Anglo-American
Mining's Zim Deal Questioned,
Global Compact "Should Pay Attention," UNICEF Demos
Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of
Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis
UNITED NATIONS,
July 9 -- As the UK and others push
to impose UN sanctions on Zimbabwe, a divergence of views has emerged
about the
propriety of investing under the Robert Mugabe government. In light of the $400 million investment in
Zimbabwe by Anglo-American Mining, Inner City Press asked the UK's
Ambassador
to the UN John Sawers if such investment is helpful. "I don't think
major
decisions at this time can be made about the future of Zimbabwe," he
said,
adding that "I think most private sector investors will recognize
that." Video here,
from Minute 4:36.
But
UK-based
Anglo-American Mining apparently does not agree. Since the
company's CEO, Sir
Mark Moody-Stuart, is the chairman of the Foundation for the UN Global
Compact,
Inner City Press asked the UN's second highest official, Asha Rose
Migiro, what
approach to investing in Zimbabwe the Compact, and Anglo-American
Mining, ought
to take. "We hope they will give attention to the suffering," she
said. When Inner City Press asked for clarification, she added that
"the
Global Compact does look into these issues," saying that the idea
behind
the Compact "is to have rules and standards... they should pay
attention
to." Video here,
from Minute 11:55.
But is the
Global Compact paying attention? Does Anglo-American have any human
rights
standards for its investments in Zimbabwe?
Asha Rose Migiro on July 8, Global
Compact and Anglo-American responses on Zim still not shown
Inner City Press on the morning of
July 8 asked the director and spokesman of the Compact, "can the
Compact and / or Sir Mark Moody-Stuart comment on deadline on
investment in
Zimbabwe, if and how it is justified, what safeguards should be in
place, and
what would trigger a decision to disinvest or pull back?" At 8:30 that night, the spokesman replied
that he would "have to get back to you tomorrow on this. But
will
check if Sir Mark wishes to respond."
Apparently
Sir Mark and Anglo-American do not wish to respond. By close of
business on the following day, still no explanation had been
provided.
Elsewhere
in the UN
system, UNICEF put out a statement that it has avoided twenty
partnerships this
year with businesses which are legal but which don't fit UNICEF's
standards. When Inner City Press asked
for the names of these business, or even just one of them, the request
was
denied. The idea is that UNICEF did not make the statement in order to
shame
any particular business. But then why make the statement, and use the
number
twenty? A generic example was given, of an alcohol manufacturer being
turned
down by UNICEF since it is an organization for children. (On that,
UNICEF has
also clarified to Inner City Press as reflected below that, contrary to
claims
by an Italian minister, it never signed off on the fingerprinting of
Roma
children.) But would UNICEF partner with Anglo America Mining /
Zimbabwe? All
answers will appear on this site when they are received. For now,
here's UNICEF
on Roma:
Q Please comment on --
deny? -- the reports that Italian
minister Maroni has said that UNICEF's
representative approves
of a plan to
require the fingerprinting of Roma children in Italy.
A: "UNICEF does not support
the fingerprinting of Roma children in Italy. At
a meeting with UNICEF's National Committee
representatives, Italy's Minister Maroni told UNICEF that
fingerprinting will
be used only as a last resource, and that other means of identifying
children
were under discussion. UNICEF's Italian National Committee has
committed to
monitoring how the planned census of Roma communities is carried out
and to
monitor measures introduced by Italy to protect and promote the rights
of Roma
children."
-Chris de Bono, Chief of Media, UNICEF
Watch this site.
And this --
|