View previous stories
	Why does the European Union fear a binding human rights treaty on transnational corporations by The Treaty Alliance, agencies   Sep. 2018   The Treaty Alliance has learned that the European Union and some allied states may try to undermine efforts to develop an international treaty on business and human rights at the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) in Geneva this Wednesday, September 19.   We reject this action to alter norms and rules of the HRC and consider it a craven and desperate attempt to frustrate a legitimate UN Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG) process to establish a binding instrument on Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises (TNCs and OBEs). It is the will of affected people everywhere that this process be able to proceed until the international instrument is drafted and adopted. The Treaty Alliance notes also this action also threatens other UN processes to strengthen international human rights law, such as the process toward an international instrument on the rights of peasants.   We call on the EU and its allied states to cease with this action and instead engage constructively in the process to develop a powerful binding instrument that protects affected people everywhere. We also call on all civil society allies to demand that their UN representatives in Geneva speak out and condemn attempts by any other state or states to frustrate the UN IGWG process toward a binding instrument on TNCs and OBEs.   http://www.escr-net.org/corporateaccountability/hrbusinesstreaty   July 2018   Why does the European Union fear a binding human rights treaty on transnational corporations, ask Lúcia Ortiz and Anne van Schaik.   In 2015 a United Nations intergovernmental working group began work on a treaty to regulate, in international human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises. Despite 11 European countries voting against the resolution in the UN Human Rights Council in 2014, it is receiving widespread support and negotiations are progressing towards a fourth session in October, when a Zero Draft will start to be negotiated. The EU operates as a block in Geneva, which means that it coordinates the position of all the individual member states.   Calls for a legal mechanism to prevent corporate human rights abuses and attacks on democratically-elected governments have been repeated since Salvador Allende’s remarkable 1972 speech to the UN General Assembly. Corporate crimes against the environment and peoples rights have continued unabated since then, while violence against defenders of territories and collective rights have reached alarming levels. Companies are rarely, if ever, held to account.   Many countries have been developing concrete proposals regarding the content and implementation of a binding treaty to close gaps in international human rights law and improve affected peoples access to justice. This includes national legislation within European states establishing legal obligations for transnational corporations to prevent human rights abuses and environmental damages along their whole supply chains. Huge developments pushed by organized civil society and parliaments are happening in countries like France and Switzerland.   But the EU remains obstructive. Representatives failed to show up to opening negotiations at the UN in 2015, and only engaged in 2016 and 2017 after pressure from civil society organizations. During the most recent informal consultations, in May and June, the EU continued to impede negotiations by calling for a new resolution to reduce the working group''s mandate. That would mean the reversal of four years of progress, and give the EU a chance to change the scope of the treaty, or water it down to a mere amendment of the voluntary Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.   The Zero Draft to be elaborated this month is the result of three sessions of fruitful debates involving states, civil society, experts, and affected communities’ representatives, as well as opposing business associations, and it must be based on the elements paper discussed in the final session last year.   For Friends of the Earth International, the key elements to make the new legally binding instrument effective include obligations for transnational corporations to respect human rights, corporate liability in case of violations, transparency in supply chains to pierce the corporate veil that allows companies to avoid responsibility, and an international human rights court that affected people can turn to if their national courts fail to provide access to justice. The Zero Draft must establish the primacy of human rights over trade agreements, provide paths for reparations for affected communities, and protect defenders of territories from future abuses. This requires regulations to prevent international financial institutions from acting with impunity when financing destructive projects or supporting policies that undermine people’s rights to public services.   All the voluntary mechanisms in the world will not secure the lives of defenders of territories from systemic threats and attacks by corporations on the environment, livelihoods, and people’s rights. It would be an historical failure for universal human rights law if, after more than 45 years of fighting for accountability of transnational corporations, the UN working group, with Ecuador as chair supported by more than 100 UN member states, yielded to the EU’s obstructive tactics.   It cannot be the EU’s intention to openly abandon human rights defenders across the world. European citizens do not want to go down in history as the region that blocked this historic opportunity to provide justice to the millions of people who have suffered at the hands of transnational corporations. The EU should not ignore the more than 400 civil society organizations worldwide urging governments to constructively engage with the Zero Draft negotiations in October. The EU must not stand against the growing number of resolutions from regional and national parliaments, including the European Parliament, to hold transnational corporations to account.   Today, the fourth informal negotiations on the UN treaty will be held in Geneva. Rather than arguing against the process for procedural reasons, and seeking consultations out of sight of civil society, we call on the EU to finally start supporting the process. It is time for the European Union to stand with its constituents and global human rights defenders, to end corporate impunity. http://bit.ly/2QHD2x1 Visit the related web page
	Asia: A look at where journalists face renewed pressure by The Associated Press, agencies   March 2016   In many countries across Asia, governments are growing less tolerant of critical reporting, even arresting journalists and closing media outlets in some cases. In China, authorities recently removed an online story from a financial magazine about censorship — a taboo topic — while Thailand''s military junta has detained journalists for what it calls "attitude adjustment" and shut down TV and radio stations.   A look at how and where journalists are coming under renewed pressure:   CHINA: SETTING THE TONE   The ruling Communist Party has long exercised heavy-handed direction over news media, but recent events speak to a further tightening of ideological controls.   President and party leader Xi Jinping set the tone with visits in February to the official Xinhua News Agency, the party-controlled People''s Daily newspaper and state broadcaster CCTV. At each place, he stated that absolute loyalty to the party was the media''s highest priority.   Negative responses to Xi''s visit were censored on China''s once-vibrant social media. One outspoken critic, real estate magnate Ren Zhiqiang, had his accounts suspended. When Weibo, China''s hugely popular version of Twitter — which along with Facebook is blocked in China — first came out, people could post quite freely, but now controversial comments are quickly removed.   The pinch is being felt even at more market-driven newspapers, magazines and websites that, while still technically controlled by the state, had enjoyed more latitude in news reporting. In an Orwellian example, an article posted online by popular business and finance magazine Caixin was removed because it broached the taboo topic of censorship.   Most recently, more than a dozen editors and technicians have gone missing and are believed to be under investigation after an anonymous letter calling for Xi''s resignation was posted on a government-backed news portal. Dissident writers have been detained or their families in China harassed for criticizing the secret investigation. One writer said Monday that police were holding three of his siblings in retaliation for an article he wrote condemning the detention of a fellow writer.   — Christopher Bodeen and Didi Tang in Beijing   THAILAND: ATTITUDE ADJUSTMENT   A junta that took power in a 2014 coup has detained journalists for what it calls "attitude adjustment," shut TV and radio stations for perceived critical coverage of the government, banned press events and most recently tightened visa requirements for foreign reporters.   Under new measures announced last month, only journalists working for a registered news agency will be able to obtain or renew journalists visas, a move that press freedom groups say would bar some freelancers from working in the country.   Media freedom groups say the junta has used the pretext of maintaining peace and order, after years of political upheaval, to employ a massive campaign of censorship and intimidation in what was once considered a bastion of free press in Southeast Asia. Reporters Without Borders has called the crackdown "a blitzkrieg against freely reported news and information."   Thai journalists have faced a barrage of pressures over the past two years. One prominent editorial cartoonist from the Thai Rath newspaper was detained twice and warned he could be prosecuted if he continued to satirize the junta chief in his drawings. A senior writer for The Nation newspaper who was openly critical of the coup was detained twice and ultimately fired.   A few foreign reporters have had their visa applications denied since the junta took power, according to the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand, which itself has had several events banned by the junta.   — Jocelyn Gecker in Bangkok   MALAYSIA: THE $700 MILLION SCANDAL   The government is cracking down on media as a financial scandal engulfs Prime Minister Najib Razak.   Two Australian TV journalists were briefly arrested this month after they tried to question Najib about the scandal during his visit to eastern Sarawak state. The duo were released and deported after the Australian government intervened.   At issue is more than $700 million deposited into Najib''s bank accounts in early 2013. Critics accuse him of corruption and say the money came from indebted state investment fund 1MDB, which he founded in 2009. The attorney-general has cleared him of wrongdoing, saying most of the money was a donation from Saudi''s royal family.   Malaysia''s government has also blocked some new websites, including popular news portal Malaysian Insider, over critical reports of the government. The portal, owned by the Edge Media Group, shut down recently, citing a loss of income caused by the government''s ban.   Last year, the government also suspended two newspapers under the Edge group over its coverage alleging corruption at 1MDB. The Edge challenged the government''s suspension in court and succeeded in getting the ban lifted.   http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2016/03/28/4431284.htm   — Eileen Ng in Kuala Lumpur   INDIA: HINDU HARDLINERS   Intimidation of journalists is nothing new in India, but it has taken on a new element under Prime Minister Narendra Modi''s Hindu nationalist government.   India, the world''s largest democracy, has a relatively free press, but the current BJP government has been criticized for not trying to stop fringe rightwing elements that threaten journalists and activists in the name of patriotism.   The host of a late February newscast on whether India had become intolerant of dissent became a target of intimidation herself after one of her guests referred to a pamphlet that called the Hindu goddess Durga a sex worker. Sindhu Sooryakumar was bombarded with more than 2,500 threatening calls accusing her of disparaging the deity. Six members of a militant group linked with the BJP have been arrested.   During a court hearing for a university student charged with sedition for allegedly making anti-India statements, lawyers beat reporters and damaged cameras and recording equipment while demanding they not cover public protests against the student''s arrest. Finance Minister Arun Jaitley condemned the violence, saying "it was a terrible exception."   Sujata Madhok, secretary-general of the Delhi Union of Journalists, accused the BJP of targeting Muslim and Christian religious minorities and the underprivileged Dalits. "The BJP would like people to believe it''s the handiwork of the party''s fringe elements, but the fringe elements appear to be occupying the center-stage."   The previous Congress Party government was accused of paying lip service to minorities, but it kept Hindu hardliners in check. That''s not necessarily the case now.   — Ashok Sharma in New Delhi   JAPAN: TIGHTENING THE SCREWS?   A public warning by the communications minister in February that broadcasters could have their licenses revoked if coverage isn''t politically fair is seen by many as the latest attempt to pressure journalists to toe the government line.   The government under Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has strengthened its strategy to get official views prominently reflected in both domestic and foreign media on defense, World War II history and other divisive issues. Officials complain to journalists about coverage they consider biased, while Abe gives exclusive interviews to selected media, often those sharing his views.   Media watchers say Japanese media traditionally practices self-restraint to avoid trouble with officials in a cozy "press club" environment, weakening their commitment to serve as watchdog and resist pressure or favors. Heads of major media companies regularly dine with Abe.   However, the communications minister''s statements that TV licenses could be revoked have triggered outrage from some prominent journalists, who say they violate freedom of the press and intimidate the media.   The recent resignations of three outspoken newscasters have fueled speculation of government pressure, although the three say they were not pressed to resign.   — Mari Yamaguchi in Tokyo   http://www.ipsnews.net/2016/05/on-world-press-freedom-day-a-view-from-asia/   Journalists in Pakistan Unite to Fight Violence Against Media, by Owais Aslam Ali   Pakistan is one of the most dangerous countries in the world for journalists. Media personnel are targeted by militants; religious, ethnic, and separatist groups; intelligence and law enforcement agencies; and even mainstream political parties. The country—a frontline state for almost four decades—suffers from a polarized society and a culture of intolerance. As rule of law is not well established, perpetrators of violence against media enjoy near absolute impunity, seriously undermining freedom of expression.   Since 2001, the Pakistan Press Foundation has documented 405 cases of violence against media personnel, including 49 murders, 269 assaults, and 42 abductions and detentions. Given this dire state of affairs, it was shocking that the media companies themselves were not working collectively for the safety of media professionals.   Launched in December 2015, the Editors for Safety (EfS) initiative has improved news coverage of violence against Pakistani media professionals. Comprised of the country’s leading editors, publishers, and media owners, EfS’s philosophy is that an attack on one media professional or organization should be considered an attack on the entire Pakistani media.   Zaffar Abbas, founding chairman of EfS and editor of leading English-language daily newspaper Dawn, explaining the reasons behind creating this initiative, says that when a journalist was targeted, it was a big story for his or her media organization but covered—if at all—as a routine story by the others. Most papers would not even mention the name of the media outlet that was attacked. “There was a realization that the reason media outlets were not able to speak with one voice was their commercial interests, and this lack of unity had become a huge problem for the safety of journalists,” he adds.   Thus, editors and directors of leading newspapers and television channels met in Istanbul in June 2015 to discuss the safety of Pakistani media. They came to the conclusion that, despite their different editorial lines and the fact that competing in a difficult market led them to disagree on many issues, they could agree on the common goal of responding to the growing threats against them. Then and there, they decided to unite for safety. The participants tasked Abbas with consulting the other editors to establish an effective mechanism to promote media safety. The result was Editors for Safety.   Abbas is satisfied with the progress EfS has made in just a few months. “No one in the journalistic fraternity in Pakistan could believe that an attack on a media house would be breaking news in media groups that are fierce competitors,” he beams. In a break from previous norms, television channels and newspapers now routinely highlight attacks on other organizations and journalists, regardless of the outlet.   The second major success has been real-time coordination of editors and directors whenever journalists are attacked or threatened. A powerful example of this was when Siddique Baloch, editor of the Baluchistan Express, sent a message to the group that armed men had broken into the house of journalist Afzal Mughal in Quetta and abducted him after kicking and punching him in front of his wife and children. Abbas sent an urgent appeal to television channels to highlight the issue until Mughal’s safe return. “Critical at this point is to make every effort not only to save his life, but also to protect him from possible torture,” said the message sent by Abbas. The media responded with breaking news, tickers, and updates. Within hours, Mughal was released and back with his family.   Less dramatic but equally important are the exchanges between the group’s editorial leadership every time media are threatened. These include acting as a unified front in a number of cases, such as when Islamic State militants threw grenades at offices of media outlets and fired on mobile television crews. These discussions are helping to create an informal understanding around editorial issues, such as how to avoid giving coverage to hoaxes and rumors of attacks or bomb threats.   Abbas feels that much more needs to be done, however. “While these are important first steps, the ultimate ambition is to end violence against media and the culture of impunity,” he says.   One area of weakness is the lack of follow-up coverage of cases of violence against journalists. After the initial media attention, which usually lasts about a week, cases are typically forgotten, with no coverage of investigations or prosecutions in the courts. Thus, the authorities feel little pressure to bring the perpetrators to justice. One of the goals, therefore, of EfS is to ensure that sustained coverage—and attention by the media community—can place further pressure on authorities to address this growing impunity.   Abbas believes it is the responsibility of the government to ensure a safe environment for the media to function without fear. This will only be possible if the media acts with one voice to respond to incidents of violence.   - Owais Aslam Ali is secretary general of the Pakistan Press Foundation.   http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/journalists-pakistan-unite-fight-violence-against-media/ Visit the related web page
	View more stories