'Economic progress' in Cambodia compromises human rights

Telegraph.co.uk

By: Peter Frankental
Feb 11, 2009

What price "progress"? It is a question that has plagued politicians for generations. Do government policies which aim to create jobs and stimulate economic growth make some abuses of people's rights along the way acceptable?

Amnesty International's line is solid. Economic progress is fine with one caveat - human rights should never be compromised. Every company has a responsibility to respect human rights - especially for the people affected by its operations.

A few business leaders have argued that such protections impinge on free trade and competitiveness, but the two need not be at odds. Indeed Amnesty International has been working hard for years with a number of states, multinationals and global bodies to show the benefits of adopting a human rights approach to business.

Companies from Unilever to Sony and from Nokia to GlaxoSmithKline now have a human rights dimension in their codes of conducts.

Meanwhile, here in the UK we now have the Corporate Manslaughter Act - the result of concern that companies were not being held accountable for their negligence, even when this resulted in injuries and deaths

The problem is that a large number of companies and countries still have a lot of catching up to do. Take the case of a construction and mining company and its collaboration with the country of Cambodia. It is a collaboration where so-called "economic progress" has led to thousands of residents of Dey Krahom in central Phnom Penh losing their homes.

The incident centres around the ownership of the land. The company 7NG say it belongs to them, having struck a deal with the local authorities back in 2005. However, they failed to inform or consult the villagers about the change in ownership. And the whole matter is further complicated by the villagers' own strong claims to the land under Cambodia's 2001 Land Laws - claims which have been routinely ignored by the authorities.

But the bottom line is that irrespective of who does or does not own the land, the abuse of human rights that followed is unacceptable.

On 24 January this year, 7NG, supported by the Phnom Penh authorities, forcibily evicted 152 poor urban families in Dey Krahom.

At around 3am, an estimated 250 police, military police and workers hired by 7NG blocked access to the community before dispersing the population with tear gas and threats of violence.

Three hours later bulldozers moved in and levelled the village, while officials from the Phnom Penh municipality looked on. Some of the families were not able to retrieve belongings from their homes before the demolition, and a vast majority of them were left with nowhere to go and no adequate compensation afterwards.

Can this be called "progress"?

The two sides had been in dialogue about a compensation package and seemed to be edging closer to a settlement. The talks stalled in early January and the forced eviction followed within days.

Since then only 30 of the families have been offered alternative accommodation by the authorities and even that is over 10 miles from the city centre where most of them work as street vendors. The housing in the new site also has no clean water, no electricity, sewerage or basic services.

Sadly, this story is not an isolated one. Forced evictions are one of the most widespread human rights violations in Cambodia, and those affected are almost exclusively marginalised people living in poverty, in both urban and rural areas.

In 2008, at least 27 mass forced evictions affecting over 20,000 people were reported in the media and by local organisations. Some of these were made homeless; others were relocated to inadequate resettlement sites with poor infrastructure, lacking basic amenities including sanitation, and with very limited access to work opportunities.

Last year, 150,000 Cambodians were known to live at risk of being forcibly evicted in the wake of land disputes, land grabbing, and agro-industrial and urban redevelopment projects.

It is a similar tale across South East Asia and beyond.

If "progress" is to be made then the business world needs to begin to open its eyes to the communities it operates in and acknowledge their responsibilities to uphold fundamental human rights.

If some companies can do this in some countries, then why not all companies everywhere? Isn't it time for the business community to demand a level-playing field, where all companies are required to operate within a framework of acceptable standards? Otherwise those companies and states that abuse human rights will gain a competitive advantage. This is a nettle that needs to be grasped by business and government alike.