« ÎnapoiContinuă »
-(a) fill responsible posts without discrimination as to nationality (p. 4), (b) fill posts as far as possible from the local labour force (p. 5) and (c) implement a nondiscriminatory employment policy (p. 6) -respect the right of employees to be represented by trade unions, etc. (p. 5) -comply with the standards of employment observed in the host country (p. 5)
-in the event of closures give employees' representatives adequate notice (p. 5)
-in the event of labour dis-
-enterprises should adapt their activities to the scientific policies of the host country and ensure the rapid diffusion of technologies; when granting licenses, they should do so on reasonable terms (p. 6)
IX. Harmful political activities
-it should be possible either for the management of a firm to negotiate independently with the trade unions or for negotiations to be held directly with the central management (para. 44) -firms should provide work for host country nationals and appoint at least one such national to serve on their management bodies (paras. 45 and 50); there must be no discrimination as regards recruitment (para. 49)
-workers must be informed and
consulted in good time on all matters affecting them (para. 46) -workers must be informed and
consulted in good time on all matters affecting them (para 46) -in the event of mass layoffs workers must be given a say in drawing up the labour phaseout plans; workers must be guaranteed retention of acquired rights in the event of mergers (para. 46)
-broadly similar (para. 46)
unlawful payments and any im
proper involvement in local polit
ical activities (p. 4)
-MNES should add to the scientific and technological capabilities of the host country and permit the dissemination of technological know-how on reasonable terms (para. 51)
-unlawful payments to government officials or political organizations (other than contributions which are lawful and details of which are published) must be prohibited; governments must impose stiff penalities for violations of this prohibition and encourage mutual exchanges of information (paras. 52 to 54).
Wednesday, July 13, 1977, Morning
IV. CLOSING PLENARY SESSION
EXCHANGE OF VIEWS WITH MR. FRANK JUDD, UNITED KINGDOM MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
Mr. Zagari opened the session at 0945 by welcoming the Minister and offering him the floor.
Mr. Judd began by noting the recent recognition of international interdependence, and the realinement of views among the developed and developing countries. At recent international conferences such as UNCTAD IV at Nairobi, the Conference on International Economic Cooperation, or the North-South Dialogue in Paris, the unity of less developed countries (LDC's) views had not been fragmented.
The second fundamental change in world relations had been OPEC's new role: no countries had suffered more from the oil price rises than the energy deficient LDC's. Yet they saw this new role of OPEC states in world politics as a change for the better.
Industrialized countries should recognize these important shifts and made basic deceisions concerning their relations with LDC's accordingly.
As a passionate believer in open democracy, Mr. Judd said he welcomed current preoccupations with the protection of human rights. LDC's however said that without basic economic rights-enough food to live there could be no human rights. Furthermore we should not be concerned only with the living, but also with the rights of those as yet unborn. We must consider our current bequests-nuclear energy and radioactive waste, for example—and what steps we should take to help the future generations.
In thanking Mr. Judd for his opening words Mr. Zagari noted the vital importance of more frequent consultation between nations.
U.S. AID TO BOLIVIA
Mr. Prescott raised the issue of U.S. aid to Bolivia, which he saw as a test case for the human rights oriented policy of the present U.S. administration.
Mr. Glinne asked about United States and United Kingdom policies concerning majority rule in South Africa.
Mr. Gibbons commented that the U.S. influence in Latin America had waned. A major problem in that part of the world was the paucity of resources in face of the population explosion. Wealth distribution had hardly changed. Education policies had not succeeded. Governments had been ineffective. What could be done?
Mr. Fithian questioned the current United States and Canada uranium supply situation.
Mr. Johnston felt that human and economic rights were linked but that the protection of human rights and authoritarianism were irreconcilable. The less developed countries needed an authoritarian structure, some argued, so that economic development could take place. Human rights were restricted. What could be done?
DIRECT EP ELECTIONS
Mr. Berkhouwer asked a question concerning direct election legislation in the United Kingdom. He felt that the United Kingdom would suffer general opprobrium if the elections were delayed by the United Kingdom. He raised the matter of electoral systems for the first directly elected Parliament and the dangers of the first-past-the-post system. He hoped for a fairer electoral system. He drew the meeting's attentions to the positive speech United Kingdom Foreign Secrtary Dr. David Owen had made on the previous Monday, and he welcomed his remarks on CAP. He was impatient that the truth be told to the British public on the benefits they enjoyed from the CAP. Mr. Johnston was concerned that in the debate on human rights and détente the human rights situations in allies' countries were not as carefully examined as those in other countries.
Mr. Lange suggested that the United States and the EC should press for a worldwide energy policy, including the less developed countries. But poverty would not be eliminated by distributing the industrialized world's wealth. This would merely make everyone poor. Public opinion was less in favor now of giving aid to the poorer nations. But opportunities existed to insure all countries of the world were able to claim equal and just distribution of the wealth from the sea in the Law of the Sea Conference.
The United States should avoid committing the error of the European colonizers; if economic existence was not guaranteed then there could be no guarantees on the protection of human rights.
Mr. Normanton commented that there had been three significant omissions from Mr. Judd's opening remarks:
1. There had been no reference to the recent growth of Soviet imperialism, of Soviet military might, which had been financed by loans and trade with the West.
2. No mention was made of the divisions which rent the industrialized Western world.
3. No support was specifically tendered to the liberalization of world trade.
Mr. Judd then replied to these questions. He began by remarking that human rights must always be a factor to be considered in development aid programs. But in deciding which countries merited most aid, pragmatic judgments had to be made according to its likely effect on the population and so on. Decisions could not be decided in principle without regard to the possible recipient country's situations.
An active positive diplomatic dialog was necessary if any aid program was to be effective. This was no rationalization for inaction. Some projects were so important that in countries where there was a move back to the "dark ages", some economic reaction was necessary to make the point that human rights were crucial.
SOUTH AFRICA DISCUSSED
Regarding South Africa Mr. Judd asked whether it was cynical to sit back and do little. We wished to avoid provoking the spread of Communist influence in South Africa. To Mr. Gibbons' comments he said that there was a need for an effective international strategy on population to avoid counter-productive reaction. He commented that Latin America had suffered benign neglect and the first keys to the puzzle were those who lived there. The United Kingdom was unable to decide for those living in Northern Ireland for instance. Those concerned had to do it themselves.
He added that there were problems of defining human rights and discussing them at the European Summits, but the EC had some success in their political cooperation with the less developed countries. In answer to Mr. Fithian's query about Canadian uranium supplies Mr. Judd said that it was a critical time for the EC. An active discussion was taking place on the use of radio active materials for peaceful purposes. It was vital to strike the right balance.
Answering Mr. Berkhouwer's comments he said that the United Kingdom was not the only Member State with representational problems. Proportional representation also had disadvantages.
The common agricultural policy was as yet imperfect and it was essential that the rights of the consumer were given greater emphasis. Finally he returned to the question of human rights, saying that there was a need for a clear statement by President Carter on the substance of human rights protection, and the results of his policy would judge its appropriateness.
He concluded by suggesting that the enlargement of the Community with the accession of Greece and Portugal would have a major impact on the Community and also on NATO.
Mr. Judd thanked Mr. Zagari for the opportunity of taking part in the meeting.
DEVELOPMENT AID POLICIES
Lord Bruce began by saying that the most important problem they had to discuss at present was the relationship between the industrial countries and the developing world. The economic crisis was affecting the developing world so seriously that what was really needed now was a program comparable to "lend-lease" and Marshall aid.
Mr. Baas agreed that this question was of the utmost importance and said that he felt that the EEC did not succeed in properly directing its development aid policy. He saw certain technological developments as potential threats to humanity, for example, increased radiation could lead to cell mutation. The United States and Europe together had to reflect where to direct their development aid; it had to have a sound economic basis. Marshall aid after all had affected countries where undoubted potential already existed. He considered that the next agenda should include further discussion of this whole matter.
Mr. Glinne noted that during the North/South dialog a spokesman for President Carter had said that the United States wanted to double the money it made avaliable to Third World countries. At the moment, U.S. official development aid amounted to only 0.3 percent of its GNP,