The Economic Roots of Relativism: a selection of cases addressed by OMCT
Economic development is all too often regarded by states as an imperative that may involve, or even require, the abuse of human rights, including the use of torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In many cases, the target of these abuses are individuals or communities who express their opposition to development projects because such projects compromise their way of life or their standard of living. Often the issue at stake is access to the land on which they rely for their livelihoods or, in the case of indigenous communities, from which they also draw their identity. Protests may also arise as a result of concerns over the health implications of certain industrial activities or their environmental impact, or because communities have been excluded from meaningful consultation or denied adequate compensation for the use of their land and resources. And violence is not only directed against those who seek to oppose certain economic projects or influence their form. It is also frequently employed as a means to protect economic interests from industrial unrest provoked by low wages, poor working conditions or restrictions on labour rights.
In some situations the state is the direct perpetrator of human rights abuses, as in the case of the suppression of opposition to the Merowe and Kajbar Dams in Sudan (SDN 301107.ESCR). In others, like the shooting of the anti-mine activists in front of the offices of a mine jointly owned by Pelican Resources and Sibuyan Nickel Properties Development Corporation in the Philippines (PHL 121207.ESCR), the direct perpetrator is a non-state actor. Here, the state’s responsibility lies in its omission to adequately protect its citizens, punish the perpetrator and sanction the companies involved.
These two cases also illustrate that while the ideology fuelling the drive toward development may be different, the result in terms of human rights abuses is often the same. The incident in the Philippines took place in an economic and political context characterised by an unqualified commitment to trade liberalisation intended to attract foreign capital and accelerate domestic economic development. This approach has seen the establishment of export economic zones, where workers’ rights are pared down to a minimum (in the Philippines, as elsewhere, such zones are perhaps one of the most explicit expressions of a state’s conviction that human rights present an obstacle to effective development). At the same time, around the country, trade union leaders, labour activists and others who seek to defend economic, social and cultural rights become the targets of harassment, intimidation, abduction, torture and assassination by both state and non-state actors. In Sudan, the impetus for economic development is more closely tied to bilateral geopolitical interests and, specifically, to trade links with China based on a mutually advantageous exchange of oil and arms. Indeed, China is responsible for providing the majority of the financial backing, as well as the technical expertise for Sudan’s hydro-electric developments (although a number of European companies are also involved in supplying parts).
The victims of torture or other forms of violence that result from the primacy of economic interests are frequently those who have least means to express their opposition to development projects, and whose capacity to reach a negotiated resolution is most limited. This is clearly illustrated by the case of the dalit village in India’s Tamil Nadu State (IND 041007.ESCR). Here, the failure of the owner of a nearby aquaculture business to respect clearly-established industry norms has had direct consequences for the health and livelihood of the villagers. When these villagers sought to protest against the harmful impact of the aquaculture farm, they were subjected to police violence and harassment and had false charges of a serious nature brought against them by the owner of this farm. Sadly, the elements of this case from Tamil Nadu are replicated around the world, among marginalised communities that lack the economic and political influence to shape development policies or to avoid their damaging effects.
Strong as economic imperatives may be, they do not always prevail, as illustrated by the case of the project for an open-pit coal mine in Phulbari, in the Dinajpur District of Bangladesh (BGD 211207.ESCR). The development rights for this ambitious project are owned by GCM Resources, a British mining company. Until recently, this project has also enjoyed the financial support of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and several commercial banks (including UBS, Credit Suisse and Barclays). At the same time, however, the Phulbari project has generated widespread opposition due to its environmental impact and its potential negative effects on the socio-economic wellbeing of the population affected (estimates range from 50,000 to 500,000 persons). A public demonstration against the mine in 2006 saw at least five persons killed and fifty others injured by the police and personnel of the Bangladesh Rifles. OMCT contacted the Government of Bangladesh, GCM Resources, the Asian Development Bank, the financial institutions involved, UN special procedures mandate holders and the European Parliament to express its deep concern at the risk of further violence associated with the project, and insisting that a decision on the future of the Phulbari mine should only be taken once a thorough, transparent and independent investigation into its human and environmental impact has been carried out, with the full and informed participation of all local communities.
In February 2008, at the invitation of GCM Resources, OMCT staff met with the company’s Sustainable Development Manager in Geneva to discuss the issues of concern. In early April 2008, OMCT learned that the Asian Development Bank had decided to suspend its support for the project. In a statement, the Bank said (See http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/apr/06/mining.bangladesh):
We think it is premature to continue dialogue with the private sector under current circumstances. So, at this stage we are open to suggestions of the government of Bangladesh, civil society and other stakeholders and prepared to review our engagement in this project to ensure that all sensitivities, including concerns relating to safeguard issues, are fully considered.
In June 2008 it was announced that Barclays Bank had sold its shares in GCM Resources. The Royal Bank of Scotland followed suit in October.
These decisions bear testament to the potential of concerted civil society action to influence an issue with serious human rights implications and, ultimately, they suggest that the primacy of economic interests, while not easily challenged, is not necessarily absolute.