CAF Blacklisted by UN - what next for UK rail?

[Harlequinuk]

Please close or move if already being discussed - but it appears that CAF have now been blacklisted by the UN for its light rail elsewhere in the world. Since they are building alot of the UK rail stock (and maintain it), how will this impact the UK going forward?

 

[Bantamzen]

Is there any legal basis in the UK for forbidding companies to sign contracts with companies blacklisted by the UN? If not, then it will be up to each company seeking new trains to decide, although ruling out a major supplier may well be detrimental in the long run, and could drive costs up more as competition reduces. Plenty of other companies blacklisted over the years continue operate in the UK, so perhaps it won't make a blind bit of difference.

 

[NSEWonderer]

They had Alstom on there before and that didn't do much.

 

[Mikw]

I doubt it would make any difference. The UN has called out our OWN government at times in the past for grave violations of human rights, it was ignored with the words "we don't recognise that picture" or words to that effect

 

[birchesgreen]

Nothing. No one cares about the UN unless it is useful to.

 

[TheWierdOne]

Oh no!



Anyway….

 

[edwin_m]

For anyone who hasn't got time to find the topic in the video, my reading is that CAF has been put on a UN list of companies involved in illegal West Bank settlements, specifically due to their involvement in the Jerusalem light rail project. They have responded that they comply with the relevant UN guidance for working in these areas.

 

[nwales58]

Haven’t bothered watching the video, looks like yet more youtube time-filling.

Think about this: If the UN ‘blacklisted’, say, Cargill (mega foodstock firm) it might have an effect because UN agencies buy wheat, soya etc for humanitarian relief. The UN does not buy rolling stock.

 

[Starmill]

This was from 2023:

De Schutter said the UK had signed an international covenant that created a duty to provide a level of social protection which ensured an adequate standard of living but that it was being broken, with welfare payments falling behind costs for the poorest people.

“If you look at the price of housing, electricity, the very high levels of inflation for food items over the past couple of years, I believe that the £85 a week for adults is too low to protect people from poverty, and that is in violation of article nine of the international covenant on economic, social [and cultural] rights. That is what human rights law says.”

He said increasing universal credit would be “the single most important step that the UK could meet towards meeting its international obligations”.

A government spokesperson said: “We are committed to protecting the most vulnerable, and in 2021-22 there were 1.7 million fewer people in absolute poverty after housing costs than in 2009-10. Households are at least £6,000 a year better off in full-time work than out of work on benefits, and since 2010 there are almost 700,000 fewer children growing up in workless households, transforming their life chances.”

UK ‘in violation of international law’ over poverty levels, says UN envoy

Exclusive: Special rapporteur Olivier De Schutter to urge ministers to increase welfare spending on visit to country this week

www.theguardian.com

 

[Ailsa_Craig]

This was from 2023:

UK ‘in violation of international law’ over poverty levels, says UN envoy

Exclusive: Special rapporteur Olivier De Schutter to urge ministers to increase welfare spending on visit to country this week

www.theguardian.com

I wouldn't take any notice of a thoroughly corrupt pan national body

 

[nwales58]

This was from 2023: …

Indeed, and media reporting often does not explain the status of these UN Special Rapporteur. The UN HRC pays them to write reports which contain facts, analysis and opinion.

That’s it. So these are not (yet) even an official opinion of the UN HRC.

This is regardless of whether anyone thinks UN agencies are useful or not.

But if you are under 60 please bear in mind these were genuinely set up after the horrors of WW2 to try to resolve the problems of the world peacefully. They partly succeeded for 75 years which is a lot better than the 75 years before that.

Anyway, ‘blacklisted by the UN’ is almost meaningless.

 

[Starmill]

I wouldn't take any notice of a thoroughly corrupt pan national body

There's no evidence of anyone taking the first bit of notice of them regardless of what they think about them, which is why I mentioned it.

 

[Farnborough]

This was from 2023:

UK ‘in violation of international law’ over poverty levels, says UN envoy

Exclusive: Special rapporteur Olivier De Schutter to urge ministers to increase welfare spending on visit to country this week

www.theguardian.com

When the UN successfully takes action against the countries below the UK in any of the standings, then I might listen to what they say.

Ditto for Human Rights...

 

[Tetchytyke]

In the UK it probably won't make much difference, our government isn't particularly bothered about human rights abuses in other parts of the world. They're certainly not bothered about human rights abuses in occupied Palestine.

However...

CAF added to UN blacklist, faces contract loss risks | ROLLINGSTOCK

At the end of September, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights added the Spanish rolling stock manufacturer CAF to its blacklist of companies conducting business in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel.

rollingstockworld.com

At the end of September, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights added the Spanish rolling stock manufacturer CAF to its blacklist of companies conducting business in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel.

CAF stands accused of exploiting natural resources for commercial purposes, supplying equipment and materials that contribute to the construction and expansion of Israeli settlements and the barrier separating Jerusalem from Arab neighbourhoods, and providing services that support the maintenance and existence of settlements, including transport.

The listing stems from CAF’s involvement in developing Jerusalem’s tram network. In 2019, the TransJerusalem J-Net consortium, owned equally by CAF and Israeli firm Shapir, was awarded a concession contract to build a new line and extend the existing route, part of which runs through disputed East Jerusalem. The contract also covers network operation, maintenance, the supply of 114 Urbos 100 trams (pictured), and the refurbishment of 46 Alstom Citadis vehicles. The works are scheduled for completion in 2027.

CAF has rejected the UN decision, stating that the project was preceded by consultations with independent international law experts, including UN specialists, who confirmed there were no violations related to its participation. The Versailles Court of Appeal also upheld this conclusion. The company further emphasises that its role in the project is helping to create socially important infrastructure supporting the human right to freedom of movement.

Being included in the UN sanctions list could negatively affect CAF’s ability to secure new contracts or retain existing ones. The company may lose a contract to supply 39 metro trains for Barcelona, as the tender documents prohibit participation by companies included on the UN blacklist. Alstom has already filed an appeal seeking CAF’s exclusion from the tender. Meanwhile, in August, a coalition of Belgian non-governmental organisations called for CAF to be barred from the country’s major train supply tender covering up to 600 trains.

The article references Barcelona, where their tender documents specifically prohibit companies included on the UN blacklist. The article also points out that CAF's competitor has already lodged a legal challenge demanding that CAF be removed from the tender.

 

[NickBucks]

Very quiet week on the Green Signals front if this is all they can dig up. Will not have any impact.

 

[Archvile]

The question doesn't require reference to the political climate to be answered - the UN adding CAF to a blacklist won't affect CAF's operations in the UK at all.

(Edited for clarity)

 

[TUC]

Not sure why we should care either way about what the UN thinks. Each country makes its own decisions. Our government is the government, not the UN.

 

[Starmill]

Not sure why we should care either way about what the UN thinks. Each country makes its own decisions. Our government is the government, not the UN.

Are you familiar with World War Two? Do you appreciate the responsibility of the UK to its allies as a permanent member of the Security Council? Have you so much as googled what the UN does and where it came from?

It is not intended to act as a government. Hence why the sanctions list isn't binding.

 

[takno]

I'd be surprised if it had any impact in the UK. It isn't entirely inconsequential though - the T-bane in Oslo for example is now trying to figure out what to do. They were going to action a follow-on option for their new stock, but the relevant section of government has a boycott based on the UN list.