 |
TOTAL Oil:
1) First of all, it is a fact that nature has placed oil resources
at random and that our job as explorers is to find and develop them
wherever they are, even in countries where the political regimes
are very different from our western democracies.
BCUK:
TOTAL clearly believes that the oil industry is above ethics and
morality when it comes to judging the appropriateness of investment
in a country. The company takes no responsibility here for the decision
to invest in Burma; they speak instead as if the job description
for ‘explorer’ was divinely written and therefore beyond
the company’s control. Where would TOTAL draw the line at operating
in a particular country, if anywhere?
2) TOTAL works only in those countries, which are not banned
by international organisations such as the UN, the European Union
or, in the case of Myanmar, ASEAN. No international organisation
has called for a ban on investment in Myanmar.
TOTAL’s lobbying and influence on the French Government has
ensured that the EU is unable to secure the ban on investment TOTAL
say they would require in order to leave! France has repeatedly
led efforts to block effective sanctions on Burma, blatantly to
protect TOTAL’s interests.
3) Since the start of our operations in Myanmar, TOTAL has always
maintained extreme vigilance to guarantee that international laws,
human rights and the rules set forth in our Code of Conduct have
always been respected in the area.
This is a shockingly disingenuous statement given TOTAL’s admitted
knowledge of the widespread and systematic human rights abuses that
have taken place in the pipeline region in Burma.
TOTAL contracted the Burmese Army, through Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise
(MOGE), to provide security for its pipeline. This is an indisputable
fact. It has been these very security forces that have committed
the horrific abuses in the pipeline region. These troops are not
respectful of international laws, human rights or the rules set
forth in TOTAL’s code of conduct and TOTAL bears responsibility
for this. Companies additionally have a responsibility to ensure
that those providing them security have not previously been involved
in human rights violations. The Burmese Army’s reputation was
well-known by TOTAL prior to 1992 and although the company admits
it was aware of the risks of doing so, it sanctioned the Army’s
employment regardless.
If TOTAL did indeed employ ‘extreme vigilance’ as it claims
- to guarantee that rights were respected - then this vigilance
was shamefully inadequate.
“TOTAL was well aware that the Army's presence in the region
could have negative consequences for villages in the area.”
TOTAL, A Sustained Commitment, 2003
"As far as forced labour used by the soldiers in charge of
security on our gas pipeline project is concerned, we must admit
between ourselves, TOTAL and Unocal, that we're probably in a grey
area”. Le Monde, January 2004
“Certain incidents may have escaped TOTAL's attention in the
very early phases of the project.” TOTAL, A Sustained Commitment,
2003
4) In Myanmar, TOTAL pays particular attention to the enhancement
of social progress by implementing the company’s policy on
sustainable development with special care and attention. To do this
we have acted with conviction and efficiency to eradicate all forms
of forced labour in the area where we operate and we have regularly
expressed our concern about this unacceptable and unlawful practice
to the Myanmar authorities.
Any claim by TOTAL to have eradicated all forms of forced labour
in the pipeline region is simply untrue. Concerns expressed, with
however much conviction, to the Burmese Authorities have clearly
gone unheeded.
Whilst TOTAL claims to find forced labour unacceptable and unlawful,
the company has also gone to pains to explain forced labour was
in fact legal in Burma until 1999. The company is also on the record
as accepting that some incidents of forced labour were “inevitable
in this fairly challenging political and cultural environment.”
Unacceptable and unlawful but also apparently inevitable –
so TOTAL went ahead with its operations anyway.
TOTAL has an extremely narrow definition of what it would determine
the ‘pipeline region’ hence the deliberately careful wording
of ‘the area where we operate’. Whilst it may be the case
that villages rubbing up against the pipeline (where foreigners
have had a more regular presence) have been protected from the worst
excesses of a marauding Army (only drafted in to protect the company’s
pipeline), those in the broader vicinity have certainly not.
TOTAL admits that some forced labourers in the pipeline region were
actually paid by the company for work they’d carried out. However,
there remains a difference of opinion within TOTAL as to whether
this constitutes compensation or not. Clearly some are concerned
that compensation might spell an admittance of responsibility, something
the company is keen to avoid at all costs.
“When a case of forced labour is brought to our attention,
we make every effort to offer compensation.” Jean-Pierre Cordier,
TOTAL’s Ethics Committee
“These humanitarian gestures were not compensation, since neither
TOTAL nor MGTC was even indirectly the cause or beneficiary of the
forced labor.” A Sustained Commitment, TOTAL, 2003
5) TOTAL is also committed to providing economic and social benefits
to people living in Myanmar. We have created good job opportunities
for the 800 employees working for TOTAL E&P Myanmar and its
subcontractors. We have devoted considerable effort to giving them
on the job training, and we apply international standards in the
fields of environment, safety and human resources.
Three quarters of Burma’s 50 million people live off the land
and an extremely tiny proportion of the population works for TOTAL.
It is clear then that very few will be affected if TOTAL withdraws
from Burma. This is not at all to suggest that those who work for
TOTAL don’t matter, but we are faced with a stark choice: to
allow the regime to obtain finance that will ensure its survival,
thereby condemning Burma to continued violence and impoverishment;
or make a concerted effort to cut the regime’s financial lifelines
while limiting the effects on ordinary people. The regime is the
biggest block to freedom and prosperity for all of Burma’s
people.
6) In the area around the Yadana gas pipeline, we have developed
a socio-economic programme whose main achievements for the 45,000
villagers living in the region include:
1) Free medical care (with a dramatic decrease in infant mortality)
2) Better educational opportunities, giving more than 8,000 children
the chance to attend school in good conditions
3) Significant agricultural development supported by technical assistance
and micro-credits.
We also support several national humanitarian programmes including
orphanages, surgery against glaucoma with the Helen Keller foundation
and an anti AIDS programme. The programmes’ design and outcomes
continue to be observed by independent specialists as well as humanitarian
organisations working in Myanmar. We are currently evaluating new
proposals.
If TOTAL is genuinely concerned about ordinary Burmese, it can afford
to continue to pay for the programmes it funds when it leaves Burma.
We would encourage them to do so. It is after all the 4th largest
oil company in the world. It could see this continued funding as
reparations for those who have suffered because of the investment
it has made in Burma. In the same way that Unocal now accepts it
has a responsibility to those who suffered atrocious human rights
abuses as a consequence of the Yadana pipeline.
7) TOTAL publicly declared its concern in May 2003 when Daw Aung
San Suu Kyi was arrested and, in regular meetings with the Myanmar
authorities, our Group expresses its concern that Myanmar find a
lasting national reconciliation.
The regime has never been moved by expressions of concern, whether
from governments, the UN or businesses. TOTAL’s expression
of concern has changed nothing in the situation in Burma and has
done nothing to compensate for the political and economic support
the company continues to provide to the regime. The only effective
expression of concern that TOTAL could make, is that it can wait
no longer for political and economic reform to take place in Burma,
and that its willingness to operate in such an unacceptable political
environment is coming to an end.
8) Along with many international organisations - especially those
working in Myanmar, we definitely believe that sanctions on this
country and pressures in favour of a withdrawal of foreign investors
are not the solution. The inhabitants of Myanmar have not asked
for sanctions and their leaders, regardless of their political origin,
do realize that the embargo - as the one imposed by the US - has
only created additional suffering for them.
It is incredible arrogance for TOTAL to claim to know the wishes
of the people of Burma, when expression in the country is repressed
and controlled by TOTAL’s business partner, the military junta.
The people of Burma gave the National League for Democracy (NLD)
82% of the seats in the 1990 election. The NLD have called for sanctions.
All major ethnic leaderships in Burma have called for sanctions.
The mandate for sanctions comes from representatives of Burma’s
people. The business partners of the regime are hardly likely to
accept that.
9) It is clear if western investment in Myanmar were withdrawn,
it would immediately be replaced by regional actors who may not
apply the same ethical standards.
It is interesting that TOTAL is accusing its own Asian business
partners of having lower ethical standards than TOTAL. This means
that TOTAL’s Asian partners would have an incredible disregard
for the people of Burma, given TOTAL’s already appalling record.
It could be TOTAL is judging other ‘actors’ by the standards
of its current partners, MOGE and the Burmese military. It would
be useful if TOTAL could name those Asian companies that is sees
as being more unethical than TOTAL.
It is not true that Asian investment has flooded into Burma in the
absence of Western investment. It is often reported that the majority
of investment in Burma comes from the Asian region. However, throughout
the 1990s the reality has been very different. Asian countries disbursed
$1.32 billion whereas Western countries disbursed around US$ 2.31
billion of investment. Many have taken a cautious approach to investment
in Burma as a result of the regime's mismanagement of the economy.
In recent years investment has been negligible, but there is a serious
concern that it has already started to pick up again. This is why
Europe must, in addition to applying an EU investment ban, push
for UN mandatory sanctions on Burma. Until such UN sanctions can
be put in place, the EU must ensure that no major European company
tips the economic balance of power yet further in the regime's favour.
The major benefit of TOTAL’s withdrawal would be to remove
the main obstacle to a more progressive French foreign policy that
would be supportive of such a sanctions policy - foreign policy
that supports Burma’s democrats and not its dictators.
10) There would be no real impact on the State's revenues, nor
on the political debate, but there would certainly be a negative
effect on its people.
Burma has a population of 50 million people, of which three quarters
live off the land. TOTAL employs 800 people. It is clear, therefore,
that the people of Burma will be largely unaffected by TOTAL’s
withdrawal. The financial rewards of TOTAL’s project benefit
the regime and not the people of Burma. TOTAL’s withdrawal
would represent a massive blow to business confidence in Burma and
would stem future revenue to the regime. It would also change the
political debate in Europe regarding Burma - Europe has a key role
to play in this debate which it is not currently exercising.
11) We believe that there is a close link between economic development
and the progress of human rights. Myanmar needs more openness, more
dialogue, and more commitment. In this respect, the presence of
western companies has a valuable contribution to make.
TOTAL and other Western companies have repeated this argument for
15 years. Yet there is not a shred of evidence that they’ve
had any positive impact whatsoever on the politics of Burma. Total’s
commitment to openness is laughable when it will not disclose to
the people of Burma or indeed its shareholders, how much money the
regime has made from its project.
|
|
