View previous stories
	The private sector needs to stand up for human rights by Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, agencies   May 2019   World Bank under fire for development plan in Myanmar''s divided Rakhine. (Reuters)   Aid groups and human rights advocates have warned the World Bank that a $100 million development project it is planning for Myanmar''s conflict-riven Rakhine State could worsen tension there.   The World Bank last week published the first details of a proposal to fund cash-for-work programmes, and support small businesses in one of Myanmar''s poorest regions, through the government.   The western state was where Myanmar''s military unleashed a violent campaign that drove over 800,000 Rohingya Muslims to Bangladesh. The Rohingya are a muslim minority group in Rakhine State that is denied Myanmar citizenship and faces severe restrictions.   "It is difficult to imagine how meaningful recovery and development are possible in Rakhine without addressing the underlying human rights issues that currently impact every aspect of life for communities," more than a dozen international non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in Myanmar said in a letter to the World Bank''s Myanmar office. The letter, dated April 9, was obtained by Reuters.   The project would be the first major aid pledge for Rakhine State since the Rohingya exodus and a boost for Myanmar leader Aung San Suu Kyi, who has faced international criticism for her handling of the conflict there.   A U.N. fact-finding mission, which has called for top Myanmar generals to be prosecuted for crimes against humanity and genocide, said this week it had seen no evidence Myanmar was trying to resolve the crisis or facilitate the safe return of refugees.   Suu Kyi, for her part, said development is key to resolving Rakhine''s multiple crises. The proposal stems from a meeting between Suu Kyi and the bank''s vice president for East Asia and Pacific, Victoria Kwakwa, in July last year.   In written answers to Reuters questions, the World Bank claimed it shared the concerns over unresolved human rights issues in Rakhine.   The bank said it had condemned violence there and was providing Bangladesh with some support to address the needs of Rohingya refugees until returns could be voluntary, safe and dignified.   "At the same time, we do not believe the international community can simply turn its back on the development needs of people in Rakhine State," the bank said.   The project had not yet been approved by the bank''s board, it said.   "The State Counsellor requested in one of our meetings the World Bank to use its global expertise to help create a ''peace dividend?'' by creating economic opportunities for diverse communities throughout Myanmar," the bank claimed on Friday. "This includes livelihoods opportunities in Rakhine State for all communities if conditions of non-discrimination and secure access to opportunities can be met."   Initial discussions on the project with activists and aid workers early this year sparked worries an injection of cash could be counterproductive in the divided region, where hundreds of thousands of Rohingya and other Muslims remain under apartheid-like conditions.   About 128,000 have been confined to camps for almost seven years. Others can barely leave their villages, with their access to services like healthcare and education limited.   The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) human rights group said it had "broad concerns about the project" after a meeting with bank officials.   "It seems unthinkable that the project could be effectively implemented while these restrictions remain in place," ICJ''s director for Asia and the Pacific, Frederick Rawski, wrote in a letter to the bank dated March 15.   If Myanmar did not address freedom of movement and other concerns, he added, "a large development initiative could exacerbate rather than reduce social tensions".   NGOs said in the other letter seen by Reuters that the World Bank would need to ensure Muslims in Rakhine had access to citizenship and freedom of movement and that the project be independently monitored to make sure bank funds were "not enabling or supporting segregation".   The World Bank said it was deeply concerned about the restrictions on the Rohingya, and had raised these concerns with the government.   * All members of the aid community seek investments to raise the living standards of all those living in poverty. But in a circumstance where now some 1 million people have been forced to flee from documented violence; it is incomprehensible that without them being able to return safely to Rakhine State from where they fled, those from the area should be rewarded with such a financial investment in view of such actions. A more just outcome would be for such monies or even twice or three times the investment be made available when the displaced Rohingya can safely return to their homes, and that all members of in Rakhine State can equally benefit from such a needed investment.   http://news.un.org/en/focus/rohingya-refugee-crisis http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session40/Pages/ListReports.aspx http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/WaiWaiNu.aspx http://bit.ly/1FEWPWr http://www.hrw.org/topic/business/world-bank-imf http://www.business-humanrights.org/   Mar. 2018   Infrastructure investment in Myanmar: Open for business, by Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein - UN High Commissioner for Human Rights   On 20 March 2018, investors, the business community, development financing institutions and other stakeholders will meet in Yangon, Myanmar, for the fourth Myanmar Infrastructure Investment Summit, organised by the government under the title: “Building an Inclusive, Integrated and Modern Myanmar.”   Apparently, no irony was intended in the choice of this title to refer to a country where there are strong suspicions that genocide may have recently taken place, bulldozers are now allegedly being employed in an effort to eradicate the evidence, and where ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya minority in Rakhine State – through killings, sexual violence and deliberate starvation – appears to be continuing. Rohingya refugees are still arriving in Bangladesh, which now houses the largest refugee camp in the world.   The Summit, which is likely to be attended by officials from major development financing institutions, will showcase Myanmar’s infrastructure plans and seek funding. This is a worthy objective. Well-conceived infrastructure projects are vital for development, connecting producers to markets and people to sources of education, healthcare and jobs. Only 20% of Myanmar’s roads are paved, and only 35% of the population is connected to the electricity grid: the need is clear. But the shocking violations of human rights which have driven hundreds of thousands of people to flee the country should heighten the vigilance of any investor.   Infrastructure projects can be laden with unassessed social risks, in any country. They include gender-blindness in project design; increases in communicable diseases; child labour; human trafficking and sexual violence; forced displacement and livelihood destruction; land seizures; abusive labour practices, and siphoning off vital public resources for private profit.   Poor stakeholder engagement is another common problem, exemplified in the failure of the Myitsone Dam joint venture between China and Myanmar. Telecommunications tower construction and fibre cable projects have been associated with child labour, debt bondage and other labour rights violations. Civil society groups have criticized a major highway project in Kayin state for contributing to conflict, displacement, and environmental damage.   Land occupied by up to 20,000 indigenous people was confiscated during the construction of an oil pipeline between Kyaukphyu, in Rakhine state, and Kunming, China. In Myanmar, or any militarised state or weak governance environment, project revenue streams may easily find their way into the pockets of the perpetrators of human rights abuses.   Myanmar’s clampdown on the freedom of the press is particularly troubling in this context. In December, two Reuters reporters, Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo, were arrested for reporting on the massacres in Rakhine state; they could face up to 14 years in jail. This is one among many such incidents. Journalists are now fearful of travelling to ethnic areas and reporting on events in non-governmental controlled regions. Oppression of this kind is one small manifestation of the contagion of authoritarianism sweeping many parts of the world.   It is also a fundamental obstacle to infrastructure development: how can infrastructure investors and financing institutions be sure that they have appraised all relevant risks fully, with due regard to their fiduciary, legal and ethical duties and sustainability objectives, if independent information and free expression are suppressed?   The recent wave of violence unleashed against the Rohingya raises the risks for infrastructure investors. Strong vigilance is needed for redevelopment projects in areas from which Rohingya have been displaced; the government''s acquisition of “burned lands” under Myanmar’s Natural Disaster Management Law should be ringing loud alarm bells.   If infrastructure plans for Rakhine state in any way frustrate the safe, sustainable return of refugees, those financing or investing in those projects may be complicit in ethnic cleansing. Elsewhere in the country, investors also need to be mindful of human rights risks.   I would strongly urge those seeking investment opportunities in Myanmar to undertake in-depth, regular human rights due diligence in accordance with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, guided by a clear human rights policy commitment. Multinational companies, in particular, should analyse and communicate their human rights impacts throughout their value chains, and use maximum leverage to encourage national authorities to “do no harm,” end unwarranted restrictions on freedom of expression, and ensure the safe repatriation of displaced Rohingya populations. And UN human rights monitors must be granted full access to Rakhine State and other areas where violations have been reported.   These measures are vital for informed investments in infrastructure, and for inclusive, sustainable development. They are also vital for accountability. Myanmar cannot be considered “open for business” otherwise. Moreover, though the experience in Myanmar is extreme, it is not unique – and should serve as a reminder to all international investors that human rights and discrimination are everybody’s business. http://bit.ly/2LoK4ab   http://www.hrw.org/report/2018/07/17/nothing-our-land/impact-land-confiscation-farmers-myanmar http://www.hrw.org/news/2018/07/17/interview-photographing-impact-myanmars-land-confiscations   Apr. 2018   For the first time, plaintiffs from Cambodia have filed a class-action lawsuit against a Thai company after they were forcibly removed from their homes to make way for a sugarcane plantation, reports Rina Chandran for the Thomson Reuters Foundation   Thailand''s businesses and its government must do more to protect the rights of vulnerable people abroad, analysts and activists said, after a landmark case filed by Cambodian farmers in a Bangkok court against a Thai sugar firm.   It is the first time plaintiffs from another country have filed a class-action lawsuit against a Thai company in a Thai court over its operations outside Thailand.   The two plaintiffs represent about 3,000 people who say they were forcibly removed from their homes and land in five villages in Oddar Meanchey province in Cambodia''s northwest, to make way for a Mitr Pohl sugarcane plantation between 2008 and 2009.   As cross-border investments in the region increase to tap resources, markets and cheaper labour, cases such as these will become more common because of differences in legislation and inadequate protections for workers and residents, experts said.   "This is about ensuring that Thai companies respect human rights in the countries they operate in, and holding them accountable for violations," said Sor Rattanamanee Polkla at the Community Resource Centre, which is representing the plaintiffs.   "There is no Thai law against irresponsible outbound investment, and countries like Laos, Cambodia and Myanmar do not have proper frameworks for environmental and social impact assessments. We had no choice but to file a suit," she said.   The plaintiffs are asking for their land to be returned and 4 million baht ($130,000) in total compensation, she said.   Mitr Phol, the Thai sugar producer, said it had received temporary concessions in compliance with all local and national laws, and had assurances from the Cambodian government that the areas had been processed "legally and transparently".   Mitr Phol said it had withdrawn from the project in 2014, and that it had recommended that the Cambodian government return the land to the "affected communities". The case, filed last month, is set to begin on June 11.   Cambodia awarded large economic land concessions to foreign companies - mainly from China, Vietnam, South Korea and Thailand - to operate mines, power plants and farms in order to spur economic growth and alleviate poverty.   Such deals, which covered more than a tenth of the country''s surface area by 2012, have displaced more than 770,000 people since 2000, rights lawyers say.   Following protests and pressure from rights groups, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen announced a moratorium on new concessions in 2012, and promised to review old ones.   But activists say the reviews did not lead to significant changes, and that even when concessions were cancelled, the land was often retained by the government.   In the case of Mitr Phol, the villagers first filed a complaint with the Bonsucro sugarcane sustainability initiative, and then the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of Thailand, a government agency.   After a two-year investigation, the NHRC said rights violations had occurred, and Mitr Phol was directly responsible. It asked Mitr Phol to pay compensation in line with the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.   But the NHRC''s powers are limited, Sor said, and the Cambodian farmers did not get compensation or their land back.   "The NHRC can issue recommendations, but these are not binding. Filing cases is an option, but it is always a challenge to go through the judicial system," Angkhana Neelapaijit, a member of the NHRC, told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.   The NHRC has received more than a dozen complaints about Thai overseas investments, particularly in Southeast Asia, related to their impact on the environment and people, she said.   In response to the NHRC''s recommendations, the Cabinet issued resolutions in 2016 and 2017, calling for Thai investors to respect and protect the rights of local people, and to prevent adverse impacts on the environment and to livelihoods.   Last year, Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha said the government intended to implement the U.N. guiding principles in a policy plan being drafted in consultation with rights groups.   But the region has proven to be a "laggard" in adopting an enforceable regional human rights system, said David Pred, co-founder of advocacy group Inclusive Development International.   "We shouldn''t hold our breath waiting for governments to adopt one. But that need not stop people from pursuing justice for business-related human rights violations in the national courts of the countries where the companies are domiciled."   Thai outbound investment in 2017 totalled about $20 billion, according to the country''s investment board, much of it going to Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam.   But investors are backing projects "with little regulation and often with disregard for the human and environmental rights impacts", according to a report from the U.N. Working Group on Business and Human Rights published in November.   "Negative impacts commonly include destruction of livelihoods, land grabs, and forced eviction," it said.   Thai investors must apply the highest international standards and offer remedy for abuses, said Surya Deva, a member of the U.N. working group, which concluded a 10-day visit to Thailand last week.   "If Thai companies are benefiting from these investments, and outsourcing negative human rights impacts, it is critical that they also provide opportunities for any victims to file cases in Thailand if needed," he said. "It is a complicated process, but that option should be available," he said.   http://bit.ly/2Hak4xk http://bit.ly/2qljkff http://tmsnrt.rs/2qlUDiy   Jan. 2017   The private sector needs to stand up for human rights, by Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein.   In a few days, when hundreds of leaders from politics, business and the media convene in Davos to ponder global challenges, the prospect of shattering turbulence will be their backdrop.   A harsh public backlash against such ruling elites has fuelled upsets which promise sweeping changes in national, regional and global institutions and practise.   Many of the most urgent challenges to be discussed in Davos stem from failure to ensure proper protection of human rights – including the right of every member of society to participate in decision-making, and rights to basic goods and services such as health-care, education and a decent livelihood. There are also very real concerns about the way the global economy functions, and its inability to deliver shared prosperity and shared security for all.   This widespread failure to ensure fair access to resources, prosperity and economic security fuels violence, increases precarious migration, and feeds support for divisive movements of hatred.   It has spawned the rise of ethno-nationalist and populist movements, which in coming months will likely stoke xenophobia and violence across many regions while spurning collective solutions and international law. And as this toxic tide of hatred rises around us, essential principles which safeguard peaceful and stable societies risk being swept away.   The role of business is integral to these current challenges, and it will be essential to our ability to respond. Responsible business counts on stability – sound institutions, the smooth functioning of justice, sustainable development and public confidence in the prospects for personal safety in a larger peace.   These interlocking elements can only be generated when human rights are upheld.   Many business leaders acknowledge that good business means doing business right. They are implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights to address human rights impact in their operations and supply chains, and they incorporate the UN Global Compact’s Ten Principles on human rights, labour, environment and anti-corruption into their operations.   Through these efforts, they are better prepared to manage the risk of the massive reputational damage which arises when corporations are perceived as involved with serious human rights abuses, such as child labour and modern slavery.   The case for respecting human rights is strong, but translating broad commitment into action across the corporate sector remains a challenge. Last March, the Economist Intelligence Unit found that 83% of senior executives considered business to be an important actor in respecting human rights. In practice, fewer than half their companies had drawn up a human rights policy statement – a key expectation for all companies under the UN Guiding Principles.   We need to convince many more business actors that respect for human rights is good for their bottom line; the bulk of the world’s employment is in the private sector, and clearing up abuses will have enormous positive impact on millions of lives.   But business leaders also need to look outwards – to the communities in which they work. Business actors can be powerful advocates for the human rights which build resilient, peaceful and stable societies, able to overcome conflict and look to the future.   Already, some corporate leaders realise it is in their interest to combat discrimination, inequalities, xenophobia, violence and hate – including by lobbying authorities to take action, and by empowering their staff to stand up for rights.   As important local, national and regional actors, businesses can have major impact on the empowerment of women, migrants, minorities and marginalized groups. Their influence can transform the public landscape for issues of food security, land rights, environmental sustainability, the right to privacy and other essential topics.   Business cannot thrive in failing societies, where tension spikes and communities bristle with grievances and mutual contempt. Strong civil societies, due process, equality and justice: these are what enable real economic empowerment.   People cannot just be the how of development – merely the tools that produce greater wealth. They are the why. In this sense, human rights -- human dignity and well-being -- are the whole point of economic growth.   Urgent action is needed to re-establish the public’s trust in institutions. Corporations need to respond that they make not only dollars, but sense. That they are responsible actors who will step up and play a critical role to uphold the values that keep all the world''s people safe. http://bit.ly/2j85qHH   http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Business/Pages/BusinessIndex.aspx http://www.business-humanrights.org/ Visit the related web page
	Latin America demands respect for rights, but will China listen? by Fermin Koop, Robert Soutar Diálogo Chino, Business & Human Rights Resource Centre   Nations desperate to do business with China often face an awkward dilemma. At the risk of jeopardising billions of dollars in investment and offending Beijing, they tend to ignore China’s human rights abuses. Countries even ingratiate themselves with Chinese institutions and earn praise for their “pragmatism” for sidestepping the issue.   One place where China’s human rights record is up for discussion is the UN’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in Geneva, Switzerland, on November 6. The UPR is a peer review mechanism whereby each UN member state has its human rights practices examined every five years. Next month China faces its third review, this time with a special focus on its responsibilities overseas.   “The reviews were originally intended to assess the fulfilment of a set of human rights instruments at a domestic level,” said Paulina Garzon, head of the China-Latin America Sustainable Investments Initiative. Garzón has worked with Latin American civil society organizations on a report questioning human rights violations by Chinese companies in the region.   “But now there’s a growing set of theories that claim countries also have a responsibility to implement those instruments where its companies work in the rest of the world. We’ll see that assessment this year,” she added.   The review considers three official documents: a national report submitted by China, a compilation of UN information prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), and a summary of reports submitted by NGOs.   Latin America reports   Latin American civil society organizations filed three reports to be taken into consideration at China’s review. All claim a wide range of human rights violations linked to specific projects, mostly in the infrastructure and extractive sectors.   One group of 21 NGOs from Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Bolivia and Peru, reviewed 18 projects managed by 15 Chinese business consortia, linked to mining, oil and hydropower. These were located in indigenous reserves or nominally protected areas. The NGOs found that all projects violated human rights.   “There’s a systematic violation of the rights to prior consultation and participation, alongside forced evictions, destruction of places of cultural and natural importance and [the] criminalisation of community leaders,” said Sofía Jarrin, environment and indigenous peoples coordinator at Ecuador’s Centre for Economic and Social Rights (CDES).   Almost two-thirds of the projects reviewed are in Ecuador. The report warned of a pattern of violations in all projects, including failing to adopt measures meeting China’s “extraterritorial obligations” to protect rights in host countries, according to their national laws. These are outlined in the International Covenant on Social, Cultural and Economic Rights. China signed the covenant in 1998 but has not ratified it, meaning it hasn’t translated into Chinese law.   One project referenced in the report is the El Mirador copper mine in the Morona-Santiago province of southeastern Ecuador. The project has been the site of violent conflict between Chinese mining company Ecuacorriente S.A. (EXSA), owned by Chinese consortium CRCC-Tongguan, and the local indigenous Shuar community.   Members of the community were forcibly displaced by the creation of the mine and, as the dispute raged, indigenous leader Jose Isidro Tendetza Antun was murdered. His body showed signs of torture.   The community claims its right to be consulted on development projects slated for ancestral territory – as enshrined in Ecuadorean law – was violated by the US$1.4 billion mine.   The report also questioned the growing reliance of Latin American countries on Chinese finance, which they say weakens their governments’ resolve to uphold laws when investments contravene them.   Petitioned by EXSA, the Ecuadorean government ordered the shuttering of NGO Acción Ecológica, which defended the Shuar community in the El Mirador conflict. The move was met with widespread international condemnation.   Another key report was filed by the Coordinator of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon Basin (COICA). COICA reviewed the El Mirador mine in Ecuador and four other projects executed by Chinese firms – the Arco Minero mining project in Venezuela, the El Nogal oil block in Colombia, Lote 58 oil project in Peru and the Teles Pires dams in Brazil.   The report concluded that, cumulatively, these projects violated the rights of 455 indigenous groups in the Amazon basin since they were carried out without their prior consent. COICA also claimed that these projects threatened the right to life and to a healthy and balanced environment.   The UPR looks at China’s rights impacts elsewhere in the world, but the NGO International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) presented a report, jointly with the Mekong Legal Network (MLN), which also referenced Latin America. This report found a violation at the Las Bambas copper mine in Peru, where communities were not consulted on changes to the original project.   At the mine, located in Peru’s southern Apurimac region, new owner China MMG failed to consult the local community on revised proposals to transport materials off site using local roads, rather than a pipeline. Opting to use trucks generated noise and dust pollution and sparked an angry backlash, paralysing the project. Such conflicts have strained relations between Peru and China.   “The violations communities are facing due to Chinese operations and investment are too political to be raised at the national level,” said Sarah Brooks, programme manager at ISHR, referring to the refusal of the Chinese government to engage in meaningful discussions on human rights.   “The Chinese government is aware of these violations. They can’t pretend that their companies are representing them abroad. But they don’t know what to do about this. They aren’t willing to be open and consultative and they don’t work with civil society in host countries. Their means to resolve the problem are limited,” she added.   Political sensitivity   As Brooks points out, the UPR is a politically sensitive process. Well-known Chinese rights activist Cao Shunli was arrested on attempting to travel to Geneva for the last round of China’s UPR in 2013. Months later she died in jail.   If discussions about human rights are routinely shut down in this way, what other tactics can communities employ to get China to listen to their concerns?   “The Chinese government and some companies have begun to recognise that enhancing responsible business makes financial sense,” said Lowell Chow, senior researcher and representative for East Asia at the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre. He added: “Disputes with workers and communities can delay operations and cost money.”   Disruption at the Las Bambas mine cost an estimated US$6 million, according to Industry association the Peruvian National Society of Mining, Oil and Energy (SNMPE).   The Chinese government and industry associations have developed guidelines on responsible overseas investment. However, these are voluntary and there are scant repercussions for non-compliance.   Chow said the guidelines are a good first step but that there is much work to do in terms of implementation: “Chinese companies can grasp the opportunity to lead by example on responsible business through proactively engaging with host communities as early as possible.”   Wawa Wang, public finance policy officer at CEE Bank Watch, agrees that implementation of the guidelines is key. But she suggests this is only possible if companies and investors are more transparent.   “One concrete step forward is to begin disclosing project-related social and environmental information as required by the guidelines,” Wang said. So far, Chinese investors’ reporting of the impacts of projects on biodiversity, climate change, and the displacement of communities, has been “eerily absent”.   Chinese banks have begun to partner with regional development banks to co-finance projects in Latin America. In theory, this enables banks such as the Inter-American Development Bank to share their local knowledge and experience with Chinese banks and offer technical assistance that could help prevent conflicts.   “The goal is to develop safeguards palatable to the Chinese that address practices of transparency, accountability and environmental and social due diligence,” said Wang.   China may have industry guidelines to protect human rights in its operations overseas but it does not have the legal jurisdiction to punish offences.   “The scope of the Chinese law [is] limited to domestic jurisdiction and could not be used to regulate Chinese companies’ operations beyond China’s borders,” material submitted to the High Commissioner by MLN and ISHR noted.   However, China should begin to integrate international human rights standards into laws governing outbound investment, MLN recommended.   Expectations   At its first UPR in 2009, China received more than 100 recommendations, of which it accepted 42 and rejected 50. Five years later, it received a further 252 recommendations, of which it accepted 204 and rejected 48. Of those accepted, China said 31 had already been implemented and eight were currently being implemented.   China presented a report on its actions on human rights in response to the last UPR. The government pointed out that by April this year it had enacted 28 new laws related to human rights and had issued and implemented the country’s third Human Rights Action plan in 2016.   However, China also acknowledged that it “still faces many difficulties and challenges in promoting and protecting human rights,” as it vowed to increase protections.   According to Brooks, this time China will also accept a large number of the recommendations from the upcoming UPR. “They will be largely in areas that China feels they are already doing good work or that they have a commitment on an international level,” she said.   For Garzon, China’s legitimacy as an actor at the UN is at stake because of the new review: “The government has to prove that it has the capacity and willingness to act on human rights. This time, China doesn’t have the possibility of not accepting its role.”   Meanwhile, Jarrin said NGOs want to have a conversation with China and establish clear rules for their projects in Latin America. Upholding rights in the region and better enforcing regulations in the region would send clear signals to Chinese companies and investors: “The main weakness lies on our states in Latin American but we know the influence and weight of an actor like China.”   http://dialogochino.net/12109-latin-america-demands-respect-for-rights-but-will-china-listen/ http://www.business-humanrights.org/en/chinese-investment-overseas/ http://www.business-humanrights.org/en/dem-rep-of-congo-local-community-claims-chinese-construction-company-crec-7-charges-excessive-tolls-on-unsafe-road-company-comments-included http://observers.france24.com/en/20190422-congo-chinese-company-toll-booth http://www.ids.ac.uk/news/the-belt-and-road-initiative-and-the-sdgs-how-china-can-help-achieve-equitable-sustainable-development-by-2030/ Visit the related web page
	View more stories