The Bangkok Post published a fine OpEd from Earth Rights International, exposing the moral and ethical lapses of international oil corporations in the ongoing human rights tragedies in Burma. Among them are Chevron-Texaco, a prominent DailyKos advertiser, who last year paid millions in restitution to refugees who suffered severely including torture at the hands of Burma's abusive regime during construction of a gas pipeline now owned by Chevron.
See below the fold for the entire piece.
(Note: I realize I posted the entire article - the BKK Post does not archive their articles, and I received the piece from the authors, who asked me to spread it around.)
Bangkok Post - Saturday September 15, 2007
FOCUS / BURMA
An industry blind to people's tears
As the protests mount in Burma, one must ask: What is the role of the
oil and gas industry, which is a key player in the deteriorating
situation?
By MATTHEW SMITH AND NAING HTOO
In response to recent crackdowns on protesters, the international
community is paying some overdue attention to human rights abuses in
military-ruled Burma. While President George W Bush made an expected
statement urging world leaders to pressure the Burmese junta toward
democracy and respect for human rights, less expected statements came
from members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.
Even China, one of Burma's strongest allies and itself under fire for
repression, expressed support for coordinated international effort for
stability in Burma, as long as it is done in a spirit of mutual respect.
But despite the unity in denouncing and pressuring the junta, Burma's
critics fail to identify a key player in the deteriorating situation
that has left the country in a state of instability and abuse: the oil
and gas industry.
The recent wave of protests in Burma began on Aug 19 when the junta,
fighting a macroeconomic collapse while refusing to decrease spending,
abruptly raised state-controlled fuel prices, including a 500% increase
in the price of natural gas. This caused bus fares and the price of
rice and other staples to double, bringing the already precarious daily
survival of some to a grinding pace.
Mass protests have been rare in Burma since 1988, when the military
gunned down an estimated 3,000 pro-democracy activists. But these dire
economic conditions have now led brave activists to take to the streets
again.
Protests began in the old capital of Rangoon and have continued to
spread, raging as far as the resource-rich state of Arakan in Burma's
far west, where nearly 1,000 ethnic Arakanese and Muslims marched in
protest, following the peaceful lead of Buddhist monks.
In Pakokku, north of Rangoon, soldiers fired warning shots above the
heads of monastic leaders and beat protesters in the streets. In
angered response, local monks burned and tipped cars, and destroyed the
property of government sympathisers. The army, the pro-junta Union
Solidarity and Development Association, and the paramilitary group Swan
Arr Shinn participated in breaking up the protest, which included tying
three monks to a pole and beating them publicly with rifle butts and
bludgeons.
At the time of writing, the monks are reportedly refusing the jun ta's
alms and demanding a public apology. Additionally, at least 189 people
have been detained for protesting, and if the past is any guide, they
can expect harsh prison sentences.
Rather than condemn the situation, two oil and gas companies took a
different approach: they issued statements about their recent gas
discoveries and expounded their plans to export the very commodity in
question.
Two days after protests began, Daewoo International trumpeted a
landmark discovery of natural gas off Burma's coast, intending to
export the gas to China, India, Thailand, or possibly its homeland
South Korea.
Thailand's PTTEP recently stated its plans to construct a pipeline from
a separate gas field in Burma to Thailand; with slightly more public
relations savvy, the company mentioned it may also send 15% of the gas
back to Rangoon.
Of course, the oil and gas industry has little control over whether the
country's gas is exported for profit or used to benefit the people of
Burma; those decisions are ultimately made by the generals.
But whether they like it or not, the companies are not socially or
politically neutral. They have the capital and expertise the junta
lacks, enabling large scale projects to go forward, which affords the
companies considerable power in Burma.
With power comes responsibility, but the international community has
been ineffective in determining what specifically that responsibility
entails in the c ontext of doing business with the Burmese regime.
Burma has confirmed an estimated 15.85 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of
natural gas in offshore reserves, with another 768 tcf onshore _
enough, for example, to accommodate South Korea's projected consumption
for up to 16 years.
At least 16 foreign corporations have recently signed contracts to
explore and ultimately export Burma's oil and gas. Major players are
private and state-owned companies from Thailand, Korea, China and India.
Last year, the regime netted US$2.2 billion from gas exports to PTTEP,
and over the next 20 years stands to reap an additional $12-17 billion
from a project led by Daewoo International.
These payments lack any fiscal transparency. The Burmese government is
generally estimated to spend at least 40% of its budget on the
military, and less than 3% on health care. Neither the international
community nor the companies seem to be concerned about where that money
is spent. Burmese who voice their concerns are met with prison
sentences.
Also falling beneath the international community's critical radar are
the severely negative direct impact of natural gas projects in Burma.
Lacking any legal provisions for social and environmental impact
assessments _ which companies are often loath to conduct, given the
high expenses of adequate assessments and the complicated requirement
to consult with local people _ natural gas projects in Burma proceed
amidst a state of militarisation and general lawlessness; in some cases
resulting in alleged displacement, forced labour, rape, torture and
murder.
The oil company Unocal (now owned by Chevron), for example, in 2005
paid compensation to victims of military abuses on their pipeline in
Burma after years of litigation in US courts.
Corporations have both a moral responsibility and a legal obligation
under international law to respect and promote human rights, and this
obligation is increasingly being recognised by national and
international institutions.
The industry would do well to avoid what the world recognises as
unacceptable corporate behaviour. The companies would do well to
actively promote human rights and democracy now, before they are
forever tarred with supporting the regime.
And the international community would do well to pressure not only the
junta to change, but also its corporate partners.
Matthew Smith and Naing Htoo are with EarthRights International, a
human rights NGO based in Washington DC, which represented Burmese
plaintiffs in the Doe vs Unocal Corp lawsuit.