision of direct support to militias including training and equipment; and funding of the war through the acquisition of mineral wealth from areas controlled by rebellions. Corporations from around the world have sought to profit from exploiting the DRC’s natural resources on the cheap – particularly coltan, a mineral used to produce cell phones, laptops and video game consoles.
Furthermore, in 2003, when human rights activist groups reported and charged that many multinational corporations from rich countries have been benefiting from the war and have consolidated “elite networks” of key political, military, and business elites to plunder the Congo’s natural resources, a number of companies and western governments pressured the United Nations panel to omit details of shady business dealings in a report out in October 2003[8].Then after long debate within panel experts in the UN, the UN finally released the report at the end of October 2003, they listed approximately 125 companies and individuals listed that had been named in a previous report by the panel for having contributed directly or indirectly to the conflict in the DRC [9].
In December 2008, the UN has also revealed another report on the new situation of conflict in the DRC. This report describes the continuing of coltan and other minerals flow out of the country. Then money flows in which is used to support the conflict by providing any kind of arm stuff for rebellion groups involved in warfare, such as Forces dumocratiques de libйration du Rwanda (FDLR) and the Coalition of Congolese Patriotic Resistance (PARECO). Both have been charged and accused of using children as soldiers, raping and killing civilians.
The MNC’s operate in conflict areas which benefit from business often hide behind a constructed reason of ignorance. They argue that they are not aware of the origin of the minerals that they get. Therefore, the reason of ignorance is very disgusting. Even the latest UN report proves that MNC are carefully trying to avoid assessment and investigations that shall unveil the truth. Moreover, they refuse to uphold due diligence of their suppliers. It means that they fail to meet basic standards of business ethics. They just achieve the economic interest, but they have no consciousness and awareness of human interest and human ethics. MNC’s are not paving away basic standard to ensure that they are not purchasing conflict minerals, indeed they still continue to exploit Congo’s mineral wealth.
The worst conflict condition in the DRC is also attributable and linked to countries who indirectly contribute to illegal exploitation by failing to do due diligence regarding on origins of imports. Belgium, China, France, Germany, India, Israel, Japan, Lebanon, the Netherlands, Russia, Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and the United States all receive a substantial amount of minerals from the DRC [10].
C. GLOBAL CORPORATE ETHICS: RESPONSES OF INTERNATIONAL COMUNNITY TO MNC'S ACCOUNTABILTY
Due to the rising of controversies surrounding the operations of MNCs, International community started to make for holding MNCs accountable to human rights standards and for pressuring MNCs to reorient their policies. Due the absence of international regulatory agencies, MNCs have been entirely free to devise their own rules, creating an environment less hospitable or indifferent to human rights. MNCs have an inherent responsibility to provide for their workers and the good of the community as a whole[11]. Even, In light in the rhetoric of social responsibility, many MNC’s cannot and will not apply meet human rights agendas to their operation in developing countries without a set of standards monitoring or enforcing.
Relating to DR Congo cases, Multinational Companies actually have to be responsible for the existing of chaos in the DRC. Many efforts have been conducted to curb and halt MNC do human rights abuses. At the international level, many institutions have spoken out about human rights violations of MNC. They suggest using measures such as reporting mechanisms, certification schemes and cooperative educational initiatives. Although, none of these measures have been directed specifically at the problems facing the DRC, but rather focus on corporate misbehave and misconduct global phenomenon. The proliferation of such measures demonstrates both the importance of this issue and the failure of the international community to arrive at a single, effective solution.
a. The UN Global Compact
The UN Global Compact is an International institution forum which concerns on corporate global ethics. They contribute to increasing expectations of appropriate corporate behavior and advocating awareness on the human rights obligations of businesses and corporation, within both the corporate sphere and the wider community. For example, the UN Global Compact has set the ten principles for corporate behavior which centers on human rights, the environment, labor and anti-corruption[12]. These principles describe the UN Global Compact as a leadership forum and a platform for the development and dissemination of corporate responsibility initiatives. Companies like MNC or TNC, that want to involve and participate have to sign a commitment letter to upholding the Global Compact’s ten principles for their operation.
Nonetheless, this forum does not have an enforcement to push the implementation of the ten principles to its members. Besides to immense of its members, including 4700 companies from 120 countries around the globe, the UN Global Compact just focus on dialogue and suggestion. Therefore, companies are not otherwise required to meet performance standards, they are not subject to oversight, monitoring or reporting. For this situation, the Global Compact has been criticized significantly, because of its failure to exclude MNC or TNC that fail to meet the ten principles.
b. OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development)
Another great international initiative is done by OECD. OECD has lunched the OECD’s Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises which cover a wide range of areas, such as human rights, requiring companies’ contribution to a country’s economic, social and environmental progress [13]. Different with the Global Compact, the OECD initiative look for partnership with governments to regulate corporate behavior. It is to enforce and adhere countries to have to establish a National Contact Point (NCP). The goal of NCP is responsible for facilitating mutually agreed solutions and promoting corporate responsibility for any problems that occurs in which companies operate.
Furthermore, there are small steps taken by few states toward developing standards of accountability for these multinational companies, such as USA and UK. Especially from the British Parliament and the USA Congress [14], in which both countries have many MNC’s operating in DRC. The British Parliament, for example, will be investigating business and human rights when its Joint Committee on Human Rights convenes. Then, in the United States, few legislators in Congress are pushing the Congo Conflict Minerals Bill, which will require companies selling products to reveal the provenance of their materials and to source minerals from clean mines[15]. Likewise, the bill looks to face significant opposition, since Washington industry lobbyists typically respond to the bill with stubborn resistance. Consequently, it is vital that the wider community demands adequate human rights compliance from companies as they operate abroad.
Unfortunately, due to the flexibility in designing NCP by its members, most countries have failed to ensure that their NCP have capacity to pressure on MNC. Since NCP does not have the status or profile necessary to institute an effective complaints procedure to asses MNC. The US NCP, for instance, looks like mask worn by the Office of Investment Affairs, like window dressing, because it has no separate existence and lacks of an institutional architecture and mechanism. Furthermore, Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General on business and human rights, Professor Ruggie has handled consultations across the world and compiled and measured information on the corporate accountability status from various countries. He has published result of report on the widespread failure of states to ensure that MNC observe human rights and ethical standards[16].
On the contrary, although the United Kingdom has given its NCP more teeth, allowing it to receive and examine evidence and issue public reports on corporate misbehavior, this mechanism still relies on the stigma of bad publicity rather than any judicial remedy. For example, the publicity surrounding the UN reports did little to halt the looting of the DRC such as a British company, Afrimex, had paid money to a rebel group responsible for serious human rights violations. In return, the rebel group allowed Afrimex to extract minerals from mines under its control - mines in which forced labor and life-threatening conditions were present [17].
D. CONCLUSION
Multinational companies have play role in many conflicts, especially in enduring and horrible warfare, such as in DR Congo. They provide finance support for rebellion groups, and the as compensation, they get access to extract mineral from the mining resources. In line of their responsibility, multinational companies’ ovoid to do due diligence regarding on their mineral traded and exploited. They always hide behind the reason of ignorance. In addition, due to the wealth and linkage, they have a powerful lobby to halt any kind of policies regarding their conduct and performance.
In light in corporate global ethics of MNC conduct, International communities have responded in few steps, but they have not power yet to enforce the multinational companies to uphold, respect, and perform based on global ethics standard as basic conduct of MNC. The function of OECD and UN Global Compact just does not have enough teeth to pressure MNC. To have enforcement regarding global ethics toward MNCs, International community has to build coalition against involvement of MNC in conflict situation and call for proactive policy intervention by states and the UN, such as encompassing the state’s responsibility to protect against human rights violations, the general provision of adequate remedies to victims of human rights violations, and the corporate responsibility to respect human rights and operate in accordance with social expectations.
REFERENCES:
Anub Syah, “The Democratic Republic of Congo, March 27, 2008”, in Global Issues, http://www.globalissues.org/article/87/the-democratic-republic-of-congo
Caitlin Dearing, “A Global Approach to Regulating Trade in Conflict Goods in the DRC”, in International Affairs Review, http://www.iar-gwu.org/node/26
Declan Walsh, “UN cuts details of Western profiteers from Congo report”, The Independent, October 27, 2003
Deval Desai and Natalie Zerial, “Conflict without Borders Human Rights, Corporate Accountability, and Multinationals in the Democratic Republic of Congo”, in Harvard International Riview, http://hir.harvard.edu/index.php?page=article&id=1892
Deval Desai and Natalie Zerial, “Conflict without Borders in DR Congo”, in Share the World Resources Sustainable Economic to End Global Poverty, http://www.stwr.org/multinational-corporations/conflict-without-borders-in-the-drc.html
http://hdrstats.undp.org/fr/countries/country_fact_sheets/cty_fs_COD.html)
Organization for Economic and Cooperation Development (OECD), Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises: 2000 Review, http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/1999doc.nsf/LinkTo/NT00000926/$FILE/02E92396.PDF
UN Security Council, Panel Expert on Illegal exploitation of natural resources and other forms of wealth of of the Democratic Republic of Congo, http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N03/567/36/IMG/N0356736.pdf?OpenElement
United Nation Global Compact, The Ten Principles, http://www.unglobalcompact.org/AbouttheGC/TheTENPrinciples/index.html
ENDNOTES
____________________________________________________________
[1]Chris McGreal, “War in Congo kills 45,000 people each month”, in Guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 23 January 2008 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jan/23/congo.international
[2] Anub Syah, The Democratic Republic of Congo, March 27, 2008, http://www.globalissues.org/article/87/the-democratic-republic-of-congo
[3] Anub Syah, The Democratic Republic of Congo, March 27, 2008, http://www.globalissues.org/article/87/the-democratic-republic-of-congo
[4] Caitlin Dearing, “A Global Approach to Regulating Trade in Conflict Goods in the DRC”, in International Affairs Review, http://www.iar-gwu.org/node/26
[5] Caitlin Dearing, “A Global Approach to Regulating Trade in Conflict Goods in the DRC”, in International Affairs Review, http://www.iar-gwu.org/node/26
[6] Foreign-owned Anglo Gold Ashanti has been linked to the Ituri military group, Front Nationaliste et Intégrationiste (FNI), which has committed human rights abuses on a large scale.42 Anvil Mining supplied air and ground transport to the FARDC in October 2004 in response to rebel activity in Kilwa, and the FARDC went on to kill 100 civilians. Caitlin Dearing, “A Global Approach to Regulating Trade in Conflict Goods in the DRC”, in International Affairs Review, http://www.iar-gwu.org/node/26
[7] Chris Talbot, “UN report accuses Western companies of looting Congo, 26 October 2002” in World Socialist Web Site (WSWS), http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/oct2002/cong-o26.shtml
[8] The Independent, the British newspaper, reported as follows: Last October [2002], the panel accused 85 companies of breaching OECD standards through their business activities. Rape, murder, torture and other human rights abuses followed the scramble to exploit Congo’s wealth after war exploded in 1998.
For example the trade in coltan, a rare mineral used in computers and mobile phones, had social effects “akin to slavery”, the panel said. But no Western government had investigated the companies alleged to have links with such abuses. Some, including ones from the UK, US, Belgium and Germany, had lobbied to have their companies’ names cleared from the “list of shame”.
“Many governments overtly or covertly exerted pressure on the panel and the Security Council to exonerate their companies,” Ms Feeney said. Some companies gave legitimate explanations for their business in Congo, or pulled out. But lawyers for others challenge the panel’s findings, often capitalizing on errors in earlier reports as proof of unreliability.
In the report this week, the cases against 48 companies are “resolved” and requiring “no further action”. Declan Walsh, UN cuts details of Western profiteers from Congo report, The Independent, October 27, 2003
[9] UN Security Council, Panel Expert on Illegal exploitation of natural resources and other forms of wealth of of the Democratic Republic of Congo, http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N03/567/36/IMG/N0356736.pdf?OpenElement. Other companies, the report noted, may not have been directly linked to conflict, but had more indirect ties to the main protagonists. Such companies benefited from the chaotic environment in the DRC. For example, they would obtain concessions or contracts from the DRC on terms that were more favorable than they might receive in countries where there was peace and stability. Anub Syah, The Democratic Republic of Congo, March 27, 2008, http://www.globalissues.org/article/87/the-democratic-republic-of-congo
[10] Caitlin Dearing, “A Global Approach to Regulating Trade in Conflict Goods in the DRC”, in International Affairs Review, http://www.iar-gwu.org/node/26
[11] Mahmood Monshipouri et al, “Multinational Corporations and the Ethics of Global Responsibility: Problems and Possibilities”, in HUMAN RIGHTS QUARTERLY, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003, Vol.25, p. 987 http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/human_rights_quarterly/v025/25.4monshipouri.html
[13] Organization for Economic Cooperation of Development (OECD), “Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises: 2000 in Review”, in OECD, http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/1999doc.nsf/LinkTo/NT00000926/$FILE/02E92396.PDF
[14] Global Witness, “The U.S. role in addressing complicity of companies in human rights abuses in conflict areas” Briefing Document – 03/10/2008, http://www.globalwitness.org/media_library_detail.php/669/en/the_u.s._role_in_addressing_complicity_of_companie
[15] Danielle Knight, “Congo-Kinshasa: U.S. Congress Moving to Track 'Conflict Minerals'”, in All Africa Com 15 May 2009, http://allafrica.com/stories/200905150866.html
[16] Deval Desai and Natalie Zerial, Conflict without Borders in the DRC, http://www.stwr.org/multinational-corporations/conflict-without-borders-in-the-drc.html, and also see Deval Desai and Natalie Zerial, “Conflict without Borders Human Rights, Corporate Accountability, and Multinationals in the Democratic Republic of Congo”, in Harvard International Review, http://hir.harvard.edu/index.php?page=article&id=1892
[17] Deval Desai and Natalie Zerial, Conflict without Borders in the DRC, http://www.stwr.org/multinational-corporations/conflict-without-borders-in-the-drc.html, and also see Deval Desai and Natalie Zerial, “Conflict without Borders Human Rights, Corporate Accountability, and Multinationals in the Democratic Republic of Congo”, in Harvard International Riview, http://hir.harvard.edu/index.php?page=article&id=1892
No comments:
Post a Comment