Explanatory note.-This paragraph focuses on the situation often present where trade unions of a country have to deal with management having only limited powers. 45. As a rule, at least one host country national is to have a seat on the management board of a firm that is part of a multinational enterprise. 46. Enterprises are to inform and consult with workers in good time on matters affecting them. In the event of mass layoffs, workers are to have an important voice in drawing up the labour phase-out plans. Enterprises involved in mergers are to guarantee retention of pension and other acquired rights. In cases of industrial labour disputes, operations carried out in some parts and branches of an enterprise are not to be taken over by other parts or branches of the same enterprise in order to thwart the legitimate and legal objectives of workers. 47. Multinational enterprises are to recognize trade unions, workers' bargaining units, direct representatives of the staffs (work councils), or other duly constituted workers' organizations as contractual partners in negotiations on wage agreements and the fixing of work conditions of the workers employed in a firm. Steps are to be taken to establish the framework for internationally valid collective bargaining agreements. 48. Multinational enterprises are to observe national and local employment and industrial relations laws, standards, and practices. 49. Multinational enterprises are to avoid discrimination on the basis of sex, age, religion, race, ethnic or national origin, or political activity. 50. Firms are to provide jobs in the host country for host country citizens. Local nationals are to have seats on the management bodies of firms or subsidiaries. TECHNOLOGY 51. Multinational enterprises are to add to local scientific and technological capabilities and are to permit the dissemination of technological know-how on reasonable terms. PERNICIOUS POLITICAL ACTIVITIES 52. Multinational enterprises shall not make or be solicited to make payments in money or other items of value to host government officials, other than for manifest public purposes. Multinational enterprises shall not contribute to political parties or candidates in any way unless such contributions are lawful and details on the amounts and beneficiaries are disclosed in a timely manner. Explanatory note.-This provision is aimed at preventing multinational enterprises from attempting to exercise undue influence over host country policies. 53. Governments are to adopt strong penalties for violations of the foregoing prohibition. Penalties may include any of the following: denial of a business tax deduction for any such unlawful payments; heavy fines and/or prison sentences, and the denial of normal business tax treatment and benefits to any business income connected with such unlawful payments. 54. Member governments which have concluded an international agreement covering pernicious political activities are to assume an active role in sharing with other governments involved any information they have on any such activity perpetrated by officials of an enterprise or by government officials. Wednesday, September 22, 1976 SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION SESSION II. POLITICAL DISCUSSION (Working Documents by Mr. Hougardy, Mr. Crane, Mr. Fraser, Mr. Broeksz, Mr. Schuijt, Mr. Stewart)1 General Theme: "How can the United States and the European Community, through political and economic relations. with other countries, try to promote democratic development. and respect for human rights?" Mr. Findley welcomed Mr. Georges Spénale, President of the European Parliament. Mr. Spénale informed members about the important decision of the Council of the EC of September 20, 1976, concerning direct elections to the European Parliament to be held in May/June 1978. He underlined the historic importance of this long awaited step toward European integration. "The European Parliament is from now on a parliamentary assembly in transition preparing the structure for the growing tasks of the future," he said. Summarizing his prepared paper, Mr. Hougardy emphasized that if the United States and EC are confident that democracy provides the best guarantee of human rights, that belief should be reflected in external economic policy. In an interdependent world, however, political differences should not be allowed to disrupt trade. Economic development assistance should not be confined only to loyal allies but also to countries critical of Western society provided they demonstrate a commitment to human rights. Where there seems to be a reasonable chance of success, economic pressure might be used towards achieving the release of political prisoners as well as the furthering of emigration for example. The United States and EC could encourage progress towards democracy by showing that they were generous in economic relations with poor countries and that they were able to adapt readily to changes in the world economy. NEW ORGANIZATION PROPOSED Mr. Crane, in a discussion paper entitled "Promoting Free Institutions in the Postwar World: The U.S. Role," proposed the formation of an Association of Freedom-Loving Nations, organizationally patterned along the line of the Council of Europe but with a worldwide geographic base. Characterizing the United Nations as an ineffective and unacceptable vehicle for promoting democracy, Mr. 1 See pp. 25-42. Crane suggested the Association as an alternative with a more restricted membership. It would be committed to the promotion of human rights and limited self-government and support of the free world against the forces of communism. There would be two categories of membership: full membership for nations with a proven record of guaranteeing individual rights; and associate membership for those nations who do not meet the requirements for full membership but which are nonaggressive and anti-Communist. Mr. Fraser referred to his prepared paper as background material and distributed two additional sheets-a record of congressionally initiated legislative acts concerning human rights in U.S. foreign policy, and eight proposals for promotion of human rights for the European Parliament and U.S. Congress. He then made several points: In the present-day lexicon of international policies, the term "democratic government" cannot be equated with the concept of full enjoyment of human rights. In a number of non-Communist one-party states, for example, there are strong limitations on free expression. The United States and EC cannot presume to instruct these nations on democracy, since this can develop only through an evolutionary process. The United States and EC can, however, demonstrate to them that democracy can work and help them build their economies so that nationhood can survive. GRADATIONS IN HUMAN RIGHTS There are gradations of human rights with some rights more widely accepted than others, such as rights against torture, arbitrary arrest and unreasonably prolonged detention. Many governments are willing to concede that they place restrictions on press freedom, for example, but none will admit to the practice of torture. This at least shows that they regard torture as an unacceptable practice in the world, even though they may engage in it themselves. Congressional efforts have set guidelines for U.S. policy which concentrate on such fundamental violations. The United States and EC should work together with others to reach common views as to how to proceed in protecting these fundamental human rights. He referred to the list of eight proposals he had distributed and made specific mention of two: a proposal for an international parliamentarians' newsletter on human rights for the exchange of information and coordination of parliamentary efforts in defense of human rights worldwide; and a proposal for facilitating active cooperation among democratic political parties by convening an annual world continuance on human rights, and establishing a permanent secretariat. Regarding the latter proposal, he reported that meetings have been held among some of the major world organizations of democratic parties, and that another meeting is scheduled for December 4 in New York for the purpose of planning the first world conference in spring, 1977. He also proposed establishing some kind of international protective organization for parliamentarians who fall victim to government repression. EXAMPLES OF GREECE Mr. Broeksz complimented Mr. Fraser's statement, voicing agreement with its emphasis on the worst violations against the person. He asserted that one must be willing to pay, economically, if one is to fight violation of human rights, and noted that the EC had indeed done so in the case of Greece under the military junta when the EC "froze" the implementation of economic agreements with Greece. He expressed the hope that by concentrating on a few of the worst human rights violations, more progress might be achieved. He laid special emphasis on the necessity of fighting against the application of torture in Chile, Argentine and Uruguay. Mr. Stewart noted that although many nonalined nations suspect that industrial democracies are latently racist because of policies in southern Africa, the western democracies should not be shy proclaiming their democratic convictions. Next year's Belgrade conference to review the progress of the Helsinki agreements might be a good opportunity to contrast these democracies' adherence to human rights with the double standard employed by repressive governments who criticize the democracies in international forums such as the United Nations. REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH He argued for efforts by the industrial democracies to bring about a redistribution of the world's wealth through increasing aid and trade. He emphasized importance of a settlement for majority rule in Rhodesia, and in response to points made by Mr. Crane, asserted that Rhodesia is an opportunity for the free world nations to promote freedom. Speaking in more general terms Mr. Stewart stressed the need for joint action by parliamentarians on both sides of the Atlantic to put pressure on their governments to act in these areas. Mr. Schuijt proposed that for the next meeting, a joint U.S.-EC text be prepared on the promotion of human rights and democracy and that as of now we should start talking of practical problems. The text, to be worked out by four or five American and European Parliamentarians should contain specific proposals for both the long and short term. He generally agreed with the Fraser proposals, noting that while they cover action by parliamentarians, political parties and governments, perhaps the possibility for most rapid action is in parliaments. AN APPROPRIATE THEME Mr. Cousté said that emphasis on human rights and democracy is a most suitable theme for the 10th U.S. Congress-European Parliament meeting. Human rights should not be viewed in theoretical terms, but must be considered in the political and economic context. First of all, Europeans and Americans must insure that human rights are respected in their own countries, and that whatever sacrifices may be made for European union, that union must always protect and promote freedom; nor should Eastern Europe be forgotten-the Soviets fear freedom in Europe. 79-069-77-5 He complimented Mr. Fraser's proposals and the example set by the U.S. Congress in international human rights legislation. The Helsinki agreements should not be ignored, but should be a permanent point of reference. The proposals made by Mr. Fraser should be followed up by the European Parliament. Mr. Nolan expressed the hope that Secretary Kissinger's diplomacy in southern Africa would succeed and signal a reversal of the American tendency to spend great efforts on security but not enough on democracy. He spoke favourably of Mr. Fraser's proposals but hoped that success against the worst violations of human rights would not divert attention from other violations. He judged that military aid could only support continued repression in offending régimes, and that such aid should be opposed for these cases. He discussed the possibilities of and limits to politicoeconomic boycotts, and considered that such action could be effective when carried out with the support of international organizations such as the United Nations, and the support of regional groups such as the European Community. He asked which rights should we seek to protect, and how should we determine when these rights have been violated. He agreed with Mr. Broeksz's suggestions, and supported efforts to protect human rights worldwide, not only by moral leadership but also by practical actions. Mr. Johnson pointed out the differences between diplomatic relations, support and intervention, and cautioned against acting as if "we are God's chosen children." THE SECURITY DILEMMA Mr. Solarz spoke on the dilemma between security interests and the defense of human rights. If the survival of a régime is not vital to the West, then it should be isolated politically and economically, but if its survival is vital to the West then some special leverage should be used. He noted that the impact of leverage on human rights practices is often limited and the United States does not have a record of effectiveness. He cited South Korea as a particular dilemma, and stressed military balance of power considerations in human rights questions. Geopolitical interests, he said, sometimes need the support of repressive regimes. Mr. Jahn welcomed the Fraser proposals, stressed the need for joint action by the Western democracies, both in general and specifically in regard to implementation of the Helsinki agreements. He urged that there be a group to report regularly on human rights for the meetings of the European Parliament and U.S. Congress. He specifically treated the aspect of the implementation of "basket III," of the Helsinki agreements and expressed his deep concern about the state of affairs in this field. [Discussion continues next day.] |