Asia/Pacific

Burma: Bad Film For A Good Cause

"Total Denial", showing at the International Human Rights Film Festival in Geneva, is billed as a film that reveals the links between multinational oil corporations, Total and Unocal, and the human rights abuses carried out by the Burmese military junta.

Claire Doole - While abuses such as the use of forced labour on construction projects by the Burmese government have been well documented by organisations such as the ILO, the film fails to make a convincing case for the direct involvement of the multinationals in the abuse.

In the early 1990s, two western Oil companies, French Total and Unocal, based in the US, embarked on a joint venture with the military regime to build a gas pipeline through Burma to Thailand. The Burmese army, hired by the companies, provided security for the project and forced many of the local ethnic groups into slave labour.

In the film “Total Denial”, producer Milena Kavena intercuts testimony from villagers who were beaten, raped and tortured by the Burmese military with scenes from the court case that 15 members of the ethnic Karen group brought against the American oil company, Unocal, for complicity in human rights abuses. She uses as her guide Ka Hsaw Wa, director of the non governmental organisation, EarthRights International, and an ethnic Karen.

The film shows Ka Hsaw Wa and his team trekking through the dense jungles of southern Burma, bordering the Andaman Sea, in pursuit of evidence that will form the basis of the court case - the first ever bought by foreigners against an American company for human rights abuses committed abroad. The plaintiffs argued that Unocal knew, or should have known, that rights violations would occur during the building of the pipeline.

After 10 years of legal battles, Unocal, while denying any part in the human rights abuses, settled out of court. Under the deal, it offered undisclosed funds to compensate the villagers and develop programmes to improve their living conditions, health care and education.

The film plays with the ambiguities at the heart of the legal dispute. While it succeeds in gathering evidence of abuse committed by the Burmese military, it fails to show the direct involvement of Unocal. Furthermore, it fails to make clear when and where the abuses took place.

At the screening in Geneva, Total, the major investor in the pipeline construction, disputed the facts presented in the film.

“There are inconsistencies in the location and the timeframe of the alleged abuses,” said its director of external relations, Jean-Francois Lassalle.

Pointing to a map of the area, he explained that the pipeline had been built in an area south of where the Karen lived. The government, he said, had used forced labour in the construction of a railway running through Karen areas, adding that Total consistently told the government not to use slave labour on construction projects. Furthermore, he said that the alleged abuses took place in the three years before Total began building the pipeline.

“We must not mix up what the army did and what we did,” he reminded the audience.

In response, activist Ka Hsaw Ha adopted a more conciliatory tone than that in the film. Far from discrediting Total, he said, he wanted to push the company to take a firmer stand with the Burmese government on its human rights record.

The debate over whether multinationals should do business in countries such as Burma no longer incites the passions amongst human rights activists that it once did.

“It is increasingly accepted that engaging with multinationals that show a willing to use their economic power for social good is the most effective approach,” said Philippe Chabasse, a business and NGO relations consultant.

However, the challenge now is to redefine the criteria for corporate social responsibility. Experts agree that there are no clear guidelines on what a company has to do to act responsibly in all cases. While it is clear that a company should not use child or slave labour in its own operations, questions remain when a third party such as a government is perpetrating violations.

“What happens when a government with whom the company is doing business, abuses human rights? Should a company be held responsible when a government forcibly evicts people from their homes ahead of the construction of a pipeline?” asks Chabasse, adding that “this is uncharted territory and needs to be worked out”.

Multinationals scrutinised by UN?

Michel Bührer

Another documentary shown at the FIFDH described in a much more convincing way the struggle of the Ogoni people in the Niger delta against the oil industry, and particularly Shell.

"Delta, Oil’s Dirty Business" showed the multinationals’ absolute disregard for the pollution caused by its operations, symbolised by a broken pump, which at regular intervals spewed several litres of crude oil into a
river. It is a scene of almost apocalyptic destruction, with no signs of animal or plant life and where the native population struggles to survive.

In Burma, as in Nigeria, the question remains the same: how to stop multinationals hiding behind corrupt or dictatorial governments in order to avoid facing up to their responsibilities.

The now defunct Human Rights Commission had always been under pressure to tackle this problem. A group of more than 80 NGOs backed a proposal for standards of responsibility for multinationals in the field of human rights. This proposal was adopted in August 2003 by the "sub commission for the promotion and protection of human rights", an expert working group of the former Commission.

As far as environment goes, the proposals specified that
multinationals should operate "in conformity with international accords, principles, standards of responsibility" as well as "with those in human
rights, health, public safety, bioethics and the precautionary principle". In their letter of support, the NGOs pointed out that there was not a lack of standards but of legal mechanisms.

The Human Rights Commission rejected the proposal, but in 2005 appointed a special rapporteur with a mandate for two years, the American John Ruggie. The NGOs criticised the move, which appeared to be taken in order to deliberately draw out the process. John Ruggie is to address the Council on March 28.