Can existing institutions address globalisation and poverty?

Braithwaite confirms the draft UN Code of Conduct for Trans-national Corporations, which would have imposed a large set of ethical obligations on multinational corporations and had been under development since the mid-1970s, was killed by the US in 1995. The developed nations subsequently tried to secretly negotiate the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, which benefited the multinationals, but the NGOs and developing countries killed it in 1998.

The UN human rights system sets some standards which are admirable. These standards have been reached as a result of various political compromises, and as we have seen above, and in the recent meeting on Conference on Racial Discrimination in Durban, national interests usually dominate these proceedings.

Braithwaite points out that we still need, in addition to the "rights" conventions, an enforceable Code of Conduct for Multinational Corporations, but does not explore the nature of the enforcement. He does say it is possible for NGOs to use strategic trade thinking to divide and conquer American and European business - to assist firms that have upgraded their green standards early by the NGOs promoting improved standards in their other markets. But Braithwaite also found that NGOs are mostly weak players in debates over global business regulation, and such methods are hardly "enforcement".

On the other hand, in the national government arena, Braithwaite admits there is also "a world system dynamic that creates a competitive race to the bottom with regulatory standards over matters such as the environment". It is possible there may be progress, but it seems it could be slow.

Given their genesis, it is surprising that some of the UN conventions are so good. Given their genesis, they can claim to have fairly widespread support. Given their genesis, it is not surprising they are incomplete.

Truth and justice are not concepts determined by popular vote, political compromises, or international consensus. Those of us interested in human rights know what they are (especially if they are being violated) even if we can debate how they can be most appropriately worded.

Hunt accepts "The UN system is increasingly placing greater emphasis on economic, social and cultural rights, but the difficulty is that there is no effective mechanism for enforcement of these rights". There is no effective mechanism under the UN to enforce any rights. Not one individual is guaranteed a single right by the UN or any of its agencies or any other similar international body. There is simply no enforcement mechanism. All UN actions require the support of the local national government - or America. If the abuse is caused by the local national government, the UN is useless. Consider Kosovo, East Timor, Rwanda.

We flounder to reform the UN, to provide it with some enforcement powers, to establish a real International Criminal Court, or set up a standing army of the UN, largely because of reservations in America and Europe.

Ensor promotes what I see as a vain hope that Oxfam/CAA and concerned individuals can sufficiently influence Australian politics so that our foreign policy is more aligned with certain key principles. In the context of the public reaction to the Tampa refugee "crisis" and war mongering after the attack on the World Trade Centre, I hold little hope that such reasoned and compassionate arguments will be heeded by the electorate at large. And even if the Australian government did suddenly become enlightened, we still need to persuade the real powers in Europe and North America. Experience tells us that progress will be slow, and as Ensor reminds us, "Despite the progress made in recent decades, poverty and inequality remain worldwide, and they’re getting worse".

Hunt suggests "Aid programs and projects should themselves enhance peoples’ human rights, especially the rights of women and children." But the aid programs themselves, approved and initiated by distant, well meaning managers do not grant the aid recipients the right to participate in decisions of when, where and how the aid is applied. Sometimes the need is so obvious that it would be an affront to ask, but for the long term development aid that is the focus of Hunt's article, surely the recipients should be involved in the decision making.

Hunt cites a World Bank study which identified four systemic and pervasive problems as:

• corruption,
• violence and crime,
• a chance to participate; and
• livelihoods being less secure.