UN body ends contract with G4S

This posting has 2 items on the Jordanian UNHCR to end its G4S contract, and 2 items on an investigation into G4S’s record on human rights for Palestinian prisoners.

1) EI: Jordan branch of UN agency boycotts Israel prison profiteer G4S, December 3rd;
2) BNC: UNHCR in Jordan no longer contracting with G4S, the British national committee of the BDS movement on the Jordanian decision on G4S;
3) FT: G4S cleared of human rights breach in Israel, June 2015;
4) NCP: Summary of NCP’s response to complaint about G4S from LPHR, this is an extract from the summary of the response to Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights from UK National Contact Point for the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, December 3rd, 2015;

The Jordan BDS group protesting against UN contracts with G4S on Sunday

Jordan branch of UN agency boycotts Israel prison profiteer G4S

Ryan Rodrick Beiler, The Electronic Intifada
December 04, 2015

The Jordanian branch of the UN Refugee Agency is no longer using the services of the British security firm G4S.

The firm has long been targeted by the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement for its involvement in human rights abuses against Palestinians. It provides services to Israeli prisons and checkpoints in the occupied West Bank, where Palestinians are frequently tortured and mistreated.

The decision by the Jordanian branch of the UNHCR, as the refugee agency is known, follows protests in five major cities worldwide last weekend. Activists marked the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People by denouncing the UN’s relationship with G4S.

According to the Palestinian BDS National Committee, the UN has contracts with G4S worth more than $22 million annually.

G4S is complicit in the detention without trial and torture of Palestinian political prisoners, including children. Some 1,800 Palestinians, including 300 children, have been arrested since the beginning of October, the Palestinian prisoner rights group Addameer says.

In recent years, several major institutions have either stopped contracts with or divested funds from the company. These have included the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Columbia University in New York.

BDS activists hailed the latest decision to sever ties with G4S.

“We welcome the announcement of UNHCR in Jordan that it is no longer hiring G4S,” said Yazeed Halaseh, a member of the Jordan BDS group. “G4S is at the heart of Israel’s use of mass incarceration to repress Palestinian opposition to its military occupation and settler colonialism.”

Breaking international law

Despite the move by UNHCR, a number of other UN agencies continue to hold contracts with G4S. These include the children’s fund UNICEF and the United Nations Development Program.

In September, more than 200 Palestinian and international organizations signed a letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon declaring that G4S violates the UN’s code of conduct for procurement.

“By maintaining security systems at Israel’s prisons, G4S assists Israel with its use of mass incarceration to deter Palestinians from protesting against Israel’s violations of international law,” the letter states.

“Through its involvement in prisons inside Israel, G4S is complicit in Israel’s violations of Article 76 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits the transfer of prisoners from occupied territory into the territory of the occupier,” the groups add.

The protest outside the G4S AGM in London 2013, which was also disrupted inside. Photo from Stop G4S

The same letter points out that G4S’s links to abuse are not limited to Palestine. The company faces allegations of labour rights violations in Malawi, Mozambique, South Africa, Uganda, South Korea as well as being linked to prisoner deaths in the UK and elsewhere.

The UN code of conduct on suppliers states that “the UN expects its suppliers to support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights and to ensure that they are not complicit in human rights abuses.”

In 2012, Richard Falk, then a UN special rapporteur on Palestine, issued a report approved by the UN General Assembly that named G4S among international businesses that profit from Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

Falk recommended that G4S and a number of other companies should be boycotted until they brought their “operations into line with international human rights and humanitarian law and standards.”

Sceptical

Falk named G4S among those claiming the desire to end operations that violated the UN Global Compact, a policy initiative for businesses committed to operating in accordance with human rights principles.

In June, it was reported that the UK’s National Contact Point, a government-funded watchdog, “cleared” G4S of direct involvement in human rights abuses.

However, the agency stated there were “adverse human rights impacts” at G4S facilities and locations referred to in the complaint.”

That complaint was filed by Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights. The Financial Times quoted that organization’s director, Tareq Shrourou, as welcoming the agency’s decision as “a starting point for addressing G4S’s involvement in Israel’s serious human rights violations against Palestinians.”

While refusing to admit any wrongdoing, G4S announced last year that it would not renew contracts for prison operations in the West Bank as well as within present-day Israel when those contracts expire in 2017. G4S also claimed that it will end other aspects of its activities in Israeli settlements in the West Bank, all of which are all illegal under international law.

Despite that apparent victory, activists remain sceptical and vigilant.

In a statement to The Electronic Intifada at the time, Addameer’s advocacy officer Randa Wahbe said that “G4S has a long track record of saying one thing but doing another and has not made any formal written statements about when it intends to end its contracts with the Israel Prison Service and other aspects of Israel’s apartheid regime. The campaign against G4S will continue until it actually ends all contracts that support Israel’s military occupation.”

In the meantime, activists will continue to apply pressure to institutions that still hire or invest in G4S.

Ryan Rodrick Beiler is a freelance photojournalist and member of the ActiveStills collective who lives in Oslo, Norway.

UNHCR in Jordan no longer contracting with G4S

By BNC, BDS movement
December 03, 2015

A UN body that has been facing pressure to end its links with security company G4S over its role in Israeli human rights abuses has announced that it no longer has contracts with the company.

G4S has been providing services to UNHCR in Jordan but a spokesperson told a reporter on Monday that the body does not have any contracts with the firm.

The announcement was made following a wave of protests online and at UN offices across 5 major cities over the weekend calling on the UN to end all of its contracts $22m worth of contracts with G4S.

G4S is the target of an international campaign over its role in Israeli prisons and check points and the fact it helps to run an Israeli police academy.

Investigations in September 2014 found G4S guards to be working at UNHCR buildings in Amman and at Syrian refugee camps in Zaatari and Azraq, leading to the start of BDS campaigning on the issue. UN documents show that UNHCR in Jordan had contracts with G4S worth $1.7m in 2014.

Sources familiar with the matter have told campaigners that UNHCR started moving security contracts from G4S to a local company earlier this year.

Other UN bodies including UNICEF, the UNDP and UNOPS still have contracts with the company. More than 200 organisations have called on the UN to bar the organisation from having contracts doing so violates the UN’s procurement code of conduct.

A report by Richard Falk, then a UN special rapporteur on Palestine, calling for a boycott of G4S over its role in Israeli human rights violations was approved by the UN General Assembly in 2012.

The #UNdropG4S campaign has set up a web page that makes it easy for people to write to the UN to voice their concerns and are urging people to join a Thunderclap social media action.

Yazeed Halaseh, member of the Jordan BDS group who campaign against G4S in Jordan, said:

“We welcome the announcement of UNHCR in Jordan that it is no longer hiring G4S. G4S is at the heart of Israel’s use of mass incarceration to repress Palestinian opposition to its military occupation and settler colonialism. We hope that the UN will listen to the thousands of people who are taking action and will end all of its contracts with G4S.”

Reverend Don Wagner, Friends of Sabeel North America, who began investigating the relationship between G4S and the UN in 2014, said:

“We were shocked to discover G4S agents ushering refugees into the UNHCR Amman office in September of 2014. News that this office no longer holds contracts with G4S is refreshing. It builds momentum for the UN as a whole to follow suit and to uphold human rights and human dignity everywhere.”

Rafat Sub Laban from Palestinian prisoner rights group Addameer, who started lobbying the UN on its contracts with G4S in April, said:

Recent weeks have seen a wave of mass arrests by Israeli occupation forces aimed at repressing protests and imposing control and collective punishment on Palestinians in the occupied territory. Since the beginning of October, Israeli occupation forces arrested over 2,050 Palestinians including at least 350 children and over 210 Palestinians including 4 minors who were placed under administrative detention without charge or trial. Many of those who were arrested remain detained by Israel.

These political prisoners are held in prisons and interrogation centres that G4S helps Israel to run, making G4S complicit in Israel’s torture, ill-treatment and administrative detention without charge or trial of Palestinians.

Addameer welcomes this news from UNHCR in Jordan and hopes the UN will now terminate all its contracts with G4S and to distance itself from complicity in human rights violations.

In June 2014, the Gates Foundation divested the whole of its $170m holding in the company as a result of an international campaign.

The US Methodist Church, the largest protestant church in the US, divested from G4S after coalition campaigning brought the issue to a vote.

Universities in Oslo and Bergen refused to give G4S contracts over its role in Israel’s prison system following student campaigns. In the UK, at least 5 student unions have voted to cancel contracts with G4S, and students successfully pressured 2 other universities not to renew contracts with the company. Major charities in South Africa, the Netherlands and elsewhere terminated contracts with G4S

Facing mounting international pressure, G4S announced in 2014 that G4S “did not expect to renew” its contract with the Israeli Prison Service when it expires in 2017, and it has also said it will end some aspects of its involvement in illegal Israeli settlements. BDS activists have said they will continue their campaign until G4S ends all aspects of its support for Israeli violations of international

G4S cleared of human rights breach in Israel

By Gill Plimmer, Financial Times
June 09, 2015

G4S was cleared of causing “adverse human rights impacts” in Israel by a UK government-funded watchdog on Wednesday but was still urged to address its business relationships with the Israeli state.

The National Contact Point said it had found no evidence of any “broad failure by G4S to respect the human rights of people on whose behalf the complaint is made” after a 17-month investigation.
The NCP, part of the Department for Business, is responsible for ensuring the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s standards for the behaviour of multinationals are fulfilled.

It did not recommend that G4S end its relationships with the Israeli government. But it proposed the security company consider “how it may be able to work with business partners in Israel to support action to address adverse impacts referred to in the complaint”.

Protests against G4S are widespread. Place of this one unstated. Photo by Anne Paq/ Active Stills

The complaint by Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights, a charity critical of G4S’s work in the region, covered equipment and services provided by the company in several locations including the West Bank, and at the border between Israel and the Gaza Strip.

The services, carried out under contract for Israeli government agencies and other customers, included tasks such as maintaining and servicing baggage scanning equipment and metal detectors used at checkpoints. G4S has already said it would not seek to renew the contracts in the West Bank or in Israeli prisons when they end in 2017.

But the stance has failed to satisfy the pro-Palestinian campaign groups, which want the company to exit all its contracts for the Israeli government immediately.

Tareq Shrourou, director of the Lawyers for Palestinian Rights, said it welcomed the NCP decision as “a starting point for addressing G4S’s involvement in Israel’s serious human rights violations against Palestinians”.

The investigation shines a spotlight on the murky area of what constitutes ethical practice for multinationals. G4S has been under pressure from pro-Palestinian protesters over its work for the Israeli authorities for several years and faced protests for the fourth year in a row outside its annual general meeting last Thursday.

Debbie Walker, communications director at G4S, said: “G4S will continue to work with customers and business partners to safeguard human rights and ethical standards in line with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and in accordance with best practice.”

In a statement, the Israeli embassy said: “Israel views with concern the fact that political groups with a clear anti-Israel agenda have tried to abuse a professional complaint mechanism in order to advance their political agenda.”

“That said, it should be stressed that the UK NCP rejected the LPHR’s key request and did not call upon G4S to withdraw its investments from Israel.”

The NCP recommended that G4S implement a contract approvals process that includes an assessment of human rights risks. It also advised clear communication with stakeholders and business partners.

Summary of NCP’s response to complaint about G4S from LPHRpdf file

March 16, 2015

EXTRACT

Chapter IV was added to the Guidelines with effect from September 2011. Guidance indicates that the specific obligations set out in Chapter IV Paragraphs 2-6 are included in the broad obligation to respect human rights stated in Chapter IV Paragraph 1. With effect from September 2011, the specific obligations are also included in the pre-existing broad obligation stated in Chapter II Paragraph 2.

 The UK NCP considers that actions of G4S before September 2011 are consistent with its obligation under Chapter II Paragraph 2 at that time. This includes the company’s actions in entering into the relationships that are the subject of the complaint.

 From September 2011, however, the UK NCP considers that the company’s actions are technically inconsistent with its obligation under Chapter II, Paragraph 2 to respect human rights. Similarly, the UK NCP considers that the company’s actions are technically inconsistent [under] its obligation under Chapter IV Paragraph 1 to respect human rights.

 In each case, the technical inconsistency arises because G4S is not adequately meeting a specific obligation that is included within the broad obligation. The UK NCP does not find any broad failure by G4S to respect the human rights of people on whose behalf the complaint is made.

 The specific obligation that is not adequately met is the obligation under Chapter IV, Paragraph 3 to seek to address impacts of its business relationships. The UK NCP finds the company’s actions inconsistent with its obligation under Chapter IV, Paragraph 3.

 The UK NCP has made recommendations to the company in regard to demonstrating that it is addressing human rights impacts of its business relationships. The UK NCP is not recommending that the company ends the relationships.

 The UK NCP will issue a follow-up report to this Final Statement in March 2016.