Turning up the heat on oil companies

Last week was a rather successful one for those human rights campaigners targeting oil companies operating within Burma. Not only did Premier Oil finally decide to pull out of Burma, but a federal appeals court in the US has also ruled that the oil giant Unocal can be sued for atrocities committed by the Burmese military in its employ.

Premier’s decision to pull out of Burma marks the end of a decade long campaign by the Burma Campaign UK (BCUK), although the company’s CEO Charles Jamieson argued that the decision was a purely commercial one. Premier was the largest investor in Burma, with a stake estimated at $200m in a project to pipe gas from Burma’s vast Yetagun offshore field. The company has faced heavy criticism for its role in propping up the brutal military dictatorship in Burma and for human rights abuses committed by pipeline security forces. The company had also received requests from Burma’s pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi and even the British Government to pull out of Burma.

Premier’s withdrawal from Burma is part of a $670m restructuring deal in which the company’s two largest shareholders, Petronas and Amerada Hess, will strip the company of its Burmese and Indonesian assets. The two companies’ 50% shareholding in Premier will be cancelled. John Jackson, Director of BCUK stated that “the demise and fall of Premier is a warning to any company thinking about investing in Burma – it’s more trouble than it’s worth.” He also added “we’ve won a battle but not the war. The pressure needs to be tuned up on TotalFinaElf and Unocal, who are as guilty as Premier of propping up one of the most brutal regimes in the world.”

Unocal
The pressure certainly was turned up on Unocal later on in the week, when a federal appeals court in the US ruled that Unocal can be sued by the victims of atrocities committed by government soldiers in charge of security for the $1.2 billion Yadena pipeline. This pipeline pumps gas from offshore fields in the Andaman Sea, through Burma into Thailand. Activists have alleged that the project involved the forcible relocation of villages, forced labour and other serious abuses, including rape and murder committed by government troops employed by the company to protect the pipeline’s construction.

The decision by the San Fransisco-based North Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a previous court decision which ruled that the victims could not sue Unocal, even though they had produced evidence showing that Unocal knew about and benefited directly from the troops’ conduct. The summary judgement, issued by District Court Judge Stanley Lew, insisted that the plaintiffs would have to provide evidence that Unocal actually participated in or influenced the military’s conduct, or that it knowingly conspired with the military to commit the abuses.

The appeals court concluded however, that Lew had applied too strict a legal standard in the case. “[B]ecause Unocal knew the acts of violence would probably be committed, it became liable as an aider and abettor when such acts of violence – specifically, murder and rape – were in fact committed” pronounced the court, which sent the case back to the district court for trial.