March 7, 1997
Rangoon -- The participation of Unocal of the United States in a $1.2 billion project to develop a natural gas field in the Andaman Sea off Burma and pipe the gas to neighboring Thailand for power generation has plunged the company into controversy. (John Imle, "A Case for Investment in Burma". International Herald Tribune, Feb. 7, 1997)
Unocal has undertaken a public relations offensive, posing the issue as a debate between those who would engage or isolate Burma. That purposefully confuses the issue. Looking specifically at Unocal's investment, the only significant US investment in Burma, we find that the issue is instead whether direct partnership with, and support of the brutal Burmese military junta serves or harms the interests of the United States, US citizens, and the people of Burma.
Let us look at Unocal's arguments, now widely publicized, in light of the specific facts of their project.
Unocal is not involved in some sort of general "engagement with Burma." Instead, it is in a partnership with three other groups: Total of France, Thailand's PTT and the Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise (MOGE), an arm of the ruling State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC). MOGE in no way can be considered independent. The SLORC is a monolithic military dictatorship that controls all aspects of Burma's economic and political life.
The United Nations, the US State Department, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and other researchers have credibly documented that the SLORC routinely tortures its political opponents, uses forced labor on a massive scale (most especially on infrastructure projects), encourages the rape of ethnic minority women by SLORC soldiers, forcibly relocates neighborhoods, towns and villages to suit its financial and political needs, turns a blind eye to the world's largest heroin industry, and openly launders drug money through military-owned banks, taking a 40% share. Unocal ignores these reports, even those from its own government.
Unocal complains that it is under fire from politicians and human rights activists, urging it to halt its investment. It purposefully ignores the fact that this effort is spearheaded by Burmese leaders led by Nobel Peace Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy Party (NLD),who won 82% of the seats in 1990, SLORC-organized elections, that the SLORC voided after it saw the results.
Unocal claims that sanctions don't work, and that they just hurt ordinary people, so their project should not be halted. Burma's democrats, who represent the overwhelming majority of Burma's "ordinary people," have addressed this point repeatedly. Unocal's partnership is not with "the people," it is with the SLORC. The people will not be hurt by sanctions, because they are not being helped by investment.
Unocal disingenuously argues that political change in societies must come from within. Burma's people rose up by the millions in 1988 and 1990, demanding an end to military rule. A clear example of "pressing for change from within." The problem is, the SLORC - now Unocal's partner - killed thousands of Burmese for their efforts, then jailed thousands more. The Burmese people have undertaken enormous risks to rid themselves of the SLORC curse, and they greatly resent companies like Unocal, which have intruded into Burmese affairs on the side of the SLORC.
Unocal makes frequent references to its spending on development projects in the pipeline corridor, claiming to affect the lives of 35,000 people there. But even Unocal admits this spending amounts to less than $2 million, less than 0.2% of the project's total cost. The other 99.8% of the project has its effects in keeping the SLORC, now desperate for cash, in power. Unocal's partnership deal has put millions of dollars in SLORC hands already, and will funnel 200 million dollars to the SLORC, year after year, for decades to come.
Unocal claims that other companies are eager to take their place in SLORC's Burma. But these companies could go in to Burma right now, as the SLORC remains eager to attract investment, yet they choose not to. What makes Unocal think they would change their minds if Unocal is forced out?
Finally, Unocal executives often mention their own visits to the sanitized pipeline corridor, noting the gratitude of ethnic Karen and Mon villagers for oil company "generosity." These one- and two-day junkets are always accompanied by SLORC. The villagers are rightly terrified of telling the foreign visitors what they don't want to hear.
Unocal executives never venture a few miles north or south, where thousands of SLORC soldiers - by contract the security force for Unocal's private investment - routinely steal from villagers, force them to build army camps and security roads, abuse the women, torture and murder those they suspect of plotting against them. Sadly, it is hard to exaggerate the horror and cruelty that villagers in Southern Burma experience at the hands of the SLORC army.
Unocal's CEO Roger Beach pledged to shareholders last June 3 to work with activists to put independent human rights monitors in the pipeline zone. Since then he has only stalled and stonewalled.
Unocal executives should visit the Thailand-Burma border, where nearly 100,000 Karen and Mon refugees, many from the pipeline zone, huddle in makeshift shacks. These refugees have repeatedly pleaded with Unocal directly, to stop the cooperation with SLORC, and halt the pipeline construction. Their many letters are completely ignored by Unocal.
Whose Interests Are Being Served?
Unocal's project is in conflict with US government strategy seeking the economic isolation of the SLORC. The US has withdrawn GSP preferences, suspended all aid programs, and blocks assistance to the SLORC from international financial institutions. It has imposed visa restrictions against SLORC and other senior Burmese government officials, the very men with whom Unocal chooses to partner. In July, the US Senate passed a conditional sanctions bill against the SLORC by a vote of 93-6. This bill has been signed into law, and President Clinton is under rising pressure to enact the provision banning all new investment in SLORC's Burma.
Unocal's project runs counter to stated US policy goals, which emphasize democratic development, respect for human rights, and cooperation against narcotics. Unocal's partnership with Burma's dictators is offensive to American values. Polls show that Americans favor putting human rights concerns above narrow trade interests. This makes sense, as there is far less chance of war or conflict with countries following a path to democratic development, as opposed to dictatorships.
Unocal can't even argue that US jobs are at stake. Over the last several years Unocal has sold off virtually all of its holdings in the US, first its oil wells, then its refineries. After the sale of its Union 76 filling stations is completed this Spring, Unocal's US operations will consist largely of their corporate headquarters in El Segundo, California, and their lobbying office in Washington, DC.
Meanwhile in Burma, the forces of democracy bravely battle on against the overwhelming power of the SLORC, armed only with the support of the people, and the power of the ideas of justice, rule of law, and democracy. The constant attacks the NLD is subjected to by the SLORC are routinely condemned by the US government. Unocal maintains an unconscionable silence about its partner's acts of violence and degradation, even denying that human rights violations take place.
A close analysis of Unocal's Burma investment shows it to be a deal of benefit to a small group of executives and a thuggish gang of generals in far-off Burma. But it is at odds with US interests, in conflict with US policy, an affront to American values and obviously against the expressed will of the Burmese people. No wonder that opposition to Unocal's SLORC partnership grows so rapidly.
Larry Dohrs, a spokesman for the Free Burma Coalition, consultant to the Burma Project of the Open Society Institute and former regional editor for the journal Southeast Asia Business has followed Burmese affairs for the past 15 years.
Reprinted here by permission.