[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

TOTAL/PetroFina "Big Move" (r)



Thanks for your message. I have no strong objection to anything you say 
and I think the debate is coming to a close. I only started it to defend 
the reputation of the majority of companies from dawn star's assertion. 
Anyway I am pleased that you can write in language I find intelligible 
(only joking, dawn star, ... almost!).

In reply to your comments, I will say that it is normal to go into 
partnership with a local company (often government-linked). If one does 
not like the regime, one will not like the partner.

I have no doubt forced labour has been used on the project, though I 
doubt if anyone knows the true extent. Estimates have probably been 
exaggerated (or underestimated) for political reasons. I also have read 
that a US State Department report found no evidence for the practice 
(though maybe they didn't want to find any). Anyway, have no doubt, I 
condemn the use of forced labour.

If Total and UNOCAL do not have the responsibility for the hiring of 
labour or of overseeing the working conditions, I do not consider them to 
be equally responsible for the abuses as those who do have the direct 
responsibility. I have still have not had a satisfactory answer to my 
question about who has the control over the hiring of labour and the 
working conditions. Just because Total and UNOCAL are financial partners 
with the local company, does not mean they are responsible for matters 
over which they have no direct control. If, for example, Total and UNOCAL 
are responsible for only the off-shore exploration and production and not 
for the construction of the pipeline, they could claim ignorance of the 
abuses though morally they should do all they can to stop them.

I don't know what will make the fall of the junta more or less likely. I 
know the opinion of Aung San Suu Kyi in wishing an end to foreign aid, 
tourism and investment. I also know the suffering trade sanctions would 
cause to the ordinary people of Burma. If one wishes to destroy an 
economy, trade sanctions applied effectively may be a suitable tool to 
employ (as an alternative to the use of armed force for example). If one 
wishes to change a government, sanctions are probably a rather useless 
tool and likely to be counter-productive (i.e. make the regime even more 
determined to remain in power and make the human rights situation worse, 
in addition to causing much suffering). If one phrases the problem as 
'how many children's lives is it worth sacrificing in the hope of 
preventing the arrest of one opposition politician in the future?', the 
matter becomes more complex. My personal preference is to try to improve 
the Burmese economy on the basis that this will raise the average living 
standards and that the human rights situation generally improves as an 
economy improves and that democracy is generally not the product of 
extreme poverty. However, one may claim that Burma is not a general case 
but I think it is right to question whether Aung San Suu Kyi is correct 
in her opinion. Also, it may be that corruption and economic 
mismanagement in Burma are such that little could be done by external 
finance to improve the economy, but I personally would not like to be 
associated with actions which have the intention of making the economic 
situation worse. I would consider such actions to be morally 
questionable.



W. Kesavatana-Dohrs wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 3 Dec 1998, Neil McDougall wrote:
> 
> > This is a much more relevant point. I am no expert on the Total
> > involvement in Burma. However, I will make a few comments.
> >
> > As far as I know Total and UNOCAL are building a pipeline to carry gas
> > from Burma to Thailand. There is nothing in principle wrong with this,
> > unless of course you are prejudiced against private companies for
> > political reasons or against the exploitation of natural resources for
> > environmental reasons.
> 
> Unocal and Total are in a partnership agreement with the junta's Myanmar
> Oil and Gas Enterprise.  What is wrong is to partner with a known gangster
> organization.
> 
> >
> > The next questions I would ask are: Are Total and UNOCAL directly
> > responsible for the use of forces labour and relocation of villages? Or
> > is the SPDC responsible for these violations of human rights? Does Total
> > and UNOCAL admit any responsibility for the use of forced labour or
> > support its use? Have they ever condemned such practices?
> 
> Unocal was clearly and directly warned early in their venture that forced
> labor was/is endemic, and it was likely to be used on their project.  The
> US Dept. of Labor, in a report released in October, concluded that the
> "preponderence of evidence" supports allegations of forced labor on the
> pipeline project.  This bolsters similar conclusions from AI, HR Watch,
> EarthRights International, Karen Human Rights Group, etc.  Unocal and the
> junta are partners.  They have equal responsibility for the forced labor.
> 
> Total and Unocal have never condemned the use of forced labor in Burma.
> They only deny, in the face of evidence that others find conclusive, that
> they have benefitted from the use of forced labor on the Yadana project.
> 
> > If the NLD, and Aung San Suu
> > Kyi, came to power, would they immediately call a halt to the
> > construction of the pipeline or its closure if the gas had already
> > started flowing? I would suspect not, since the revenues produced would
> > be greatly welcomed by the new government to aid the reconstruction of
> > the country. Total and UNOCAL may even be praised for the contribution
> > they were making to improving the Burmese economy.
> 
> I think you miss the point made by the elected representatives of the
> Burmese people when they say this pipeline project in partnership with the
> junta strengthens the junta, thus making the possibility of the NLD coming
> to power (remember, that was the choice of the Burmese electorate) more
> remote.  One shouldn't ignore the effect of the project when posing
> guesses about the future.
> 
> LD