NDORSEMENT REQUESTED BY AUG 17th.


Dear Friends,

Here is the text of a letter we sent to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan
on
July 25th, one day before he re-launched the Global Compact with some 50

CEOs by his side. The letter is based on the just released initial list
of
44 companies joining the Global Compact and the new Guidelines for
Cooperation between the UN and business community. It urges the SG to
reassess the Global Compact with corporations and his overall approach
to
corporate partnerships.

We are hoping for your endorsement of this letter by August 17th, so we
can
count you in on the list of endorsers in time for materials we are
preparing for the Millennium Summit Sept. 6 - 8.

If you want to see who signed the letter so far, you can visit
www.corpwatch.org/un

Please direct your reply to [log in to unmask] Please include your

name, title, organization's name, and country.

Thanks,

Kenny Bruno


July 25th, 2000

Mr. Secretary General,


On July 20th, a number of us wrote asking you to re-assess the Global
Compact and to join us in a "Citizens Compact." We are writing again
today
to express our shock upon learning the identities of the corporate
partners
for the Global Compact and our disappointment in the "Guidelines for
Cooperation Between the United Nations and the Business Community."

In the July 20th letter, we expressed concern that the UN is endorsing a

specific vision of corporate-led globalization that is opposed by many
sectors of civil society. We also suggested that the purely voluntary
nature of the Global Compact may distract from the need for a legal
framework to hold coporations accountable internationally.

We wrote to you as individuals who care deeply about the United Nations
and
on behalf of organizations that have worked for years to strengthen and
support it.

Now, after reviewing the July 17th Guidelines and the inital list of
companies joining the Global Compact, we believe that the Global Compact

and related partnerships threaten the mission and integrity of the
United
Nations.

Some of the companies in the partnership are simply inappropriate for
partnerships with the United Nations.

Nike, one of the Global Compact partners and an international symbol of
sweatshops and corporate greed, is the target of one of the most active
global campaigns for corporate accountability. The company has made
announcements of changes to its behavior only after enormous public
pressure.  It has also agressively opposed the only union and human
rights-group supported independent monitoring program--the Worker Rights

Consortium (WRC).  CEO Phil Knight withdrew a $30 million donation to
the
University of Oregon after the University joined the WRC.   Nike also
cut
its multimillion dollar contracts with the University of Michigan and
Brown
University after they joined the WRC.  Nike became a sweatshop poster
child
not just through complicity in labor abuses but through active searching

for countries with non-union labor, low wages, and low environmental
standards for its manufacturing operations.  This has made Nike a leader
in
the "race to the bottom" --a trend that epitomizes the negative
tendencies
of corporate-led globalization.

Shell is a corporation with a history of complicity in human rights
abuses,
most infamously in Nigeria. Its operations there are also notorious for
environmental contamination and double standards. Shell has adopted
sophisticated rhetoric about its social responsibilities, but it has not

shown understanding, let alone remorse, about its own role. For example,
on
its website, Shell posts a photograph of a pro-Ogoni rally, without
acknowledging that the Ogoni people's protests have been against Shell
itself.

BP Amoco is another company with sophisticated rhetoric on environmental

and social issues. But their actions do not measure up. CEO John Browne
admits that climate change is a problem for any oil company, yet his
company continues to search for oil and gas even in remote and pristine
regions, while investments in renewable energy are a pittance compared
with
the size of the corporation and its investments in ongoing fossil fuel
exploration and production.

Rio Tinto Plc is a British mining corporation which has created so many
environment, human rights, and development problems that a global
network
of trade unions, indigenous peoples, church groups, communities and
activists has emerged to fight its abuses. For instance, the company
stands
accused of complicity in or direct violations of environmental, labor
and
human rights in Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Namibia,
Madagascar, the United States and Australia, among others.

Novartis is engaged in an agressive public relations and regulatory
battle
to force consumers and famers to accept genetically engineered food,
without full testing for potential harms and without full access to
information. The behavior of Novartis in the area of genetically
engineered
foods is diametrically opposed to the precautionary principle, one of
the
principles of the Global Compact.

These are but a few of the corporate endorsers of the Global Compact
whose
historical and current core activities run counter to the spirit and the

letter of the Compact itself.

The Guidelines on Cooperation Between the United Nations and the
Business
Community which you issued on July 20th raise a further, related set of
issues.  These guidelines state that "business entities that are
complicit
in human rights abuses...are not eligible for partnership." The
inclusion
of Shell in the Global Compact violates those guidelines.

The Guidelines also state that a "business entity may be authorized to
use
the name and emblem" of the United Nations. As the United Nations
Development Programme has noted, when a company uses the UN logo, "a
mutual
image transfer inevitably takes place."  It is dismaying to contemplate
such an image transfer between Nike, Shell, or Rio Tinto and the UN. The
UN
logo and the Nike swoosh do not belong together.

The Guidelines state that the use of the UN name may only be used when
the
"principal purpose is to show support for the purposes and activities of

the UN..." This guideline does not take into account the modern practice
of
branding, by which a corporation sells it image as much as its
manufactured
products. Nike, one of the Global Compact partners, is a pioneer of
modern
branding. It is obvious that the use of the UN name and logo by
corporations will be not only for short term profit but for the long
term
business goal of positive brand image.  The UN must not become complicit
in
the positive branding of corporations that violate UN principles.

Given that there is no provision for monitoring a corporation's record
in
abiding by UN principles, the Guidelines' modalities for partnerships
are
quite susceptible to abuse. For example, a company with widespread labor
or
environmental violations may be able to join with the UN in a relatively

minor cooperative project, and gain all the benefits of association with

the UN without any responsibilities. The UN would have no way to
determine
whether the company, on balance, is contributing to UN goals or
preventing
their realization.

In short, Mr. Secretary General, the Global Compact partnership and the
Guidelines for Cooperation do not "ensure the integrity and
independence"
of the United Nations. They allow business entities with poor records to

"bluewash" their image by wrapping themselves in the flag of the United
Nations. They favor corporate-driven globalization rather than the
environment, human health, local communities, workers, farmers, women
and
the poor.

Again, we urge you to re-assess the Global Compact and its partners. We
urge you to re-evaluate your overall approach to UN - corporate
partnerships. The mission and integrity of the United Nations are at
stake.

Sincerely,


Kenny Bruno
420 5th St
Brooklyn, NY 11215
ph/fx: 718 832-5434