Saturday, April 22 11:47 AM SGT

Oil companies under fire over human rights, environment

LONDON, April 22 (AFP) -

From Alaska to Colombia, Nigeria to Myanmar, western oil companies have come under fire from ecologists and human rights activists, who have even bought their shares in order to infiltrate them.

"Environmental defence groups have been active for decades. But human rights activists have taken an interest in the operations of oil companies only for the past five years. This comes in the more general context of globalisation," said Alex Vines, a researcher with the London-based Human Rights Watch.

Aart Van Den Hoek, head of Oilwatch Europe, an Amsterdam-based non-governmental organisation, said that environmental questions and human rights were intimately linked, especially in the case of the oil industry.

Recently the British companies BP Amoco and Premier Oil, and the US company Occidental Petroleum (Oxy) came under pressure over these issues, which the companies say they are increasingly taking into account.

The British government threatened Premier Oil with legal action if it did not get out of Myanmar. Rangoon protested against a "witchhunt" by London and Premier Oil said it had no intention of quitting Myanmar.

Civilian populations meanwhile have entered the fray -- with 5,000 U'wa Indians threating mass suicide if Oxy starts prospecting on their homeland in the Amazon forest in Colombia.

The environmentalist organisation Greenpeace in 1995 forced Shell to back down on a plan to sink the obsolete oil platform Brent Spar in the Atlantic ocean by means of a boycott of its service stations. Since then Greenpeace has moved on by buying BP Amoco shares and during a recent shareholders' meeting demanded that money earmarked for a contested project in Alaska should instead be invested in solar energy.

The move was rejected by a majority of shareholders, but they were forced to listen to representatives of the Gwich'in people of Alaska, who live off reindeer, and claimed that planned drilling for oil in a nature reserve threatened them with "cultural genocide."

At the same shareholders' meeting, a pro-Tibet militant accused BP Amoco of supporting human rights violations in Tibet by China by investing in that country.

"Oil companies will change their policy if the majority of shareholders wants them to. It is probably healthy that activists go to the shareholders' meetings. That is the correct forum for them to protest in," said Jon Rigby, an oil analyst with the London branch of the French bank Paribas.

Salil Tripathi, campaign coordinator with Amnesty International for economics and human rights, said there were limits to the effectiveness of buying shares.

"It is a very costly game, you can lose money. Only big NGOs can afford it. It should help, but it should be used sparingly only. Let's be honest, resolutions are never going to get passed".

Of the oil companies, he added: "We do not accuse them, but we do feel that their action has contributed to human rights violations, they should take responsibility for it, and speak out against it.

"We do not call on companies to withdraw, we just say: 'You are there to make a profit and increase shareholder value, but you are fully accountable for it. If you are there, you have to do something about it."

Of Shell's activities in Nigeria, Tripathi said "Even Shell agrees that they could have done more," but added that Shell had learned from the problems it encountered there.

Shell spokesman James Herbert said he recognised that the criticisms encountered by the company had become "cleverer" in the way they drew attention to its activities.

But he said the company had taken increasing account of environmental and human rights problems, notably in Nigeria.

BURMESE BORDER

Checkpoint closed, four under watch

Teerawat Khamtita in Chiang Mai

Ban Muang Daeng border checkpoint in Mae Sai district will be closed from today, in the latest bid to stem the influx of drugs and other contraband goods through the frontier with Burma.

Imports and exports through four other checkpoints in Mae Sai and Chiang Saen districts will be closely monitored.

A meeting of provincial and customs officials, police and army officers, and chamber of commerce representatives in Chiang Rai agreed on the closure of Ban Muang Daeng crossing yesterday.

They said the checkpoint was not essential since neither legal imports nor exports were made through it. Only a few people would be inconvenienced and they could use other crossings.

The four border crossings being placed under close watch include Ban Pang Ha in Mae Sai district and Ban Sop Ruak in Chiang Saen district.

On April 4, it was resolved at a meeting of anti-drugs agencies that eight border checkpoints be placed under close watch.

These areas are used as transit routes for drugs and stolen cars.

The checkpoints to be monitored were Ban Muang Daeng and Ban Pang Ha in Chiang Rai, one in Chiang Mai, three in Mae Hong Son and two in Tak.

ASIAWEEK - April 21, 2000

On the Road to Peace?
Despite suggestions that they were non-starters, peace talks between the Karen National Union and the Myanmar military regime have taken place, according to both government and independent sources. An initial but inconclusive round happened in February in Kayin state, followed by subsequent discussions in March. The KNU is the last insurgent army openly fighting the Yangon regime. Is peace at hand? Representing the government is the influential Col. Kyaw Thein, a member of junta-strategist Lt.-Gen. Khin Nyunt's inner coterie - so you might think a deal is in the offing. But while the remnants of the KNU might be ready to settle their decades-old battle for an ethnic homeland, the bigger question is: Do the Myanmar and Thai military establishments want to lose such a lucrative enemy? Myanmar's military eats up 41% of the national budget and the Thai army will look positively under-employed if it doesn't have a Karen-induced refugee crisis along the Myanmar border to deal with. Talks may have begun, but don't expect a resolution soon.

On the Road to Recovery?
Wei Xue-gang, one of the key figures in the Golden Triangle's booming drugs trade, may be suffering from either cancer or AIDS, Thai intelligence sources who closely monitor United Wa State Army (UWSA) activities told Asiaweek. Wei, in his early 50s, commands the UWSA's southern forces which control the narcotics traffic along the Thai-Myanmar border. He was recently spotted in the Myanmar border town of Tachilek where he has apparently been receiving medical treatment. While there, he refused to meet with business associates, according to the Thai intelligence officers. Wei's illness puts another question mark over the future of the UWSA, which is allegedly heavily involved in methamphetamine and heroin production - permitted under a cease-fire agreement with the Yangon junta. The ongoing relocation of up to 70,000 ethnic Wa and Chinese villagers from the UWSA's northern areas to the Thai border is causing major strains within the group. Last month, overall boss Pao Yu-chang was the target of a failed assassination attempt while visiting Tachilek. Rifts within the UWSA are pitting northerners against southerners and Wa nationalists against the leadership, which has turned the party into the world's largest illegal drug-trafficking organization.

The Christian Science Monitor-April 19, 2000.

OPINION

Scattered tactics vs. thoughtful strategy on Burma

John J. Brandon

WASHINGTON

Last month, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments about whether the State of Massachusetts can impose a "selective purchasing" law which penalizes multinational companies from doing business with Burma (also known as Myanmar). This law is designed to force companies to choose between doing business with one of the world's most repressive governments, known as the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), or bidding on lucrative state contracts valued at $2 billion per year.

Critics, led by US business, believe the Massachusetts law is unconstitutional because it infringes on the federal government's ability to conduct foreign policy and its right to regulate foreign commerce.

Supporters of the law contend there is nothing in the Constitution that denies states the right to apply a moral standard to their spending decisions.

A key issue in the case is whether states (and cities) can impose tougher sanctions on foreign trade than the federal government. The court is expected to render its decision on Natsios v. National Foreign Trade Council in June.

In some respects, however, the constitutional questions raised in this case are moot for the peoples of Burma. The important question for them is whether sanctions are able to change the SPDC's behavior. Though the Massachusetts law and US sanctions have been successful in portraying Burma as a pariah state, they have not had any success in fostering democracy or improving the human rights situation. In fact, sanctions appear to have only hardened the resolve of Burma's generals to continue dominating the country's political and economic apparatus.

Supporters of the Massachusetts law point to the success of similar legislation used in the 1980s that helped end apartheid in South Africa and believe similar pressure can contribute to the downfall of the SPDC.

This is an incongruous analogy. In the 1980s South Africa's economy was well integrated in the global economy, and all of its neighbors supported sanctions. Conversely, Burma's economy is at a subsistence level, and none of its neighbors support sanctions. Though foreign investment in Burma has plummeted 95 percent in the past year, this has more to do with the country's political uncertainty, inefficient economic policies, and the Asian economic crisis than sanctions from the West. Indeed, Burma's economy is faltering, but this doesn't necessarily mean the SPDC is on the verge of collapse.

The US government has weighed in on the side of US business, saying the Massachusetts law should be struck down because it interferes with the federal government's efforts to craft a comprehensive policy toward Burma. However, unilateral sanctions, whether imposed by a state or national government, should not be construed as being a policy, but a tactic. The US has been very specific in what it wants the SPDC to do (relinquish power) in order to improve Burma's standing in the international community.

But the US has also been opaque about what it is willing to offer the SPDC leadership if it was willing to step aside. Burma's generals will not go gently, and any strategy on how to move beyond the political stalemate between the SPDC and the country's main political opposition, the National League for Democracy (NLD), will have to bear this in mind.

Whatever decision the Supreme Court renders in June, the US will have some form of sanctions in effect. The US cannot remove sanctions because that would reward the regime for doing nothing. But without the SPDC capitulating to the NLD and the US's demands to relinquish power (a highly unlikely scenario) what can be done?

Burma's prospects are dim. SPDC policies are unable to deliver improvements in employment, human development (particularly health and education), and poverty reduction that will be needed if Burma is to achieve its potential. And the international community's lack of unanimity will not work to bring the SPDC to the negotiating table and help bring national reconciliation.

This will require that parties both within and outside Burma demonstrate a willingness to compromise. This will not be easy given how poorly Burma's successive military governments have treated their people for almost 40 years, and the generals' subsequent fear of retribution from both internal and external influences if they were to lose power.

But until there is a coordinated strategy by the international community, and a willingness by all sides in Burma's political equation to compromise, the international community and forces for democratic political change inside Burma should expect to remain at loggerheads with a regime whose policies continue to erode the country's potential and bankrupt its people's future.

John J. Brandon, a Southeast Asia specialist, is assistant director of The Asia Foundation in Washington. The views expressed here are his own.

Burma Related News - April 22, 2000.

Oil companies under fire over human rights, environment

Checkpoint closed, four under watch

The Christian Science Monitor-April 19, 2000.

OPINION

Scattered tactics vs. thoughtful strategy on Burma

Little substance in Cook's broth