HRA Events and News

Advocacy at the United Nations

HRA Newsletter
Vol. 37, Summer 2001

United Nations
by Connie de la Vega

This past Spring eleven Frank C. Newman Interns participated in United Nations meetings. Four students, Ofelia Calderón, Linda Kim, Susan Klug, and Sara Paul, all from the University of San Francisco attended the Commission on the Status of Women in New York. Six students, Ashle Crocker, Jill Culbert, Farschad Farzan, Kristin Wiebe, and Maria Williams from U.S.F. and Gwen Young from U.C. Davis, attended the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. They were joined by Board Members Connie de la Vega and Michelle Leighton and by H.R.A. member Anne James, a lawyer from Washington D.C. Intern Erika Harriford attended the Preparatory Committee for the World Conference Against Racism. She was joined by Board Member Julianne Traylor. Students attending the Commission were able to meet with H.R.A.'s International Advisory Board Member Eya Nchama. And International Advisory Board Member Virginia Leary helped to orient Erika Harriford to the PrepCom.

Articles by the students and other H.R.A. members follow. However, I thought it important to report on the behavior of the U.S. delegation during the Commission on Human Rights session, because it helps to put in perspective the vote by the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) a few weeks after this year's session which resulted in the United States losing its seat on the Commission. Next year will thus mark the first session since the Commission was founded in 1947 that the U.S. will not be a voting member.

The news that the U.S. had lost its seat at the Commission on Human Rights was hardly surprising. Far from being a vote against human rights, the vote was in large part a protest against the obstructionist and arrogant behavior of members of the U.S. delegation. Furthermore, it is not strictly true that the U.S. was replaced by Sudan.

Frank C. Newman Interns and HRA Board Members in Geneva: Maria Williams, Connie de la Vega (HRA Board Member), Farschad Farzan, Eya Nchama (HRA International Advisory Board Member), Jill Culbert and Kristen Wiebe.

Voting for seats on the Commission is by regional blocs: we competed against France, Austria and Sweden in the "European and other" category -- the Africans were in a separate bloc. So we were beat out by our European allies, not by the Sudanese (despite the obvious problems of having rights violators like Sudan on the Commission)

The behavior of the United States delegation at the meetings was hardly conducive to the protection of human rights. Not only is the United States the only country in the world not to have ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (Somalia, the only other country that has not ratified has no functioning government), but the U.S. made numerous attempts to block reference to its provisions in the resolution at this year's Commission meeting. In particular, it attempted to delete mention of the prohibition against execution of offenders under 18 at the time of the crime, though the resolution on the rights of children did mention article 37 of the CRC and article 6(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (See article below.) The U.S. is the main and will soon possibly be the only violator of this prohibition.

Not only does the U.S. refuse to ratify the International Convention on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) which has been ratified by numerous other countries, it was the only member of the Commission to vote against the resolution on the right to food, which was passed by a vote of 52 to 1. (E/CN.4/2001/RES/25 .) (See also article on the right to adequate housing.).

On several occasions, it was the United States who requested that NGOs be prohibited from attending meetings normally opened to them, despite the fact that the U.N. is moving towards more transparency in its proceedings. As Americans we should be ashamed that our government would want to go back to having decisions made behind closed doors. And while it is laudable that we seek to protect human rights in China and Cuba by sponsoring resolutions against those countries, the fact that we ask them to sign on to treaties that we refuse to ratify, such as the ICESCR, is hypocritical. (See, e.g. resolution on Cuba E/CN.4/2001/RES/16.)

It is a sad day indeed when the United States, which took the leadership role following World War II for the protection of human rights, is voted off the U.N.'s main human rights enforcement body. However, it is a sadder day when we in fact deserved to be voted off due to our obstructive behavior in the protection of human rights. We should all urge our representatives in Congress that now is not the time to retrench from our role in human rights protection. Now is the time to reflect on what caused this to happen, and to take steps to get us back on the course of protecting human rights.

Adverse Effects of the Illicit Movement and Dumping of Toxic and Dangerous Products and Wastes on the Enjoyment of Human Rights
by Ashle Crocker

In 1995, the Commission on Human Rights appointed a Special Rapporteur to study and monitor the adverse effects of the illicit transboundary transport and dumping of toxic substances. While the Special Rapporteur has generated international attention regarding the illicit transport and dumping of toxic substances, the limitations of her mandate have prevented her from engaging in a comprehensive study of the effects of toxics on human rights.

This year, the goal of HRA was twofold: first, to request that the Special Rapporteur on Toxics be re-appointed for another term; second, to urge the Commission to expand the current mandate to investigate and report abuses involving the injurious effects of chemicals and toxics on the realization of human rights.

Because the current mandate is limited to the illicit transboundary movement of hazardous waste, human rights violations resulting from broader environmental contamination fall outside the scope of the mandate and are not investigated by the Special Rapporteur. To illustrate the need for an expanded mandate, HRA focused on several examples of human rights violations that technically may not be covered by the mandate yet continue to pose serious threats to human health and life. (E/CN.4/2001/NGO/109).

Use of Highly Toxic Industrial Pesticides

According to the World Health Organization, thirty percent of pesticides marketed in developing countries do not meet internationally accepted standards. Every year these products poison and kill thousands of people, particularly in developing nations. In reaction to such statistics, the United States government recently stated that the export of pesticides is beyond the mandate of the Special Rapporteur because it deals with "goods in commerce", not with hazardous waste. This type of narrow interpretation means that many hazardous pesticides that are banned in industrialized nations can be sold to developing countries. The human rights violations resulting from the use of such pesticides currently go unmonitored by the Special Rapporteur.

Use of Depleted Uranium During Warfare

Recently the international community has begun to address the deleterious effects of Depleted Uranium (DU). However, the Special Rapporteur has been unable to pursue the issue as it falls outside the scope of her mandate. DU is a nuclear waste that burns on contact, producing a fine dust that can be ingested and inhaled. When lodged in the body, DU particles emit damaging radiation indefinitely and eventually cause death. Despite its harmful effects, approximately 350 tons of DU weapons were used by the Allies in the Gulf War. It was again used in Bosnia in 1995, where the cancer rate increased from 1995 to 1997 by 300%.

Contamination of Natural Resources

Air and water contamination from toxics and chemicals has fast become a global crisis. In fact, one fifth of the world population lacks access to safe drinking water, largely due to pollution from toxic wastes. Studies have shown that cancer rates, spontaneous abortions, and respiratory infections among many populations have dramatically increased as a result of toxic emissions to air and water. Alarmingly, eight million children die each year from waterborne diseases and exposure to polluted air.

Export of Toxics for "Recycling"

There has been an increase in exports of dangerous products and wastes from industrialized countries to developing nations via "recycling" programs which enable producers to circumvent the parameters of both the Special Rapporteur's mandate and the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes. The recycling procedures in use are flawed and have serious environmental and health impacts; health hazards occur daily when workers in the importing countries are exposed to harmful levels of lead, hazardous fumes, and metal residues.

I am pleased to report that the Commission re-appointed the Special Rapporteur for another term, however little progress was made in expanding the mandate.(E/CN.4/Res/2001/35). Because the pressure for re-appointment has now been relieved, I feel that HRA has a good opportunity next year to pursue expansion of the mandate to include human rights and the environment more broadly. When I began researching this topic last year, I focused on the right to a healthy environment as derived from the human rights to health, life, and safe working conditions. Due to the political climate this year as well as the pressure to gain support for re-appointment of the Special Rapporteur, my focus shifted from establishing a link between environmental harms and the right to life, to a seemingly more attainable expansion of the current mandate. Despite this shift, however, there exists support among several NGOs and Members of the Commission to push for a broader mandate focusing on the links between environmental rights and the fundamental human rights to life and health.

Thank you to Human Rights Advocates for giving me this opportunity to attend the Commission as an advocate for a topic I feel so passionate about. Thank you also to HRA board member/USF professor Connie de la Vega for her commitment to human rights and social justice, and for her continued support over the past two years.

International Sex Trade
by Kristin Wiebe

Through University of San Francisco's Human Rights Law Clinic, I attended the 57^th United Nations Human Rights in Geneva on behalf of Human Rights Advocates. I researched and presented issues on the international sex trade, focusing on the demand for persons trafficked for sex. Exposure to the sex trade motivated me to come to law school, so I am thankful for the opportunity to work on the issue in the context of the law clinic and for Human Rights Advocates' involvement facilitating our attendance at the Human Rights Conference.

Although legal instruments exist condemning sex trafficking, real incentives to implement and enforce them are lacking. Ineffective or unenforced laws, compounded by government inattention and often outright corruption, allow the trade to flourish. In the past decade, an estimated 30 million women and children are thought to have been trafficked from south-east Asia alone.

Trafficking in persons has one of the highest profit margins and lowest risk for traffickers than most transnational organized crime. Economic instability and poverty produces vast numbers of women and children vulnerable to unscrupulous traffickers willing to seduce, purchase or kidnap victims into the trade. A steady and cheap supply of victims combined with a vicious system of debt bondage reaps huge profits for traffickers. More lucrative than weapons trafficking, the sex trade is estimated to reap 1.5 trillion USD per year for traffickers globally.

Because the sex trade is so lucrative, and because it is operated primarily by highly organized transnational criminal organizations that adapt quickly to new legal obstacles, I suggested that a potentially effective strategy would be to curb demand and thereby lessen the incentive to supply the product. Governments and non-government organizations should focus on consumers of trafficked persons within receiving countries in addition to present efforts at making women and children less vulnerable to trafficking.

Prior to the conference, I submitted a written statement to the U.N. outlining the issue and as well as a proposed paragraph addressing the consumer aspect of sex trafficking. While at the conference, I attended drafting meetings for this year's trafficking resolution and distributed copies of my proposed paragraph as well as supplementary information on consumer research to attending country delegates. I found considerable support for the proposal, primarily from the Russian and Philippine delegates and other NGOs concerned with trafficking. Representatives from the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women and the European Women's Coalition and I redrafted the language of the paragraph and re-distributed the revised version as a joint proposal. Although it was not accepted this year, the Philippine delegate chairing the resolution said that with the foundation of awareness laid at this conference, and expected support gained in the upcoming year, the language has a good chance of being included in the 2002 trafficking resolution.

Migrant Workers' Rights
by Farschad Farzan

On behalf of Human Rights Advocates, I submitted a written and oral intervention to the Commission on Human Rights stressing the need for certain nations and regions to reevaluate their border policies and urging other nations to focus on the internal treatment of migrant workers. (See E/CN.4/2001/NGO/111).

The United States' border policy was the central focus of my work. In August 1994, the U.S. adopted a new border control policy labeled Operation Gatekeeper. Operation Gatekeeper forced migrants away from safe border crossing areas further east, which entailed travel through very treacherous mountain and desert terrains. To date, approximately 1,500 bodies have been found, however, many more have yet to be found. Even if these migrants made it across the border they still had to contend with U.S. ranchers who took the law into their own hands.

I also focused on border deaths and smuggling in Western Europe. In 1985, the Schengen Agreement was signed by seven European nations. The agreement was designed to remove all controls on internal land, sea and airport frontiers, which required external border controls to be tightened. The agreement has led many people into the arms of human smugglers and traffickers. A coalition of NGO's has documented over 2000 deaths from individuals trying to cross European borders.

I also reported on the violations of migrant workers' rights in Saudi Arabia and Thailand. Migrant workers are basically powerless in Saudi Arabia, where they are subject to many restrictions. They have to surrender their passports to their sponsors. There are limitations on the freedom of movement and organization of trade unions. Thailand remains the hub of human trafficking because of its weak laws. There are reports of overcrowding in immigration detention centers and many migrants are detained without having an opportunity to challenge the charges against them.

Unfortunately at the Commission we did not have an opportunity to speak to Special Rapporteur, Ms. Gabriella Rodriguez Pizzaro because she did not attend due to a family emergency. Professor de la Vega did have an opportunity to sit in on Mexico's drafting meeting before I arrived. While Mexico was interested in including language about the border there was great opposition especially from India because of their concerns about the Kashmir region. Mexico's resolution was adopted without a vote on April 24, 2001. (See E/CN.4/RES/2001/52). I had an opportunity to speak to the U.S. delegate focusing on migrant workers, but the U.S. did not appear to be very forthcoming on the issue.

After two days, we came to understand that Ecuador was also working on a separate migrant workers' resolution, which had a particular focus on social and economic concerns. We had several chances to speak to their delegates. HRA was the only NGO at the two drafting meetings, which involved a great many objections by western nations. We provided the Ecuadorian delegation a two-sentence addition concerning borders and the right to life, and in the end they included the word "border" in their resolution, which was adopted without a vote on April 24, 2001. (See E/CN.4/RES/2001/56).

I would very much like to thank Human Rights Advocates and Professor de la Vega for giving me such an opportunity. My experience was amazing because I learned so much, the work was so fulfilling, and how many individuals especially students have the opportunity to speak to government officials at such high levels. I also learned more information about Iran and networked with groups that are focused on Iran, which is near and dear to my heart. I think that this will be an experience that I will never forget.

Additional information on migrant worker issues is available at: http://www.december18.net

The Juvenile Death Penalty
by Jill Culbert and Maria Williams

Maria Williams and Jill Culbert attended the 57^th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Commission under the agenda item of the Juvenile Death Penalty. For the past five years, clinic students have pushed hard toward the prohibition of the juvenile death penalty worldwide. Anne James, a death penalty consultant from Washington D.C. and member from Human Rights Advocates, joined us and Professor de la Vega to lobby on this issue this year.

The primary goal this year was to establish that the juvenile death penalty is customary international law, and that it has risen to the level of a peremptory norm. Customary international law is comprised of state practice, which is evidenced by the widespread compliance, and opinio juris, which is mandatory compliance by international law. The widespread compliance is evidenced by the minority of countries that practice the juvenile death penalty, which was down to three countries last year-- the United States, Iran, and the Democratic Republic of Congo- from seven countries during the previous decade.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are international instruments prohibiting the juvenile death penalty. There are also numerous resolutions by the Commission on Human Rights and other U.N. bodies that oppose the juvenile death penalty. The customary international law has risen to a peremptory norm as is evidenced by the above mentioned documents, the near worldwide compliance, and the fact that it is non-derogable.

HRA submitted two written statements on this issue, one under the agenda on the rights of children (E/CN.4/2001/NGO/120) and one under the agenda item addressing the report of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. (E/CN.4/2001/NGO/112.) In submitting the statements under those agenda items, we were trying to separate the juvenile death penalty issue from the general death penalty issue due to the fact that over 70 countries still use the death penalty.

To implement this goal, we sought to have the prohibition of the juvenile death penalty included in the Resolution on the Rights of the Child, which would receive more favorable votes than if under the general death penalty resolution. We also recommended the Commission support the Sub-Commission affirmation in 2000 that the prohibition against the juvenile death penalty is customary international law. (E/CN.4/Sub.2/RES/2000/17.) Lastly, we wanted to have the Commission obtain information from countries that have violated the prohibition in the last ten years on efforts that they have or are taking to comply. We did commend Pakistan for passing a law in 2000 raising the eligibility age for offenders 18 and over and request clarification from Saudi Arabia regarding the age of majority in that country. With respect to the United States (the most consistent violator of the norm) and Nigeria, we requested information regarding the effect of national law on local law.

We were successful in including language in the Resolution on the Rights of the Child requesting governments to comply with the mandates of Article 37 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and Article 6(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (E/CN.4/2001/RES/75.) That resolution passes by consensus.

In addition, the Swedish delegation, with whom HRA had worked this past year, included language in the general death penalty resolution that (1) welcomes the Sub-Commission, and (2) calls for the Secretary General to get information from Countries on the changes in law and practice concerning the death penalty, paying special attention to the imposition of the juvenile death penalty. (E/CN.4/2001/RES/68.) Because that resolution also calls for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty generally, it passed by a vote of 27-18-7.

As a result of our lobbying efforts, countries made public statements that provided us with information regarding the efforts that they have or are taking to comply. Pakistan made a statement that they are making efforts to give amnesty to juvenile offenders in light of their new law. Iran stated the juvenile laws are undergoing a process of review.

Other useful information was also received during our work at the Commission. In response to our oral statement, Iran denied in its right of reply that a juvenile offender had been executed in Iran since 1998. Also, the Democratic Republic of Congo confirmed that the execution of a juvenile offender occurred by order of the military court despite a moratorium on the death penalty in that country.

We were also able to also garner support for the inclusion of the juvenile death penalty under the agenda item on the Rights of the Child for next years session. Our success was in large part due to having four of us lobbying on this agenda item, as well as the consistent pressure applied over the years.

The experience was invaluable to us. All of our skills, from writing to advocating, were greatly enhanced. In addition, our participation at the Commission exposed us to all the work that needs to be done in the field of international human rights. I also demonstrated the tremendous capacity of NGOs, even small one such as HRA, to effect change at the international level.

The Right to Adequate Housing
by Bret Thiele*

The United Nations Commission on Human Rights (Commission) convened for its 57th session in Geneva, Switzerland from 19 March to 27 April 2001. From 2 to 4 April the Commission considered economic, social, and cultural rights, including the right to adequate housing.

On 3 April the Commission considered the report of the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing. Although very much a preliminary report lacking substantive recommendations, the report did lay out the sound legal basis for the right to adequate housing.

The Commission drafted and eventually adopted two resolutions dealing with the right to adequate housing. The first, resolution 2001/28, addressed the mandate of the Special Rapporteur. The second, resolution 2001/34, addressed women's equal ownership of, access to and control over land and the equal ownership of property and to adequate housing.

The right to adequate housing is enshrined in Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, elaborated on in General Comment No. 4 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and has been reaffirmed numerous times by various United Nations bodies. Notwithstanding this sound legal basis, the resolutions were not without controversy.

The Government of the United States vigorously fought to remove any reference to the right to adequate housing in two draft resolutions. Furthermore, there were reports of the U.S. spreading disinformation among other delegations to the Commission in an effort to block any mention of the right to adequate housing. In order to arrive at consensus, the resulting language of the resolution dealing with the mandate of the Special Rapporteur was quite vague. Importantly, the German delegation, the chief sponsor and author of the resolution, was clear that the resolution in no way dealt with the definition of the right to adequate housing but merely addressed the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for the upcoming year. With the resolution on women's equal ownership of, access to and control over land and the equal ownership of property and to adequate housing, however, the Commission ultimately did reaffirm the right to adequate housing.

Besides reaffirming the right to adequate housing, resolution 2001/34 reaffirmed that discrimination in law against women with respect to acquiring and securing land, property, and housing, as well as financing for land, property, and housing, constituted a violation of women's human rights which protected them against discrimination. In the resolution, the Commission urged governments and relevant organisations to provide judges, lawyers, political, and other public officials, community leaders, and concerned persons with information and education concerning such rights.

Notwithstanding overwhelming support for this resolution, a U.S. delegate nonetheless stated that "The United States fails to see the relevancy of economic, social, and cultural rights to the lives of women or to the Women's Convention." This stance appears to indicate the current and at least near-future thinking of the U.S. with respect to human rights.

Fortunately, a network of NGOs has begun to coordinate their activities with the aim of neutralising such positions. On 19 April ten NGOs, including Human Rights Advocates, made a joint statement in which they noted that several governments have attempted to weaken human right principles and standards, including backtracking on consensus language from past UN meetings. These NGOs expressed dismay that the desire for consensus allowed a minority of States, and in some case a lone State, to serious weaken human rights standards. They also noted that "there is a long-standing tradition of seeking to take decisions and to proceed on the basis of consensus" and that "progress can best be made when all those concerned act in common cause by common agreement." They went on to point out, however, that they did not believe that "achieving consensus is, or can be allowed to be, the ultimate goal in the debates and negotiations at this Commission or at any other of the UN governmental forums" and that "when the pursuit of consensus becomes corrosive in its effect and results in a compromise text or decision that is meaningless or, worse, negative in both form and content, the cost of that consensus is too great and must, on principle, be rejected." In all, thirty-five NGOs from numerous countries associated themselves with the statement.

The Commission is scheduled to meet for its next session from 18 March to 26 April 2002. With the U.S. recently voted off the Commission, it is hoped that economic, social and cultural rights will finally be recognized, implemented, and enforced by the Commission on equal terms with civil and political rights.

* Bret Thiele is an HRA member and the Legal Officer for the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE).

The Issue of Impunity
by Gwen Young

I attended the fifty-seventh session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights on behalf of Human Rights Advocates (HRA) to speak on agenda item 11(b) entitled: "Independence of the judiciary, administration of justice, impunity." In its fifty-sixth session, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights Sub-commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights suggested the appointment of an independent expert for impunity.

HRA then responded to a letter from the Secretary General, dated April 27, 2000, asking for comments from nongovernmental organizations regarding the appointment of an independent expert for impunity. HRA supports the appointment of an independent expert for impunity.

HRA recommended that an independent expert on impunity prepare an updated version of the "Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights Through Action to Combat Impunity." The ultimate aim would be the adoption by the Commission on Human Rights of these principles covering civil and political rights.

Consistent with this, HRA requested the Secretary General to invite states, and intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations which have not already responded to submit their views on the set of principles and guidelines and to transmit this information to the independent expert. HRA further stated that the independent expert could serve as the focal point compiling guidelines on designing and regulating effective anti-impunity measures and providing these guidelines to U.N. actors, including other independent experts; IGOs, multilateral and bilateral lending institutions; NGOs; and international mediators.

Finally, HRA suggested that the independent expert identify particular principles and guidelines relevant to the struggle against impunity for economic, social, and cultural rights. Development of such principles and guidelines would involve both preparing a draft set and disseminating this set among states and NGOs for feedback.

At the fifty seventh session of the Commission on Human Rights member states such as the European Union and Canada, and groups such as the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) supported the appointment of an independent expert. However, these member states and organizations supported the appointment only after member states agreed on a draft set of principles. As well, member states recognized that while the special rapporteur had developed a draft set of civil and political rights, there did not exist a draft set of economic, social, and cultural rights.

Therefore, member states argued that a special rapporteur needed to develop a draft set of economic, social, and cultural rights before the appointment of an independent expert. Thus, while agreeing with HRA on the appointment, a few member states and NGOs requested the appointment of an independent expert after the adoption of both civil and political, and economic, social and cultural principles.

At its seventy-eighth meeting on April 25, 2001 the U.N. Human Rights Commission resolved to request the Secretary-General to:

seek the views of "[g]overnments, and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations on the issue of the possible appointment of an independent expert charged with examining all aspects of the issue of impunity of perpetrators of human rights violations, with a view to a decision on this matter at the fifty-eighth session of the Commission;" to collect the information and comments received and submit a report thereon to the Commission on Human Rights at its fifty-eighth session; and finally, "invite the special rapporteurs and other mechanisms of the Commission to continue to give due consideration to the issue of impunity in the discharge of their mandates."

While similar to the mandate and requests from a year earlier, HRA feels that the discussions at the fifty-seventh session were beneficial and a step towards the appointment of an independent expert. HRA was able to clarify the status of the draft principles for civil and political rights; while requesting that a special rapporteur develop a draft set of economic, social, and cultural rights. As well, HRA continued its support for the appointment of an independent expert on impunity.

Commission on the Status of Women
by Sara Paul, Ofelia Calderón, Susan Klug and Linda Kim

As representatives of Human Rights Advocates, we attended the 45^th session of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) in New York City. Human Rights Advocates sent four third year law students from the University of San Francisco to attend the session. Sara Paul and Ofelia Calderón lobbied on women's issues related to two of the thematic issues for the session: gender discrimination and HIV/AIDS.

Ofelia researched the effects of economic discrimination on women. She focused on the link between violence and the continuing social, economic and legal barriers to female independence. Women around the world face growing economic instability because of poverty. The resulting feminization of poverty has essentially been affected by ongoing discriminatory practices at both governmental and non-governmental levels. Further, women are unable to seek refuge or aid from the law when violence in any form enters their lives. At the CSW, discrimination and intersectionality were major topics because of the upcoming World Conference on Racism.

Sara began her research by looking at the root causes of trafficking in women and children. When the thematic issue of HIV/AIDS was announced, she tailored her topic to the connection between trafficking in women and girls and the spread of HIV/AIDS. Her written statement included recommendations from HRA regarding stricter enforcement of existing trafficking laws and increased opportunities for women and girls. Increasing education about the dangers of trafficking and its connection to the spread of HIV/AIDS will protect women from the devastating rates of infection women in developing nations currently face.

Susan Klug and Linda Kim studied the procedures and outcomes of the 45^th session. We were interested in determining whether the annual sessions of the CSW have meaningful impact on the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) resolutions and, if so, what process of lobbying would ensure that HRA's issues are heard and incorporated into CSW's final report (which is subsequently sent to ECOSOC for consideration.

As a group we learned a great deal about the process of the CSW. We encountered difficult in that most non-governmental organizations (NGOs) do not have access to the delegates. This was especially so this year because the time generally allotted for NGOs to speak during the formal debates of the CSW was severely limited. Furthermore, NGOs were not allowed to attend the informal debates. The NGOs meet separately, either across the street at the NGO building or in NGO caucusing sessions in the UN building. These sessions are informative and usually include discussion segments at the end. Statements are hammered out, and sometimes language is presented to the delegates for consideration. NGOs also sponsor panel discussions focusing on specific issues. Certain NGOs with more prominence seem to lead the caucus. Ultimately, the result is that most NGOs are marginalized and only common major issues get represented. This can be an extremely important factor for small NGOs from developing states who do not have adequate funds or resources to pursue all avenues of relief. They may find that attending the CSW annual session may not be the most effective or efficient avenue for attaining their goals. However, it is still a good networking event to connect with other NGOs.

One thing that we noticed was that the thrust of the lobbying efforts seemed to be decided before the annual session even began. There seems to have been a fair amount of communication and cooperative action taken by major NGOs before they got to New York. It was frustrating to arrive in New York to discover that we would not be able to speak at the formal session. The CSW does not come out with daily reports of progress. Rather, they release one final report at the end of the two-week session. Morning briefings by the NGO Committee attempt to keep NGOs informed.

After returning from New York, Susan Klug followed up on our suggestions for the conference in a letter to the chair of the NGO Committee, Leslie Wright. In the letter, Susan stated that the lack of transparency at the CSW is a concern for non-governmental organization involvement.

We feel we made a lot of progress in understanding how the process works. Armed with the information we gathered, next year's representatives of HRA should be able to hit the ground running. We very much enjoyed the opportunity to attend the 45^th session. We got first hand experience about how international law and politics work.

NEW FINDINGS RELEASED BY THE CALIFORNIA GLOBAL CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT ON US OIL COMPANIES OPERATING ABROAD

The Corporate Accountability Project is a joint undertaking by The Natural Heritage Institute, The Nautilus Institute and Human Rights Advocates. The Project's current work focuses on some of the world's largest oil and high-tech companies headquartered in California.

CAP has just released two groundbreaking reports that map key environment, human rights and labor issues related to U.S. oil companies operating in the Caspian countries of Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, and in the West African nation of Nigeria. They present unique findings on U.S. corporate performance through field research and interviews with government officials, affected local groups, and corporate representatives in the oil industry.

The findings from these field investigations are part of a larger, more comprehensive report that CAP is soon releasing to educate U.S. policy makers, advocacy groups and corporate leaders on the legal and policy reforms needed to encourage better corporate performance. This Public Policy Report will not only map the key issues and challenges of oil exploration and information technology development around the world, but will explore innovative approaches to meeting these challenges, including in corporate governance, disclosure and verification rules.

The following reports were drafted by Owen Wozniak to summarize key findings of the CAP investigation on oil development in Nigeria and the Caspian countries of Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. These are based upon the CAP investigations in Nigeria, undertaken by Emeka Duruigbo, and in the Caspian, by Pamela Coffey Sumner.

U.S. Corporate Accountability for Human Rights, Environment and Labor Issues Related to Oil Development in Nigeria

Petroleum has defined Nigeria's recent history, supporting its repressive governments and often compounding the misery of its millions living in poverty.

Now, in light of recent democratic reforms, it offers a path to more sustainable and equitable development. Yet for this to occur, both government and industry practices must be reformed. In a country that has produced an estimated $275 billion in oil revenue since the 1970s, GDP per capita is a mere $970 in purchasing power parity-adjusted U.S. dollars; life expectancy barely tops 51 years; 34 percent of the population lives below the poverty line; AIDS proliferates. This tragic situation is largely attributable to the fact that Nigeria's government has long been focused on extracting oil without regard to the environmental or social costs of affected communities. Multinational oil corporations, integral to oil production in Nigeria, have ignored or compounded irresponsible government behavior.

Royal Dutch Shell Corporation's alleged involvement in the detention and execution of Ogoni playwright and environmental activist Ken Saro-Wiwa is high-profile example of the deeply flawed relationship between among oil corporations, the Nigerian government, and local communities. Shell is not alone, however. Many of the multinationals active in Nigeria are linked to environmental, human rights, and labor abuses. Prominent among them is San Francisco-based Chevron Corporation. Three incidents in particular have called Chevron's record into question:

• In May of 1994, responding to a protest in which villagers attempted to blockade Chevron's facilities at Opuekebo in Delta State by tying 16 fishing boats together, Chevron allegedly called Nigerian police to the scene. The police rammed the blockade with a self-propelled barge, sinking all 16 boats and killing three of the protesters.
• In May of 1998, Chevron allegedly sanctioned, and possibly participated in, a military raid against a group of protesters in Ilaje (Ondo State) who had peacefully occupied a drilling platform. According to protesters, Chevron agreed to negotiate with them if they vacated the platform; yet before the protesters could leave, helicopters manned by soldiers and at least one Chevron employee arrived at the scene, firing on and killing several protesters from the air. Others were detained and coerced into "confessing" they had vandalized the platform.
• On January 4, 1999, Chevron allegedly aided the Nigerian military in an attack on the villages of Opia and Ikenyan in Delta State, where villagers had demanded compensation for oil-related environmental damage. At least four people were killed, while hundreds of homes burned. Chevron is alleged to have requested the military intervention and provided helicopters and boats with pilots and crew to transport the company's security personnel along with the Nigerian military forces.
  
  

Chevron denies allegations of wrongdoing in all three incidents, claiming it was merely defending its property. It lays blame for violence on the Nigerian military. While the specifics remain in dispute, a pattern has emerged: the Nigerian government, which under Nigerian law owns all minerals in the country, grants Chevron and other companies rights for exploration and extraction without the input or consent of local communities. When these communities object to the damage caused from oil operations, they are often ignored or violently silenced.

Local communities face serious oil-related threats to their livelihoods, especially in the oil-rich Delta region. Inhabitants rely on the Delta for medicines, fish, wood for fuel and shelter, and vital ecosystem services like stable soil and habitat for wildlife. Oil production threatens these resources and services in a number of ways, the most acute of which are oil spills and gas flaring.

Thousands of spill incidents, involving almost a hundred million gallons of crude oil, were reported between 1976 and 1990; since this includes only those spills the companies chose to report, the total amount is likely much higher. Spills result from local sabotage of pipelines (committed by communities both to protest oil activities and to siphon oil for sale on the black market), poor infrastructure monitoring, and inability or unwillingness of oil companies to repair the leaks. They pollute groundwater sources, destroy agricultural lands and fisheries, and imperil human lives with the constant threat of explosions.

Gas flaring, a practice in which natural gas generated as a byproduct of oil extraction is simply burned as waste, creates substantial CO₂ emissions and acid rain; in many parts of the Delta even rainwater is undrinkable. Malnutrition, respiratory disorders, and cancer are some of the many side effects attributable to oil pollution.

Pollution is a widespread problem because environmental standards and regulatory practices are far from adequate. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency (FEPA) is woefully under-funded; its ability to affect oil operations, especially those undertaken by the state run oil company, is limited.

Furthermore, it competes with the Department of Petroleum Resources over control of the industry. Despite this double regulation, companies often complete environmental impact assessments only perfunctorily or, in remote regions, not at all.

Local community leaders and foreign observers have implicated Chevron in the environmentally harmful practices outlined above. They report a persistent disregard for environmental standards, citing a lack of communication with local communities, inadequate or nonexistent EIAs, slow response to spills and leaks, and evasion of liability. Chevron disputes this characterization; it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine where the truth lies.

However, the company makes little of its official policies known to local communities or outside observers; amid weak government enforcement, lack of public access to legal and environmental knowledge, and a lack of transparency, Chevron operates in an environment of de facto unaccountability.

Attempts by the company to address the concerns of local communities have been sporadic and, critics claim, misguided. Chevron claims to spend large sums annually on community development, yet local communities report that these efforts sometimes serve little purpose other than company PR. Often the money is given to local leaders with the knowledge that the funds will never be used as promised; it is simply a bribe to keep local power brokers satisfied. Not only does this approach institutionalize corruption, it deprives communities, whose traditional modes of subsistence have been destroyed by oil pollution and whose support from the government almost nonexistent, their last remaining means of survival.

Many of the participants in this study share the belief that communities in oil-producing regions will never achieve adequate living conditions until they are granted ownership of local resources. This is unlikely to happen anytime soon.

In the meantime, it remains with the government to improve its record on human rights and environmental protection, and with companies such as Chevron to make basic operational reforms to reduce pollution and the risk of explosions, end its complicity in government violence, and deal in a more open and honest manner with local communities. It should work with the government to fashion an alternative economic base for oil communities where petroleum production has destroyed traditional farming and fishing.

Finally, it should open its activities to the scrutiny of independent assessors. These and other recommendations are spelled out in greater detail in the full report. Taken together, they can make oil production - which up to now has created wealth for a few and misery for many - a more positive force in Nigerian development.

U.S. Corporate Accountability for Human Rights, Environment and Labor Issues Related to Oil Development in the Caspian Region

In the newly independent Caspian nations of Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, an oil boom is underway. It promises prosperity, but entails substantial risks. The delicate Caspian ecosystem, already stressed by a Soviet legacy of pollution, remains inadequately protected under current environmental laws. Many existing environmental protections are only feebly enforced, if at all. Local spills are common; the possibility of a major spill, with potentially catastrophic ecological consequences, is large.

There is a further risk that Caspian oil development, rather than strengthen nascent democratic reform, will reinforce parallel tendencies toward corruption, authoritarianism, and disregard for the environment. The region's new governments, though ostensibly democratic, still falter in their respect for human rights and the rule of law. The lure of massive oil revenue further strains natural and political systems.

Multinational oil corporations are central to the development of oil resources in the Caspian. Through partnerships with governments, they provide the investment necessary to bring Caspian oil to global markets. Given the social and ecological implications of these partnerships, many observers contend that for oil development to proceed in a responsible and ecologically sustainable fashion, both governments and oil corporations must be held to high standards of accountability. There is concern that such accountability is lacking, and that as Caspian oil development intensifies in the coming years the public will be increasingly excluded from participating in decisions that affect their well-being. The California Global Accountability Project attempts to assess where such accountability may be lacking and suggests ways to improve the situation, focusing on two California-based corporations, Unocal and Chevron.

These companies are at the forefront of petroleum developments in both Caspian nations under review. In Azerbaijan, a consortium of oil companies led by BP Amoco (and including, among others, Unocal) is developing a project expected to yield 3 to 5 billion barrels over thirty years. Called "the deal of the century," it has been succeeded by several other major contracts, including a deal allowing a Chevron-led consortium to explore off Azerbaijan's Apsheron Peninsula.

In Kazakhstan, Chevron operates through a joint venture with the government called Tengizchevroil. Established in 1993, it is now the biggest oil producer in the country, pumping over 300,000 barrels a day from the Tengiz field on the Caspian's eastern shore. These significant operations are only the beginning.

Multinational partnerships with Caspian governments are governed by contracts, known as Public Sharing Agreements (PSAs), that are negotiated largely in secret. Local communities, labor unions, NGOs and other stakeholders have no role in these negotiations and limited access to the agreements even after they are signed. The Azeri and Kazakh governments have been unresponsive to requests for transparency; the corporations have generally refused to disclose the contents of PSAs on the grounds that such disclosures should be made by the government. As a result, environmental and other standards established by the agreements remain closed to scrutiny.

Lack of transparency amounts to a lack of accountability. Representatives of both Unocal and Chevron assert that their operations in Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan are governed by standards enumerated in the PSAs, and that these standards conform to "international oil industry standards." Yet they refuse to specify what these standards contain. They seem to disagree among themselves over the definition of such standards. Given the potential harms to food sources and local economies poised by oil extraction, many community leaders and local NGOs feel these standards should be public knowledge.

This is especially important to oil-affected communities because federal regulatory oversight in both countries is inadequate. Local NGOs and the foreign oil companies agree that Azerbaijan's principal environmental regulator, the State Committee on the Environment, is incompetent. Moreover, its operation is hampered by the influence of Socar, the Azeri state oil company, whose activities are, by all accounts, indicative of corruption and disregard environmental protection. In Kazakhstan, there appears to be little real difference between the federal environmental regulatory agency and the state oil company. Although oil company representatives paint a brighter picture of regulation in Kazakhstan compared to Azerbaijan, they acknowledge that effective third party monitoring does not exist. Environmental groups point to disturbing developments in the Caspian Sea, where the Kazakh government recently removed protected status for an area in which an oil consortium sought to explore, then allowed exploration to begin before a national oil spill response plan had been completed. In both countries, quiescent and/or corrupt regulators have given foreign companies a free hand to determine policies and standards; although these companies have taken steps toward filling the regulatory void with voluntary action, many observers feel they have exploited the regulatory gap.

The same pattern of inconsistent, corrupt, or otherwise inadequate government oversight combined with corporate complacency is apparent in labor issues related to multinational oil involvement in the Caspian. In Azerbaijan, the only legal oil workers' union is state-run; it offers workers little real protection, and most employees of foreign oil companies are not members. New labor laws make it difficult to strike, while a corrupt judiciary effectively prevents workers from using the courts to seek redress for grievances.

In Kazakhstan, independent oil worker unions are now allowed, and the overall labor situation appears to be improving. Some labor leaders, however, accuse Tengizchevroil of violating labor laws pertaining to dismissal. The company denies this claim and points to court victories against workers who struck in protest against a dismissal. Labor advocates in both countries agree that working conditions and pay at Unocal and Chevron/Tengizchevroil are superior to the state sector, but that job security is much lower. They believe the foreign companies prefer to hire non-union workers and discourage union activity among their workers. Representatives of the companies dispute this claim, but acknowledge most of their workers are probably not in unions.

Human rights and community development concerns follow a similar pattern. Public understanding of - and government respect for - human rights is low in both countries. According to the U.S. State Department, the electoral victories responsible for maintaining Azeri president Aliyev and Kazakh president Nazarbayev in power were questionable. Both governments harass independent media and political opponents. Both operate via bureaucracies, swollen with corruption, that ignore the needs of local communities. Such communities often look to foreign oil companies to fill this void.

The corporate response, according to many observers, is inconsistent and often self-serving. Both Unocal and Chevron have undertaken environmental public awareness campaigns, supported education through grants, and directed assistance to local infrastructure improvements. While grateful, some local leaders feel the companies are inconsistent in their commitment to community development, preferring periodic high profile donations to consistent support. The companies, they claim, continue to deal only with the central government on matters that most significantly affect local communities.

Community leaders and NGO representatives generally agree that Chevron, Unocal and other multinational oil corporations involved in the Caspian's new oil boom are mostly unwilling to take seriously the demands for participation made by stakeholders other than the central governments.

They point to a distressing pattern taking shape in the Caspian, in which joint ventures between foreign companies and the government generate revenue which in part feeds corruption; this in turn retards attempts within and outside of government to reform irresponsible practices; this in turn exerts a downward pressure on the performance of the foreign companies. In order for Caspian oil development to proceed in a responsible manner, advocates claim, this pattern must change. They believe such change cannot wait for the slow march of democratization in government, but must begin with the multinational companies themselves.

Sixth Symposium on Genital Integrity Breaks New Ground
Washington DC Events Start a New Era
by J. Steven Svoboda*

The Sixth International Symposium on Genital Integrity, held from December 7-9, 2000 at the University of Sydney in Sydney, Australia, represents the maturing of the movement against male and female circumcision and for genital integrity for all human beings.

The movement is reaching out to new geographical constituencies, such as South Korean activists DaiSik Kim, Myung-Geol Pang, and Sae Chul Kim, who each received the Human Rights Award at the symposium. Their work to combat the startling ascendance of circumcision in that country has gained substantial media attention in Korea and elsewhere around the world, based in large part on the award from NOCIRC.

The movement is also receiving increasing media attention. This Symposium was covered by many media outlets around the world including ABC News, the Associated Press, CNN International, the Sydney Herald, the Melbourne Age, the Independent (South Africa), the Times of India, the Malaysia National News Agency.

Keynote speaker Gregory J. Boyle of Australia's Bond University summarized the principal ethical, psychological and legal considerations and helped draw Australian media and popular attention to the symposium. Zenas Baer supplied an overview of the two equal protection cases relating to circumcision in which he has been involved as well as a legal overview.

At the Sydney symposium, the ongoing process continued of reinforcing and expanding alliances between the movements against male circumcision and female genital mutilation. While always an integral part of the biennial symposia, at this conference, valuable and mutually benefical connections were formed with such anti-FGM activists as Juliana Nkrumah of the New South Wales FGM Program and Martha Teshome of Western Australia.

New faces were welcome in Sydney: Professor Michael Katz ("The Urge to Circumcise Seems Constant, The Reasons for It Keep Changing") and Professor Leonard B. Glick, who provided a historical perspective on Jewish circumcision. Daniel Bollinger drew fascinating connections between circumcision and other forms of violence in the United States.

Frederick Hodges delivered a review of historical revisionism in recent medical history, and Robert Darby provided an original discussion of the rise of preventive circumcision from 1880-1930 in Australia. Seham abd el Salam wrote a paper delivered by Marilyn Milos which analyzed in detail common ground between activists against male and female genital cutting.

My talk, entitled "Comparative Legal Analysis of Body Mutilation Practices on Children," drew connections between and suggested lessons to be learned from such disparate child body modification practices as Chinese footbinding, infanticide in Nineteenth Century India, artificial cranial deformation of infants, male genital mutilation, and female genital mutilation.

Closing keynote speaker John W. Travis delivered a passionate plea for a holistic vision of transforming the lives of children through a comprehensive program of inter-related life-honoring practices.

The session on "The Role of Women in Ending Genital Mutilation," conducted by all of us present with leadership provided by Jeannine Parvati Baker, Mary Conant, and Marilyn Milos, offered all of us an all too rare opportunity to explore together the feelings underlying our own connections with genital integrity issues.

A few months later brought a remarkable series of events in our nation's capital. If the Sydney symposium broke new ground, the events in Washington DC started construction of a new era for genital integrity. The week began with a two-day conference sponsored by NOCIRC and organized by Amber Craig and Marilyn Milos which featured many fabulous speakers and drew well over 100 participants.

Hanny Lightfoot-Klein delivered the opening talk entitled, "Genital Integrity: What Will It Take?" Professor and physician Leonard Glick gave a very engaging talk on circumcision and the Jewish-Christian encounter, and Soraya Mire treated the audience to her moving personal story. Attorney Stefan Ivarsson discussed current developments in Sweden. I gave a brief overview of recent legal events, a summary of the talk I delivered in Sydney and a preview of the talk I will be giving in Berlin on HIV and circumcision.

Attorney David Llewellyn discussed recent legal developments, Steve Scott discussed anatomy, and Dr. Morris Sorrells and Tina Kimmel showed the audience the fascinating preliminary results of their penile sensitivity study.

Dr. James Bigelow and Wayne Griffiths discussed restoration, and Jeannine Parvati Baker, Mary Conant, and Marilyn Milos helped set the mood for a popular session on women's role in the movement.

On Sunday, after the march to the Capitol and a lunch talk by author Kristen O'Hara, we were heard talks about the SIC Society by David Wilson, international media work by Shelton Walden, and activism by Van Lewis. Dr. George Denniston discussed the work of Doctors Opposing Circumcision, and Mary Conant and Patty Worth looked at "the impact of activism on local medical practice." Amber Craig presented the findings of the International Coalition for Genital Integrity's Medicaid Project. The report contained a wealth of statistical information on Medicaid support for circumcision, including the conclusion that $35 million is spent annually by the federal government to pay for a procedure that the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics agree is unnecessary.

Dr. Paul Fleiss, Laurie Evans, and Norm Cohen all presentedl talks which combined their own unique personal perspectives as a pediatrician, a Jewish woman actively opposed for many years to circumcision, and a highly successful male Jewish activist. Jeannine Parvati Baker closed this event.

The Sunday March from the "Ellipse" park in Washington, DC to the Capitol drew well over 100 participants. We all had a fabulous time talking with passersby and taking over the entire steps of the Capital with our signs, which included the huge three banners saying "Stop Infant Circumcision."

On Monday a smaller but still substantial group of perhaps 40 people marched from the Ellipse to the Supreme Court. The police stopped traffic for us both days and were, by and large, very helpful. Following the Supreme Court march on Monday, the Genital integrity Education Fair included about eight informational tables staffed by various anti-circumcision organizations which distributed literature and discussed the issues with passersby.

On Tuesday a couple dozen of us lobbied Congress, visiting all 535 Representatives and Senators to discuss with them the issue of Medicaid funding for newborn circumcision, and distributing to them the report Amber put together.

Many thanks to Amber Craig, David Wilson, Marilyn Milos, and everyone else who organized this great series of events. We will be establishing a presence in Washington, DC every year during Genital Integrity Awareness Week, which is the first week in April.

We are Africans and Europeans, North Americans and Asians. We are young and we are young-at-heart. We are women and men, gay and straight, intact and not. We are united as champions of genital integrity. As the past millennium comes to its actual close and the new one is ready to go, it is heartening that we have two promising legal cases in progress and exciting that we can come together to collectively dream of a better future. What happier holidays could all of us who support genital integrity for all possibly have than living to see and help make our goal start to become true?

* J. Steven Svoboda is and HRA member and Executive Director of Attorneys for the Rights of the Child

Council of Europe Gives US Deadline to Abolish the Death Penalty
Press Release from Amnesty International, June 26, 2001

(Washington, DC) -- Following today's adoption of a resolution by the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly requiring Japan and the United States to impose an immediate moratorium on executions and take steps to abolish the death penalty, Amnesty International said that this was an "important and embarrassing moment in the history of US-European relations."

The Assembly also decided to question the continuing observer status of the US and Japan with the Council should no significant progress be made by January 1, 2003.

"It is unfortunate and embarrassing that the US's continued commitment to the death penalty may result in the US having its observer status at the Council of Europe withdrawn," said William F. Schulz, Executive Director of Amnesty International USA. "This would be a devastating one-two punch coming on the heels of the US's removal from the UN Human Rights Commission this year and the strong anti-death penalty messages sent to President Bush during his recent trip to Europe."

"The debate at the Council of Europe is further evidence that the credibility of the US on human rights issues has reached a new low-point," said Ajamu Baraka, Acting Director of Amnesty International USA's Program to Abolish the Death Penalty, who recently returned from the First World Congress on the Abolition of the Death Penalty, hosted by the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. "The US's reputation continues to be tarnished by its defiant and puzzling commitment to a punishment that has no deterrent effect and that the majority of the world's nations has abandoned as barbaric and outdated."

The Assembly confirmed its opposition to capital punishment by adopting a report saying the death penalty has no legitimate place in the judicial systems of modern civilized societies, and that it constituted torture and inhuman and degrading punishment as covered by Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Accepting an immediate moratorium on executions and death penalty abolition have been preconditions for membership in the Council of Europe since 1994. A country wishing to become a Council of Europe observer state must accept the "principles of democracy, the rule of law and the enjoyment by everyone within its jurisdiction of human rights and fundamental freedoms," according to the Council. Canada, Mexico, Japan and the US have been granted observer status by the Council's Committee of Ministers. Only Japan and the US maintain the death penalty and carry out executions.