Chindonesia: The Rise of Indonesia

First there was BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China), than there was Chindia (China, India) and now there is Chindonesia (China, India, Indonesia). The addition of Indonesia is important and interesting. Chindonesia will represent the equivalent of 44% of the US economy in the next 5 years with a GDP surpassing $10 trillion.

Indonesia is a large, diverse developing democracy that is endeavoring with some success to attract increased foreign investment. The country selected its first freely elected president in 2004. Recent laws have eased property restrictions generally, while restricting the share of foreign ownership in key industries, including telecommunications. Foreign direct investment (FDI) in Indonesia jumped 54 percent to $13.95 billion in the first 10 months of 2008 from the same time a year ago. This was more than double the government’s goal, and was driven by the telecommunications sector.

The primary challenge for doing business in Indonesia is a harsh and often arbitrary judicial system; civil or administrative cases may be treated as criminal matters, trade disputes are difficult to resolve, contracts and property rights are inconsistently enforced with a preference for domestic actors, and prisoner mistreatment is well-documented. Key Social Risks include corruption, security, and financial crime.

However, Indonesia’s economy is still set to emerge a “winner” after avoiding the worst of the global financial crisis, according to Joachim von Amsberg, the World Bank’s representative in Jakarta.

But proceed with caution, just yesterday, a police officer was found dead in Papua Province near the copper and gold mining complex called Grasberg run by American conglomerate Freeport.

His death followed the fatal ambushes over the weekend of a security guard and an Australian mining expert both working for Freeport in the same area. Authorities blame Papuan separatists who have been fighting for autonomy for their province for decades. Thousands of Indonesian troops are stationed in Papua, which remains the country’s most impoverished province despite the wealth of its resources.

Burger Risk: Texan Whopper Offends 1 Billion Hindus

Someone needs to explain this one to me... What was the ad agency thinking? And shouldn't Burger King have some advertising standards across its franchises? Its not the first time a company has offended an entire population with its advertisements - although offending 1 Billion Hindus is not something that should be taken lightly.

News from the Telegraph...

The fast food chain quickly withdrew the advertisement from its stores in Spain after Hindus across the world complained at the denigration of their religion.

The advertisement shows a picture of Lakshmi, the Indian goddess of wealth, above one of the burgers, which are forbidden under Hindu religion.

The 'Texican Whopper' is an affront to Hindu sensitivities in its own right – it includes an all-beef patty, a beef chilli-con-carne slice, egg-based Cajun mayonnaise, all forbidden by strict Hindus. Some devotees would even be offended by the inclusion of onions which they believe inflame passions.

But it is the depiction of Lakshmi which has provoked widespread anger with its suggestion that a Hindu deity eats beef.

The goddess and the burger were placed under a slogan claiming 'La merienda es sagrada' – the snack is sacred.

Burger King quickly withdrew the posters and issued an apology after world Hindu leaders condemned the chain for its insensitivity.

"We are apologising because it wasn't our intent to offend anyone," said spokeswoman Denise T Wilson. "Burger King Corporation values and respects all of its guests as well as the communities we serve. This in-store advertisement was running to support only local promotion for three restaurants in Spain and was not intended to offend anyone.

"Out of respect for the Hindu community, the limited-time advertisement has been removed from the restaurants," she added.

Earlier this year, Burger King offended Mexican officials with another advertisement for the 'Texican Whopper' which depicted a dwarf dressed as a wrestler draped in the Mexican flag.

Twittercraft: Foreign Policy by Other Means

Much has been made in the last month of Twitter’s unexpected role in Iran’s ongoing political upheaval. The social-networking tool became the de facto method of communication among those protesting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s questionable re-election, in the process earning widespread accolade for giving voice to the people.

Twitter’s enabling role in Iran dovetailed quite closely with American foreign policy interests, allowing Washington to maintain a plausible distance as foment was spread across the Islamic Republic. It is not always the case, however, that America’s technology firms operate in sync with our country’s interests abroad.

At times, in fact, our technology companies operate at cross-purposes with Washington, their software and hardware serving not to facilitate democratic aspirations, but to quash them. In Burma and China, where access to information is tightly controlled by the government, two Silicon Valley firms -- respectively, Fortinet and Cisco -- built and have maintained the massive firewalls that hamper the public’s ability to access and disseminate information.

When our nation’s companies play prominent roles in other countries’ business, all sorts of complicated questions arise. Ask the European consortium, Nokia Siemens Network, that built the communications infrastructure in Iran. The consortium has come under heavy criticism for providing the Iranian regime with the ability to monitor telecommunication traffic. Yet it is the very same consortium that has provided those opposed to the regime with a robust network for tweeting, posting and texting.

When faced with such a dilemma, what ought American firms do? To date, our technology companies have gotten little guidance from Washington, which has foot dragged on codifying a set of operating standards. More often than not, the American government has left the industry to regulate itself.

To some degree, technology companies have proven themselves up to the task. This year, Microsoft, Google, Yahoo! and others launched the Global Network Initiative, a voluntary framework for respecting, protecting and advancing human rights in all countries where the companies operate. The alliance is to be applauded for securing public pledges from Internet companies to refrain from censorship and from divulging personal information to any government that is not committed to an international standard of free expression and privacy.

Yet it ought not be forgotten that a driving force for the Global Network Initiative was an incident two years ago in which Yahoo! acted in a far less noble manner. Pressed by Beijing, the Internet giant divulged the identity of a Chinese democracy activist, leading to his detention, alleged torture and sentencing to 10 years of hard labor in prison.

The Global Network Initiative is a major step in the right direction, but far better cooperation and partnership is needed between America’s business leaders and policymakers. In the case of Iran, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Google all played an important role and demonstrated both remarkable flexibility and good political judgment – independent of a still-hesitating White House. YouTube relaxed its rules on video broadcasts to allow the global dissemination of the amateur film of the bloody death of Neda Agha Soltan, while Google pulled forward the launch of its Farsi-language search engine and translation tool. For better and for worse, America’s technology companies have a demonstrated record of driving crucial foreign policy outcomes, and Washington must make its concerns known when it believes a foreign cause is just.

A model for cooperation can be found in the events of recent weeks in Iran, with Twitter again playing a central role. During the first few days after the election, communication among, to and from protestors was exponentially higher than normal. Twitter was scheduled to perform maintenance on its system, but at the request of the State Department, the company postponed the routine work in order to avoid interruptions in service.

The innocuous request from the State Department and Twitter’s granting of it are the kind of cooperation between government and business that ought to be extended to other areas of foreign policy. That is not to imply, of course, that American technology companies should blindly pursue the interests of Washington, nor Washington the technology companies’. But when those interests overlap, as they did recently in Iran, greater cooperation is both good politics and good for business. Twitter, Google, and YouTube do not come with a “Made in the U.S.A.” label, but the Iranian people may not notice the difference.

This piece was originally published on Huffington Post.

Peru Risk: Perenco Drilling for Trouble...

The press release below says it all. As I blogged last week, "Amazon Risk: Peru's Jungle is Not for Sale," --- protests against the opening of the Peruvian Amazon for drilling, logging, etc - was met with violence and the resignation of the Prime Minister. Now comes word from Survival International - that Perenco has been given the go ahead to drill on land believed to be inhabited by indigenous people. Perenco links on its website to an "Anthropological interdisciplinary study" for the Peru project. The study was done by a Peruvian-based consultancy - Daimi Peru. I am still digging through it to figure out the methodology. I do hope that Perenco incorporates human rights and social risk indicators when assessing the risk its project in Peru will generate. A study is just a study - without a monitoring and a mitigation strategy in place - Perenco will never ensure its social license to operate and the project will be plagued with protest and delay. It looks like Perenco is digging for trouble...

Peru's government has given the green light to an Anglo-French company to drill for oil in the Amazon, just thirteen days after more than 30 people died in protests against the exploitation of the rainforest.

The project, located on land inhabited by two tribes of uncontacted Indians, is believed to be Peru’s biggest oil discovery in thirty years. The company, Perenco, a major gas supplier to the UK, has in the past denied any uncontacted Indians live there.

Until recently, Perenco had been blocked from entering the area by local indigenous protesters. With help from Peru’s armed forces, the company managed to break through the blockade on at least one occasion.

High-ranking figures in Peru’s government hope that Perenco’s project will transform the Peruvian economy. While protests against the company were taking place, Perenco’s chairman, Francois Perrodo, an Oxford University polo blue and scion of one of the wealthiest families in France, met Peru’s President Garcia in Lima and pledged to invest $2bn in the project.

The government’s green light comes just days after protests elsewhere in northern Peru were violently broken up by police, leading to the deaths of both police officers and indigenous protesters. The exact numbers are still unknown. Survival has issued an eyewitness account of the violence.

Perenco intends to build new platforms and wells involving airlifting in, amongst other things, 42,000 sacks of cement. It admits that ‘contamination of soil’, ‘contamination of water’ and the flight of game and birds are possible consequences of its work. All these are essential to the survival of the uncontacted Indians who live there. More seriously, the Indians face the very real threat of contagion from diseases to which they have no immunity.

Survival’s Director, Stephen Corry, said today, ‘Anyone who hoped that the dreadful violence of the past few weeks might have made Peru’s government act with a bit more sensitivity towards the indigenous people of the Amazon will be really dismayed at this news. The timing couldn’t be worse – the government is trying to present a more friendly image in public, but as far as the oil companies are concerned, it looks like business as usual.’

Syriana Risk: Honduran Coup Celebrated by Business

Is there a Syriana-style coup taking place in Honduras? While, the US government, the EU, and the UN have all condemned the ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya – multinational and local business leaders have a different take.

Foglia Sandoval, former president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Honduras was quoted as saying, “I don’t know of anyone who isn’t celebrating.

The business community despised Zelaya. In December he raised the minimum wage by 60%, although the unions were asking for 20-30% increase.

Security was a major concern as narco-traffickers were seemingly given free reign. Pablo Largacha, a Costa Rica-based director of public affairs and communications for Coca-Cola's Latin Center Business Unit, told Latin Business Chronicle - “The main challenge has to do with security, and the negative effects that this issue has both in our consumers and on the ability to attract foreign investment."

Zelaya also moved to cut off the oligarchic ruling class. He broke up the monopoly of the multinational oil companies supplying fuel, and granted preferential status to Venezuelan based Petrocaribe. He then went after the pharmaceutical multinationals by importing cheap generic versions of the most commonly used drugs from Venezuela and Cuba.

Honduras, for most of the 20th century was a classic “banana republic”, dominated by United Fruit, which controlled the overwhelming majority of the country’s land. There were periodic US military interventions to remove governments which attempted to curtail the power of United Fruit.

Whether orchestrated by outside actors, business or otherwise, the coup in Honduras is illegal. It sets a bad precedent. The US is right to denounce it. If the international business community wants access to Honduras’ wealth, location, etc – they are going to have to convince the Honduran people first.

Chevron, Trade, and the Democrats

As I reported last October, Chevron has been actively lobbying Washington policymakers to rescind preferred trade status for Ecuador if the case pending in their court against Chevron moves forward.

Now comes word that a letter was sent to U.S. Trade Ambassador Ron Kirk, signed by Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR), Robert P. Casey, Jr. (D-PA), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and Patrick Leahy (D-VT), stating: “We write to express our concern with Chevron Corporation’s efforts to petition your office concerning a pending lawsuit it is facing in the Ecuadorian legal system. It is our understanding that Chevron is seeking the threatened withdrawal of the [trade benefits] for Ecuador if this lawsuit moves forward.”

The Senators write: “Corporate responsibility at home and abroad is critical, particularly when it concerns human health and the environment. We request that you allow the legal proceedings in Ecuador to take their course without any undue intervention from the U.S. government.”

Chevron is charged in the class-action lawsuit with dumping more than 18 billion gallons of toxic waste into Amazon waterways when it operated a large oil concession in Ecuador’s Amazon from 1964 to 1990. Chevron had requested that the case, originally filed in 1993 in U.S. federal court, be transferred to Ecuador where a trial began in 2003 and is expected to end later this year.

The court will decide whether to accept a $27.3 billion damages assessment prepared by a team of independent experts, who reviewed most of the evidence in the case and submitted a 4,000-page report last April.

This case, no matter how it is decided, will be historic. More later....

Daryl Hannah Risk: Mountaintop Mining Protests

More than thirty people were arrested on Tuesday, including NASA climate scientist James Hansen and actress Daryl Hannah, protesting mountaintop removal in West Virginia. The protesters were charged with obstructing officers and impeding traffic after they sat down in the middle of the road outside of the facility run by Massey Energy. It was the latest protest in a growing civil disobedience campaign against mountaintop removal.



Read about Mountaintop Removal and its effects on the environment, jobs, etc.

Lama Risk: Mining in Tibet

Tibetans in exile staged a die-in protest at the main Square in Dharamsala, the headquarters of the Tibetan Government in exile. The protest is a part of a global campaign against Hunter Dickinson's subsidiary Continental Minerals, which holds its shareholders' meeting today, to immediately cease all mining operations in Xietongmen - central Tibet.

According to the website StopMiningTibet.com,

In 1999, the Chinese government launched the "Western Development Strategy", politically motivated plan designed to further consolidate control over Tibet through economic rather than military means. Claiming that the plan will bring "development" and "prosperity" as well as "national unity" to the region, million dollar investments have been made in large scale transportation and communication infrastructure, most notably the construction of the China-Tibet railway and major extractive projects like mine operations and oil pipelines.

The Western Development Strategy is threatening the survival of Tibetan identity and cultural in more subtle but equally destructive ways as overt force. The relocation of millions of ethnically Chinese settlers into Tibet and the exploitation of Tibet's mineral resources to feed China's industrial provinces along the Eastern seaboard are two central components of the plan. The Chinese government has been promoting Tibet to foreign owned mining companies who have the technical expertise and capitol to invest in Tibet's isolated and difficult mining environment. Teaming up with experienced foreign firms is also a way for the Chinese state owned companies to raise their competitiveness in the world markets.

Large scale development in Tibet has rarely benefited Tibetans and mining in this context will likely flood the area with Chinese workers, further marginalizing Tibetans economically, culturally and politically while hastening the plundering of Tibetans natural wealth. Increased investment in resource extraction projects in Tibet places increased pressure on Tibet's fragile eco-system and further assimilates its people and culture.

Canadian companies have no business profiting from China's colonization of Tibet

The Tibetan Government in Exile has calle upon mining companies and investors to abide by the following:

• That projects have consulted local Tibetan people.
• That projects have fully investigated social, environmental and cultural impacts.
• That projects will benefit Tibetans.
• That the working language of any project is Tibetan.
• That projects do not deplete natural resources with little or no benefit to the Tibetan people.
• That projects do not facilitate the migration and settlement of non-Tibetans into Tibet.
• That projects do not transfer ownership of Tibetan land and resources to non-Tibetans.
• That projects do not facilitate large-scale, capital-intensive and commercial projects.

Certainly for Western mining companies to proceed in Tibet many of the demands above should be met and would ensure a license to operate not only with the Chinese government but the Tibetan community in exile.

China Risk: New Book by Michael Santoro on Corporate Responsibility in China

I just read a great review of Michael Santoro's new book, China 2020: How Western Business Can - and Should - Influence Social and Political Change in the Coming Decade.

Here is the review, below is the description, click here to purchase.

Chinese society is plagued by many problems that have a direct impact on its current and future business and political environment-worker rights, product safety, Internet freedom, and the rule of law. Drawing on knowledge gained through personal interviews, documentary sources, and almost two decades of visits to China, Michael A. Santoro offers a clear-eyed view of the various internal forces-such as regionalism, corruption, and growing inequality-that will determine the direction and pace of economic, social, and political change. Of special interest is Santoro's assessment of the role of multinational corporations in fostering or undermining social and political progress. Santoro offers a fresh and innovative way of thinking about two questions that have preoccupied Western observers for decades. What will be the effect of economic reform and prosperity on political reform? How can companies operate with moral integrity and ethics in China? In China 2020, Santoro unifies these hitherto separate questions and demonstrates that moral integrity (or lack of it) by Western business will have a profound impact on whether economic privatization and growth usher in greater democracy and respect for human rights.
China 2020 also offers a novel vision of China's future economic and political development. Santoro rejects the conventional view that China will muddle through the next decade with incremental social and political changes. Instead he argues that China will follow one or two widely divergent potential outcomes. It might continue to progress steadily toward greater prosperity, democracy, and respect for human rights, but it is also highly likely that China will instead fall backward economically and into an ever more authoritarian regime. The next decade will be one of the most important in the history of China, and, owing to China's global impact, the history of the modern world.

China 2020 describes various tectonic social and political battles going on within China. The outcomes of these struggles will depend on a number of powerful indigenous forces as well as the decisions and actions of individual Chinese citizens. Santoro strongly believes that Western businesses can-and should-influence these developments.

'White Magic' Risk: Rio Tinto Turns Head on BigLaw

Over the past 2-3 years, American (White Shoe) and British (Magic Circle) law firms have had to cut costs, re-engineer billing equations, and conduct layoffs or furloughs of senior and incoming counselors.

Now comes the news that is sending shivers through the White-Magic Board Rooms from New York to London. Anglo-Australian mining company Rio Tinto has hired a team of lawyers in India to try to reduce its annual £60 million legal bill by 20%.

According to the Times of London, Rio Tinto is believed to be the “first big company to recruit a team of fully qualified lawyers to perform substantive legal work that otherwise would have been done by lawyers in London.”

The Indian firm:

CPA Global is a private Jersey company with a $1 billion turnover. It specialises in trademarks and patents and acts for clients such as Microsoft. It has spent more than $50 million on legal facilities in Delhi and expects to recruit 500 lawyers there in nine months. In two years, it aims for 3,000 lawyers in Manila, New Zealand and South Africa.

Obviously there are lots of things to be concerned about, but I find it a tad ironic that the very firms that have been encouraging outsourcing or off-shoring are becoming the victims of their own advice.

Amazon Risk Update: Peruvian PM to Step Down

Prime Minister Yehude Simon is sending a bill to Congress revoking the land laws that led to deadly clashes between police and indigenous protesters in the Amazon.

Peru's Prime Minister Yehude Simon, who has led the talks, has said he will step down once the dispute is settled.

"I will leave as soon as everything has calmed down, which should be in the coming weeks," Mr Simon told Peruvian radio on Tuesday after meeting indigenous leaders.

He said the government would send a bill to Congress on Wednesday asking for a repeal of the laws which would have allowed mining, oil and gas exploration and other economic development in the Amazon rainforest.

Indigenous people say they want to be consulted on development. The government had to know how to listen, Mr Simon said, insisting that the reversal of policy would not put at risk Peru's free trade agreement with the US.

This is not the end of the story. Peruvian President Alan Garcia has said that developing parts of the Amazon are part of his investment programme to tackle widespread poverty. The president intends to continue his policies of foreign investment based on free trade.

Again, listen up, MNC's --- do proper human rights due diligence before proceeding. The next big protests wont be toward the Peruvian Congress, but against corporate actors that develop in the Amazon without community license to operate.

Risk Mitigated: China Backs Down on Censorware Demand

There are many reasons the Chinese government backed down on its plans for mandatory installation of censorware on all PC's sold in China. They include - Chinese public outcry, international condemnation, NGO and foreign government protest, and corporate refusal. All of the above!

This is a real victory for the business and human rights community. The recently launched Global Network Initiative, which I wrote about last week, gave the ICT community the ability to collectively reject what was clearly a violation of international human rights standards.

This sets a great precedent for other industries to follow. From extractives to pharmaceuticals - the success of the GNI's public protest should encourage all industries to engage in multi-stakeholder initiatives, agree on a core set of principles, commit to human rights impact assessments, and actively speak out with one collective voice to ensure a company's corporate footprint does not include the denial of basic human rights.

Image Credit: The image in this post comes from a series featuring the Green Dam Girl, a crusader who carries a rabbit (the software's mascot), to stamp out content. This one is Green Dam Girl pulling the underwear off of XP Girl. More images here.

ICT Risk: Global Network Initiative Issues Statement

Just two days after my Huffington Post piece, "Hardware Risk: China Targets PC Manufacturers," urging the industry to reach out to the Global Network Initiative (GNI) for guidance. The GNI put out this exceptionally crafted statement:

The Global Network Initiative is actively monitoring developments regarding the Chinese government’s directive that requires computer manufacturers to install the Green Dam/Youth Escort content control software on personal computers produced or sold in China. This directive is ostensibly intended to protect children from sexually explicit content, but in fact raises significant challenges for companies in the technology sector that also have a responsibility to respect human rights. The Global Network Initiative (GNI) offers a multi-stakeholder forum that provides operational guidance and a credible system for companies to develop effective strategies in response to these challenges.

Protection of children from exploitation and exposure to inappropriate material online is a legitimate public policy goal, which many countries around the world pursue. This goal can be achieved in ways consistent with international norms protecting the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. For example, public education regarding the availability of a wide variety of user-controlled filtering tools that allow parents and guardians to manage unwanted content in a way that is most appropriate for children under their care. Various companies – including the three company members of GNI – as well as other organizations offer a wide range of such software tools. However, the government mandate to pre-load the Green Dam/Youth Escort software on all PCs produced and sold in China clearly raises human rights concerns that the information and communications technology (ICT) sector must address.

The GNI Principles are grounded in international human rights standards for freedom of expression and privacy. Under these standards, the right to freedom of expression should not be restricted by governments except in narrowly defined circumstances, consistent with international human rights norms and the rule of law. Importantly, such restrictions should be necessary and proportionate for the relevant purpose.

Much about how the Green Dam/Youth Escort software functions in practice is yet to be determined and several GNI members are undertaking such an analysis. However, a number of facts about the software have been established that raise human rights concerns.

The concurrent and cumulative issues that implicate human rights and undermine user choice include the requirement for mandatory installation; the difficulty of uninstalling the software; and filtering that goes beyond sexually explicit or other content inappropriate for children. Results from independent tests of the software reported on Global Voices Online and elsewhere indicate that political content was indeed part of the website library of filtered content. An approach for protecting children online that requires the mandatory installation of a particular software package that is difficult to uninstall and filters far more than sexually explicit content is not consistent with the practices of other countries that have encouraged parental control tools and is far out of proportion to the goal of child protection.

Public opposition (including a legal challenge) to this software mandate within China is growing. The Chinese press and diverse parts of Chinese civil society have expressed concerns about privacy, security, transparency, consumer choice, and whether the cost of this effort is justifiable. In fact, the government recently clarified that use of the software by citizens is not mandatory in its official media statements. We hope that the domestic reaction within China will encourage the Chinese government to reconsider this mandate more fundamentally.

Nevertheless, there are many questions unanswered. Are any companies working with the software vendor to try and put the software in the market? If the government clarifies its directive so that the software is shipped on a disk but not pre-installed, what should companies do to avoid complicity in censorship of political, religious, and cultural information online? How can governments appropriately protect children from exploitation and exposure to inappropriate material? What steps should companies take to address such requests or directives? Hardware and software design companies will need to have adequate due diligence measures in place to ensure that they are prepared to address these questions in a way that respects fundamental human rights.

The GNI can help to address those dilemmas since it is a unique organization with the capacity to provide operational guidance on human rights issues in a collaborative setting. In particular, the GNI offers credible, operational guidance for companies, built on extensive experience, guided by a broad set of perspectives, and rooted in international human rights principles. The GNI also offers both technology sector companies and academics, investors, and non-governmental organizations an opportunity for frank discussion, collaboration on matters of public policy and corporate responsibility, and the sharing of expertise. Among the GNI principles and operational guidelines that are relevant to manufacturing and software companies:

Participating companies will respect and protect the freedom of expression of their users by seeking to avoid or minimize the impact of government restrictions on freedom of expression.
Participating companies will employ human rights impact assessments to identify circumstances when freedom of expression and privacy may be jeopardized or advanced, and develop appropriate risk mitigation strategies, e.g., when designing and introducing new technologies, products, and services.

GNI participants will engage proactively with governments to reach a shared understanding of how government restrictions can be applied in a manner consistent with human rights norms. Companies will seek modification from authorized officials when government restrictions appear overbroad, not required by domestic law or inconsistent with international human rights standards.

Participating companies will give clear, prominent, and timely notice to users when access to content has been limited due to government restrictions.

GNI participants acknowledge and support appropriate initiatives that seek to identify, prevent, and limit access to illegal online activity such as child exploitation. Such initiatives raise potential concerns regarding freedom of expression and should therefore be narrowly tailored and subject to the rule of law.

Amazon Risk: "Peru's Jungle Isn't For Sale"

The Battleground has moved from the Amazon to the streets of Lima to protest the government's plan to allow foreign oil companies to explore and extract oil from the Peruvian Amazon.

At least 20,000 students, labor union members and indigenous Peruvians from the country's Andean highlands descended into Lima for mass protest, where riot police fended off several hundred students, some of whom threw rocks and Molotov cocktails.

Marchers chanted, "The jungle isn't for sale," during the protests, which were organized in response to a bloody confrontation at an Indian roadblock June 5 in the northern state of Amazonas. It was Peru's worst political violence in more than a decade, with 23 police officers killed, many with spears. Indian leaders reported that at least 30 civilians died.

President Alan Garcia ordered the opening of indigenous land in the Amazon to oil and natural gas, as well as logging and biofuel crops. Due to the protest, Garcia has suspended two legislative decrees for fifteen days to seek agreement.

Obviously fifteen days is not long enough to negotiate with the Indigenous community. Indigenous peoples have rights, as spelled out in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples- of which Peru supported in the General Assembly.

And there is no time like the present for foreign and domestic companies that hope to reap the benefits of the Amazon resources to conduct human rights impact assessments prior to engagement to ensure a license to operate and respect for human rights.

Check out the Al Jazeera report below. (note: AJ has really become the business and human rights TV station!)

Hardware Risk: China Targets PC Manufacturers

The Chinese censorship authorities have a new target – PC manufacturers. By the end of June ’09, China wants all personal computer manufacturers, including US-based Dell, HP, and Apple, to install censorship software prior to sale in China. The software called ‘Green Dam,’ developed by the Chinese military, is ostensibly purposed for the filtering of pornography. However, many believe the software may act like spyware to allow the authorities to not only filter pornography, but to filter and track computer activity online or offline that is considered a threat to the State.

Yesterday, a number of US-based trade associations put out this brief statement:

“The Information Technology Industry Council, the Software & Information Industry Association, the Telecommunications Industry Association and TechAmerica urge the Chinese government to reconsider implementing its new mandatory filtering software requirement and would welcome the opportunity for a meaningful dialogue. We believe there should be an open and healthy dialogue on how parental control software can be offered in the market in ways that ensure privacy, system reliability, freedom of expression, the free flow of information, security and user choice.”

While the sentiment is right, it falls short of an appropriate response. The PC industry is in for a big wake-up call.

PC industry leaders should learn from their counterparts at Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo!, who last year launched the Global Network Initiative (GNI). The GNI is a multi-stakeholder initiative made up of ICT industry leaders, NGO’s and social value investors that supports a voluntary framework to respect, protect, and advance human rights in all the countries in which they operate. This alliance was the culmination of efforts to secure public commitments from Internet companies against censoring and divulging personal information to Chinese authorities, or to others who have not committed to an international standard of free expression and privacy.

In fact, the GNI should encourage the participation of the PC Industry at their table where the exisiting framework is very well suited to the problem. One can only imagine that the demand for loading censorship software on PC’s in China is just a first step. What happens when the Chinese request all PC’s include internal hardware mechanisms for the tracking and monitoring of its users?

Along with the GNI Principles, the Industry should look to the work of John Ruggie, the UN Special Representative on business and human rights. Last year, the team launched a three-part "framework" for corporate responsibility, which includes the state's duty to protect human rights, the duty of business to respect human rights, and the need for effective access to remedies for human rights abuses. The work of John Ruggie has single-handedly increased international recognition that business must respect human rights.

A proactive approach is the only play here. With 40 million PC’s sold in China last year, the importance of how the Industry responds is paramount. Thanks to Yahoo! and Google, lessons have already been learned; the response from NGO’s, government, and social investors is a foregone conclusion. Whether they join the GNI or not, PC makers must use all the tools at their disposal; these options include cooperation with the State Department, Commerce Department and Congress in order to ensure license to operate in China while respecting freedom of expression and privacy for all its users.

This post originally appeared on Huffington Post.

Occupation Risk: Veolia Pulls Out of Jerusalem Project

It's official. French company Veolia is pulling out of a controversial light rail project that links West Jerusalem and occupied East Jerusalem.

Haaretz reports:

Veolia has had to contend not only with the delays and difficulties in building the light rail project itself, but with political pressure at home as well. Two months ago a French court heard a lawsuit by a pro-Palestinian group, demanding that the light rail project be halted.

The organization based itself on an article in French law that allows the court to void business agreements, signed by French companies, that violate international law.

The political pressure on Veolia has been mounting in another direction. According to various reports abroad, the French firm had been losing major projects in Europe because of its involvement in the Jerusalem job. Observers claim that's the real reason Veolia opted out.

Just last week the the campaign to squash the project called upon Saudi Arabia to cancel a Veolia contract.

This is a great strategy. Going after projects beyond the Green Line sends a message that international support for Israel stops there. What Israel does beyond it is illegal and illegitimate. Multi-national companies should avoid all operations emanating from Israel that require work in the occupied territories. Let me be clear, as I wrote for the Huffington Post a few months back,

Divestment or boycott campaigns against Israel are prejudicial and counterproductive. They de-legitimize Israel as a whole and only fuel the Israeli perception that the world is against the Jewish state. Products, services, and universities in Israel are not illegal or illegitimate; to think so and act accordingly means to undermine the project of creating peaceful coexistence and engagement in the Middle East

However, going after business operating in the occupied territories is fair game.

I am writing a longer piece about this subject - stay tuned.

ATCA Risk: Will Shell Settle?

In New York, U.S. District Judge Kimba M. Wood has postponed the case against Shell giving to speculation that Shell might settle before the trial begins.

No foreign corporation has ever been found liable in a U.S. courtroom under the Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789.

Earth Risk: "Home," The Greatest Green Event Ever

Today is World Environment Day and what is being billed as "the greatest green event ever," is being highlighted with "Home" - a high-budget documentary to save the planet - from Yann Arthus-Bertrand.
From New York's Central Park to the Champs de Mars by Paris' Eiffel Tower, the French photographer known for the "Earth From The Air" books and "Seen From The Air" on TV, is releasing the green-awareness movie "Home" in over 100 countries simultaneously.

Shot from the air in a chopper, the environmental documentary will be available across the globe June 5, mostly free of charge, in open-air spaces as well as theatres, TV, DVD, and the Internet at http://www.blogger.com/www.youtube.com/homeproject.

"The idea is to explain what's happening to the planet by beginning at the beginning, by the miracle of life on earth," the photographer-director told AFP.

French movie mogul Luc Besson is distributing the 10-million-euro movie, a huge sum for a documentary funded by the luxury consortium PPR headed by Francois Henri Pinault.

"The massive and free distribution of the film will enable anyone, anywhere, to see it, whatever their income," Pinault said.

I sure will be watching!

This Week in Business and Human Rights

Much has happened this week in the Business and Human Rights community. As always, a big shout-out to the Business and Human Rights Resource Center, for ensuring we are kept up-to-date on the latest news, trends, etc.

1. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, hails a policy framework that underscores the corporate responsibility to respect human rights as “an important milestone.” The Human Rights Council on 2 June considered further practical recommendations on how to make companies human rights friendly.

2. Opening Statement to UK Parliament Joint Committee on Human Rights Professor John G. Ruggie, Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Business and Human Rights London, 3 June 2009.

3. Scott Jerbi writes in Human Rights Quarterly, "Business and Human Rights at the UN:
What Might Happen Next?"

Debates concerning corporate social and environmental responsibilities at the intergovernmental level have a long and complex history within the United Nations. The latest chapter in that history is the 2005 creation of an expert mandate on business and human rights. The mandate is emerging as the focal point for shaping thinking and potential future action in this field. This article examines recent developments on the subject of business and human rights and reflects on possible future actions that could be taken in this area over the coming years.

and...

4. The Danish Institute For Human Rights launches new model to help companies manage human rights risks.

Tuna Risk: Mitsubishi Corners the Market on Endangered Species

Bluefin tuna is on the verge of extinction. Some are suggesting that bluefin in the Mediterranean will be extinct by 2012. Mitsubishi, a Japanese based conglomerate, has nearly cornered the market with a 40 per cent share of the world market in bluefin tuna. How have they done this? They freeze it at below -60c, which makes it easy to effectively store for long periods of time creating vast stockpiles.

In the documentary film The End of the Line (preview posted below), Roberto Mielgo, a former bluefin fisherman who travels the world monitoring catches, claims that Mitsubishi buys and sells 60 per cent of the threatened fish and that it has expanded its freezer capacity to hold extra bluefin.

Willie Mackenzie, a Greenpeace fish campaigner, said: "Mitsubishi are best known in the UK for making cars or electrical goods – and for most people it comes as a bit of a shock to find out they are one of the world's biggest traders in the endangered bluefin tuna. Bluefin tuna are as endangered as rhinos or tigers."

The Cartographic Crux of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Below is a follow up piece I just blogged on Huffington Post. The response to my last piece regarding Hertz Rental Car in Israel generated a lot of buzz and Hertz ended up recalling its map and reprinting it. Read Below.

Maps are incredibly powerful instruments. In addition to conveying geographical information, maps, ab aeterno, manifest political, philosophical, actual and imagined snapshots of time. And nowhere on Earth is the meaning of maps more powerful and more controversial than in the Middle East, particularly when it comes to Israel and its Arab neighbors.

A very public controversy with regard to a map of Israel erupted last month in London. The Israeli Ministry of Tourism placed an advertisement throughout the London Underground showing a map of Israel, the West Bank, Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights in the same yellow color, giving the impression that Israel's vast geography did not include occupied Palestinian territory. Obviously misrepresentative, because a British tourist cannot sunbath on the pristine beaches of Gaza or shop the markets of Ramallah, all the while travelling from Eilat to Tel Aviv to Jerusalem to Haifa. After mass protests, the Israeli Ministry removed the posters, calling them a "professional mistake." However, Ministry officials most likely see the incident as a market miscalculation rather than an issue related to the borders of their country.

A similar incident occurred when I was travelling through Israel a few months ago. I noticed that my travel map, published by Hertz, all but erased the existence of the occupied Palestinian territory. After my short blog-piece on Huffington Post, Hertz management went through an internal process to adjust its map. Hertz, a U.S. based company, made the decision that its travel maps should represent as accurately as possible the geography of the state(s) in which it does business, and ignoring international legal realities of occupation was clearly not acceptable. Having been privy to the subsequent drafts, it was fascinating to see how Hertz's Israeli cartographer struggled to identify Palestinian areas, settlements roads, the Green Line that divides Israel proper from the occupied West Bank, the armistice line with Syria, and other important foundations for the yet to be agreed upon borders of the State of Israel. In the end, Hertz is now publishing a map that identifies all of the above.

Both these incidents are outgrowths of the most controversial cartographic event in the past century: the partition of Palestine and the establishment of the state of Israel. For 60 years, Israel and her neighbors have been at war. For 40 years, the Palestinians have lived under occupation without self-determination and dignity, and without a map that gives them a state on their own. As President Obama prepares to seek a revival of the Middle East peace process, he should therefore turn his attention primarily to the map. With the Green Line as his guide, Obama can redraw the reality of the map of the Middle East - wisely and accurately. Borders are important. We tend to forget that Israel has no permanent borders except those with Egypt and with Jordan - and those came as the result of peace treaties that enshrined and legitimized the map of the Middle East that shows Israel.

Israel should thus publicly commit to permanent borders - and then take necessary action, such as freezing all settlement activity, including natural growth (as called for by the Road Map), and launch permanent status negotiations with the Palestinians. In parallel, and in line with the Arab Peace Initiative launched in 2002, the Arab States and members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference should revise their own maps to represent Israel adequately - thus implying the recognition they have committed to bestow on Israel in exchange for decisive steps towards the two-state solution.

In recent months, Israel has downplayed the necessity to make peace with the Palestinians in deference to the concern over Iran's nuclear ambitions. With the ubiquitous statement by Iranian President Ahmadenijad in his desire to "wipe Israel off the map," the urgency is understandable. This, however, is a mistake. What better tool to combat the influence of Iran than to change the map. Imagine, Israeli daily newspapers including Palestine on its weather maps, or geography text books in Damascus referring to Israel as a legitimate state amongst its neighbors, finally recognizing the notion of two states, two peoples.

These are not mere cosmetic adjustments. The fraught political realities on the ground that are captured in the mapmaking process lie at the very heart of the problem. Combined, these (cartographic) steps would allow for a re-drawing of the political realities of the Middle East and set the stage for a comprehensive and lasting peace that would not only accord the Palestinians their state, but also provide Israel with permanent borders and the recognition, security and stability it justly deserves. Until the map is redrawn to reflect a genuine two state solution, we can anticipate further clashes about how the map of the region is drawn.

Vietnam Risk: Bauxite Mines, China, and Social Impact

Vietnam has a wide variety of important mineral resources making it the fourth-leading industry or 6.6% of GDP. The Vietnamese government hopes to increase that percentage with a number of new bauxite mine projects in the Central Highlands. Estimates put the country's bauxite reserves at 5.5 billion tonnes - a major draw for the world's mining giants.

However, a plan let a Chinese company build one of the largest bauxite mines has triggered rare public outcry from critics, environmentalists, and military leaders. A subsidiary of the Chinese aluminum firm Chinalco has been granted a contract to build one mine, while the US aluminum company Alcoa has partnered with Vinacomin to explore the feasibility of a second.

Environmentalists claim the new mining projects will affect the lower-lying sections of central and southeastern Vietnam, particularly the watershed of the Dong Nai river. Bauxite waste water is called “Red Mud” and has been linked to environmental and health problems. Immediate fears center around the potential destruction of the fertile soil where forests, coffee and tea grow. And while the Ministry of Environment in Vietnam has worked out a comprehensive plan to mitigate these risks, the assessment has been held up by political infighting and lack of access.

Others, including the military, recall 1,000 years of Chinese occupation and the 1979 border war as reason to pause. Allowing China access to Vietnams Central Highlands provides the country with strategic positioning. General Vo Nguyen Giap, 97, who led Vietnam's defeat of French colonial forces, argues the deal would give China de facto control and strategic position over the most crucial military position in Vietnam. And Vietnamese writer Nguyen Ngoc said, “the master of the Central Highlands is master of southern Indochina.” Ngoc, whose writes on the Central Highlands and its people, also said there was a longer-term risk of seeing the region "Sinocised," particularly as China begins to import workers for its mining projects.

Deputy Prime Minister Hoang Trung Hai has said the bauxite mining industry would help spur socio-economic development in the Central Highlands. But critics say the mines would bring only limited financial benefit to Vietnam, which plans to export most of the alumina.

Exploitation of natural resources - notably for coffee production - has already provoked violent clashes in the Central Highlands, home to the ethnic minority Christian Montagnards who have battled land confiscation and religious persecution.

I think it is of paramount importance that Chinalco, Alcoa, and the Vietnamese government address the concerns surrounding the mines in a meaningful and strategic way prior to breaking ground. The government, in concert with the mining companies, must institute proper social and environmental impact assessments and put in place continued monitoring to mitigate ongoing risks. If these projects continue under the status quo, the risk of disruption and possible loss of the corporate license to operate will increase.

Teamster Risk: Chevron Should Evaluate Social Risk

Chevron's annual Board meeting was rocked with protest. From Nigeria to Ecuador to Burma, the protests centered mainly around Chevron's social and environmental impact.

One of the most interesting shareholder resolutions came from the International Brotherhood of Teamsters resolved for Chevron "to disclose the criteria it uses to start and end investments in high-risk countries." The measure received support from more than 25 percent of the shares cast.

The strong show of support for this measure shows both investor concern of social risks stemming from high-risk country investments and specifically Chevron's investment in Burma. The Burmese investment requires a Congressional waiver as it violates US trade sanctions against Burma.

"We're pleased that other Chevron shareholders recognize the enormous legal, financial, political and reputational risks associated with operating in Burma and are demanding increased disclosure on how these decisions are made," said C. Thomas Keegel, General Secretary-Treasurer of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

The Teamsters' proposal essentially requests that Chevron not only disclose the standards it uses to assess high-risk countries but to urge the company to assess all risk - social and otherwise before, during, and after an investment is made.

As we say at my firm; identifying, monitoring and mitigating social risk "raises the stakes for shareholders and the shares of stakeholders."

Al Jazeera Risk: New Target - Multinationals

Al Jazeera is not a stranger to controversy. By far the largest independent network in the Middle East, Al Jazeera yields an enormous influence. Some call Al Jazeera, bin Laden's Network, as they regularly air video and audio recordings from key AQ leadership. Many authoritarian government's in the Middle East find the Network problematic, as an independent media is essential for democratic movements to flourish, and the leaders are worried the reporting loosens their grip on power.

Now Al Jazeera's English channel has a new target - Multinational Companies.

In a special five-part series Al Jazeera charts the rapidly growing number of lawsuits being brought against multi-national corporations.

War crimes, conspiracy, corruption and payments to terrorists are just some of the serious charges that have forced some of the world's largest companies to hire high-profile defence lawyers to defend their name in cases often brought by plaintiffs who are barely literate.

Corporations on Trial reveals a growing anxiety about the power and influence of big business.

Today many multinational corporations have annual revenues greater than some countries' national budgets; governments are increasingly held to ransom by their economic power.

Around the world, ordinary people are asking how many more times their interests should be sacrificed for corporate greed and shareholder profit.

Asking how, in other words, can the world's multinationals be kept in check.

Here are the first three reports. They are fascinating.

Delta Risk: Nigeria takes cue from Sri Lanka

The Nigerian government is upping the ante with a new military strategy in the oil rich Niger Delta region against militant fighters. Similar in strategy to the Sri Lankan onslaught of the Tamil Tigers this past month, Nigeria's Joint Task Force (JTF) of hundreds of elite soldiers were sent on May 13 to destroy the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND).

In response, MEND, has claimed responsibility for yesterday's attack on the Chevron pipeline in Abiteye. Chevron was forced to shut production by 100,000 barrels per day of crude as a precautionary measure to ensure the protection of people and the environment.

But Sunday's attack by the militants was their first major strike against oil and gas installations since they came under superior gunfire of the JTF 14 days ago. And we can expect the attacks to become more frequent. Earlier today, a Nigerian navy patrol foiled an attempted attack on an offshore oil facility operated by the French oil company Total.

Unrest in the Niger Delta region has reduced Nigeria's daily output to 1.76 million barrels compared with 2.6 million barrels in January 2006.

The attacks on multi-nationals and their assets will continue and will increase over the coming weeks and months. Unfortunately for Nigeria, as is the case with Sri Lanka, the military may claim victory over the rebels but unless the underlying cause is dealt with - and in this case the allocation of resources to the local population - the struggle will continue and the cost of doing business will rise.

Bio-Risk: Alien Species Worsen Poverty and Threaten Agriculture

So-called alien species, species that hop (sometimes literally) from one continent to another, are impoverishing nations, threatening agriculture and destroying biodiversity in developing countries.

"The livelihoods for 90 percent of people in Africa directly rely on natural resources such as marine coastal biodiversity," said Ahmed Djoghlaf, executive secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

Alien species are plant, animal, insect and other species that have been introduced outside of their natural habitats. They have become one of the two or three major drivers behind the current extinction crisis.

Today, one in four mammals is on the verge of extinction. Of the 44,838 species catalogued by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 38 percent are on their way out. Currently, one species goes extinct every three hours.

And at least 40 percent of all animal extinctions, for which the cause is known, are the result of invasive species.

This is pretty scary. The effect of invasive alien plant and animal species on global biodiversity, especially as the climate is rapidly changing, could be catastrophic.  

In response, the topic of today's United Nations’ International Day for Biological Diversity (IDB) is invasive alien plant species (IAS).

Increasing globalisation has led to greater movement of new species around the world. It is important that the global community work together to track alien species and to develop strategies to combat the risks they bring.

Labor Risk: Jordan Passes Progressive Migrant Labor Law

The Jordanian Labor Ministry approved a new version of the Labor Law, which aims to better regulate and protect non-Jordanian migrant workers while creating new jobs for Jordanians.

The draft law allows guest workers to join trade unions and penalises employment agencies that violate the new regulations. This is great news as it is the first law that will allow migrant workers to switch employers without fear of deportation. 

Under the new draft, workers' rights will be made clear for non-Arab workers in their native language in order to acquaint them with their rights before signing employment contracts with local establishments, provided that the contracts are drafted in line with the Social Security Corporation system.

The amended draft law entitles non-Jordanian workers to subscribe to relevant trade unions under certain conditions. In addition, it introduces special regulations with regard to collective negotiations between workers and employers over improvements of the workers’ conditions.

King Abdullah of Jordan has called for the creation of a socio-economic council comprising representatives of employers, employees, civil society institutions and the public sector to offer advice on effective steps that can be taken to enhance the situation of the Kingdom's laborers.

India Risk: Elections, Business, and Indigenous Rights

Elections in India are finally over. After 445 million votes cast - (wow!!!) - the Election Commission announced the outcome this past weekend and the results were stunning. The Indian National Congress won over 200 seats, which means that for the first time since the 1960s, a single party will be able to form a government in Delhi without coalition allies.

The election is a major set-back for India's Left and promises to herald a new era for a so-called "business-friendly" government. The Congress’ spokesperson, Jairam Ramesh, explained to the New York Times that economic reform will be in store as “the Left will not have a stranglehold. There will be better cohesion on economic policy. Right now, the priority is to restore high economic growth.”

Days later, we are already seeing results. The Indian Stock Market jumped 15%. Goldman Sachs put it this way:

"The election results are almost a best case scenario for the markets. There was a fear that an unstable government would ensue with a motley coalition, or that the eventual government would include the market-unfriendly Left parties. Such fears have now been alleviated. The decisive result leading to a stable coalition, the removal of months of uncertainty, the concentration of power and ministries within one party leading to better co-ordination, the feel-good factor, and the enhanced status of the top leadership suggest to us that this government is better placed than most in carrying out structural reforms."

This does not bode well for India's activists, who in recent years have successfully campaigned against major multi-nationals demanding fair land utilization and respect for indigenous rights.

Just this week after a five year struggle by tribal people, the Indian government has given the go ahead for a controversial open-pit mine for bauxite (a raw form of aluminum) planned by UK company Vedanta, which threatens to destroy a sacred mountain that is the ancestral home to thousands of people.

This could lead to disaster if Vedanta merely takes the go-ahead by the government without working with the indigenous inhabitants surrounding the mine. As I suggested in a previous post, Vedanta should: Respect and protect the cultural and political integrity of the Kondha people; Obtain the informed consent of the Kondha people in relation to issues that affect them; and Ensure rights-based benchmarks are used to measure and monitor practices.

The Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues opened its eighth annual session this week "aimed at finding ways to further implement the landmark 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People." The session hopes to look at the relationship between indigenous peoples and industrial corporations and the need to promote corporation social responsibility.

The United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) reports from today's session:

RACHEL DAVIS, who spoke on behalf of John Ruggie, the Secretary-General's Special Representative on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, said that in 2008, the Special Representative had proposed a policy framework to advance the business and human rights agenda. It rested on three pillars, the first of which was the State duty to protect ‑‑ a principle grounded in international human rights law. While most States had adopted human rights standards, there was still considerable legal and policy incoherence at the domestic and international levels. The Special Representative had urged Governments to drive the business and human rights agenda into those areas.

She said the second pillar ‑‑ the corporate responsibility to respect rights ‑‑ was based on the near-universal recognition that companies should not infringe on the rights of others. Companies should put in place a process of ongoing "human rights due diligence" to prevent and mitigate adverse human rights impacts. The third pillar ‑‑ the rights of affected individuals and communities ‑‑ would be meaningless without access to effective remedy. For States, that meant enforcing corporate compliance with laws and standards. For companies, that meant enacting operational-level grievance mechanisms.

To operationalize the framework, the Special Representative urged a better understanding of indigenous peoples' experiences, she said. States had duties to protect indigenous rights under regional and international human rights treaties, and he had noted guidance provided by relevant human rights bodies on how State duties could operate in the context of corporate-related abuse. Regarding the corporate responsibility to respect, he had consistently said that in projects affecting indigenous peoples, companies should consider additional standards specific to those communities. Throughout his mandate, he had sought to adopt an evidence-based consultative approach. The global community was in the early phases of adapting the human rights regime to provide more effective protection to people against corporate-related harm. The proposed framework provided a common platform for advancing the business and human rights agenda.

The Ruggie Framework is a game-changer!

Genetic Risk: Corporate Ownership of Genes?

Slate's new (AWESOME) web magazine Double X ran a fantastic article by Rebecca Skloot, "Enough with Patenting the Breast Cancer Gene."

To date, about 20 percent of the human genome has been patented, including genes for Alzheimer’s, asthma, colon cancer, and perhaps most famously, breast cancer. This means pharmaceutical companies, scientists and universities control what research can be done on those genes, and how much resulting therapies and diagnostic tests will cost. That is why, three years ago, a woman named Genae Girard couldn’t get a second opinion on a test showing she carried the breast cancer genes. Her doctor couldn’t help her, because Myriad Genetics holds the patent on the genes, and forbids other doctors or companies from testing for them.

This week, the ACLU, several breast cancer survivors, and professional groups representing more than 150,000 scientists, sued Myriad Genetics over their breast cancer gene patents. Those genes, mutated forms of BRCA1 and BRCA2, are responsible for most cases of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. They’re also very lucrative, because Myriad has created something of a monopoly. It charges $3,000 per test, which often isn’t covered by insurance. No one else can offer the test, and researchers can’t develop new or cheaper ones (or new therapies for that matter) unless they get permission from Myriad and pay a steep licensing fee. So women have no choice about who performs their tests, and they can’t seek those second opinions. That is no small thing. Tests aren’t 100 percent accurate, and results sometimes come back inconclusive. Women with the BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations have a 40 to 85 percent chance of developing breast cancer, so a positive result helps them decide whether to have their breasts and ovaries removed to prevent future cancer. But with its lawsuit, the ACLU isn’t just fighting Myriad’s patent—it hopes to end the practice of gene patenting entirely on the grounds that it’s illegal, unconstitutional, and interfering with science

Keep reading, it's fascinating.

Trafigura Risk: From Oil for Food to Toxic Waste to Iran

The Guardian UK has uncovered documents, which detail for the first time the potentially lethal nature of toxic waste dumped by Trafigura along the Ivory Coast.

Trafigura, a company founded in 1993, specialises in trading base metals as well as energy (including oil). With equity in excess of US$2bn with a turnover last year of US$73bn, it operates in 36 countries in Europe and North, Central, and South America, as well as in the Middle and Far East.

More than 30,000 people from Ivory Coast claim they were affected by the poisonous cocktail and are currently bringing Britain's biggest-ever group lawsuit against the company.

This is the second major case stemming from the dumping. The first took place in Côte d'Ivoire and in 2008, in response to the deaths of 10 people, Trafigura paid €152 million to Côte d'Ivoire in compensation. The payment exonerated Trafigura from further legal proceedings in Côte d'Ivoire but not overseas.

Trafigura is not new to controversy as it was named in the Oil-for-Food Scandal having topped off its ships after UN Monitors had signed off.

And if that weren't enough - Trafigura is about to be sanctioned by the U.S. Government. The Iran Diplomatic Enhancement Act, which has a bipartisan group of more than 20 co-sponsors, would extend current sanctions to include suppliers, brokers, insurers and tankers carrying gasoline to Iran. Nearly all of Iran’s imported gasoline is provided by five European companies – the Swiss firm Vitol, the Swiss/Dutch firm Trafigura, the French firm Total, the Swiss firm Glencore, and British Petroleum – and the Indian firm Reliance.