[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

The BurmaNet News - 25 February, 19



------------------------------ BurmaNet -----------------------------
"Appropriate Information Technologies, Practical Strategies
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The BurmaNet News, 25 February, 1998
Issue #943

Noted in passing:

"But a bad image can mean big business for Washington's public relations
and lobbying firms." (see WASHINGTON POST: BURMA'S IMAGE PROBLEM IS A
MONEYMAKER FOR U.S. LOBBYISTS)

HEADLINES:
==========
THE NATION: ARMY PUTS OFF RELOCATION OF KAREN
THE NATION: SALWEEN RIVER RIGHTS SEEM MURKY
THE AUSTRALIAN: BURMA BOYCOTT DERAILS TOURISM

Features:
WASHINGTON POST: BURMA'S IMAGE PROBLEM IS A
THE ECOLOGIST: US PETROLEUM GIANT TO STAND TRIAL FOR

Announcements:
TACDB URGENT ALERT: IMPENDING RELEASE OF SAN NAING
BURMANET EDITOR: VOA CORRECTION
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE NATION: ARMY PUTS OFF RELOCATION OF KAREN REFUGEES
24 February, 1998 [abridged]

AFP -- Thailand has delayed plans to shift more than 10,000 Karen
refugees from Burma to new camps after their leaders warned they
would take action to prevent the move, officials said yesterday.

The authorities had pledged they would yesterday begin the
sensitive operation of moving 10,490 ethnic Karens from four
camps near the border in a bid to curb illegal logging near a
national park.

But the potentially explosive scheme appeared to run into snags
after refugee community leaders gave local authorities a letter
threatening tough action against attempts by the military and
local officials to shift them.

"The Karen have said they will~use serious means if they are
forced to move out," a Thai military official said, adding that
the safety of border police involved in the operation "was not
guaranteed".

The Army on Sunday said it would begin moving the refugees from
the camps near the Salween National Park to a site further inside
Thailand yesterday amid allegations the Karen were heavily
involved in the logging trade.

Army officers said the Karen would be given an ultimatum either
to  move to a new camp or return to Burma and fend for
themselves.

But senior officers said yesterday the shift of the camps'
inhabitants had been put off so the authorities could negotiate
with the refugee leaders before pushing ahead with the move,
which would attract media attention.

"It's difficult to say when the operation will start, because
everything is delayed," a senior officer with the Mae Hong Son
command near the refugee camps said.

"We will now try to finish the operation by March 15, but it will
be later now because we want to negotiate for humanitarian
reasons," the officer, who requested anonymity, said.

Originally the Army had set March 1 as the target date for the
refugees to  move to a new camp some 80 kilometres  further
inside Thailand or face returning to military-run Burma, which
most of them fled two years ago. The officer added however the
'very last date" for the refugees' removal  would be the start of
the rainy season in late April and dismissed any suggestion the
scheme might be scrapped.

The delay came amid a glare of publicity which, the officer said,
had "fixed the eyes of the outside world on the problem".

Earlier, another official said the military would push ahead
yesterday with the plans to move the refugees to a new camp
further away from the border, despite the latest warning from the
Karen leadership.

Thailand announced last month it wanted to move the camps further
inside Thailand for the security of the refugees. The Karen
leaders originally agreed but later changed their minds.

Some 40 trucks sent to begin transporting the refugees waited in
vain as community leaders said the terrain they were expected to
move to was too hilly and unsuitable.

Several huts were burnt down two weeks ago by men wearing
balaclavas who were believed to be working with the authorities,
who later asked the media to leave the area. The attempt to move
the Karen also comes after Bangkok decided last month to expel
more than one million foreign workers, mainly from Burma, over
the next 18 months in a bid to free up jobs for slump-hit Thais.

The Karen refugee issue has become entangled with a politically
charged illegal logging scandal in which the refugees as well as
Thai officials have been implicated.

Prime Minister Chuan Leekpai announced last week that a committee
would be set up to probe the scandal. He said anybody found
logging illegally, even men in uniform, would be punished.

*************************************************************

THE NATION: SALWEEN RIVER RIGHTS SEEM MURKY
24 February, 1998

Burma may need clarification about who has the right to use the
Salween River which separates Thailand and Burma, foreign
Minister Surin Pitsuwan said yesterday.

By international law, neither country - can prohibit the other
from using it, Surin said, adding that the border line of both
countries ends at the river bank of each country.

The minister was responding to reporters' queries about an
incident on Sunday in which shots were fired at three boats
carrying Charoen Chankomol, chairman of the House Committee on
agriculture and cooperatives, and other officials along the
Salween River. 
     
Charoen said after the shooting that he and other officials were
on an inspection trip when they were attacked. Burmese troops
ordered the boats to stop even though they were in Thai
territorial waters, Charoen said, adding the troops opened fire
when the demand was ignored. Surin said he had already assigned
the ministry's departments of information,

East Asian affairs and legal and treaty affairs to gather
information from the site.

"And if necessary, we may need to clarify to Burma that Thailand
and Burma: have the right to use the Salween River and that
neither party can prohibit the other from using it," Surin said.

The Foreign Ministry will decide later after officials have
finished gathering information from the site as to whether
clarification for Rangoon is necessary.

The clarification is expected to help prevent a repeat of
Sunday's events, Surin said.

************************************************************

THE AUSTRALIAN: BURMA BOYCOTT DERAILS TOURISM CAMPAIGNS
20 February, 1998
by Peter Weeks 

We do have faith in Burma but we also have a financial reality

Bangkok -- Burma's oversupplied hotel sector and underdeveloped property 
market are struggling between the pincers of the financial crisis of its 
South-East Asian neighbours and Western calls for an investment and tourism
boycott.

Both factors are blamed for the failure of the ruling junta's tourism 
campaign, the Visit Myanmar Year (Myanmar is the military's name of Burma).

Accor Asia Pacific, which manages a hotel in the country and will take 
on a second when the Sofitel is completed in 1999, now regards Burma as 
a niche market that, in the short term, will entice only dedicated travellers.

Hotel spokesman Peter Hock said the oversupply of rooms was not caused by
speculative development but by the international reaction against Burma.

You have on one side this great interest in the country but on the other a 
reaction against it which has produced difficulties from all sides -- like 
visas, transport into and around the country,", he said.

"At the moment, it is for the tourist who really wants something quite 
different and, unfortunately, they are in a minority.

"We do have faith in Burma but we also have a financial reality. Burma is 
less of a priority for us compared to other countries like Thailand, 
Indonesia and Vietnam."

In its drive for hard currency, Burma insists on the use of US dollars 
rather than its local money, but the regional crisis has slashed the cost 
of local south east Asian currencies, making places such as Thailand 
extremely cheap and competitive holiday destinations.

The crisis -- which has resulted in large conglomerates across the region 
cutting investment in the wake of huge foreign exchange losses -- has also 
affected investments in the hotel and property markets.

Burma's hotel sector had a shortlived boom between 1993, when the newly 
renovated Strand Hotel was opened, and 1996, when 13 additional hotels 
above three stars came on to the markets, including Trader's hotels.

However, when the pro-democracy movement, followed by the West, called for
a boycott, tourists stayed away and room rates were driven down as a result
of the fierce competition.

Another 10 hotels were, until July last year, slated to come on to the market 
in 1998 and 1999. However, one project has been canceled and others are 
likely to be delayed indefinitely.

Accor, the largest international hotel operator in the region, will proceed 
with plans to manage the 400-room Sofitel when construction is completed 
next year.

It will have to compete with the recently completed 303-room Hotel Nikko 
Royal Lake in central Rangoon. Owned by Japan Airlines and managed by Thai
firm city Reality, the hotel opened last November.

The manager of the only international real estate agent in Burma, Jones
Lang Wootton's John Stevens, said the scuttling of a hotel project by a Thai 
developer last year threw into doubt the future of multi-phased development 
which included a much needed office tower.

It would have been the second cancellation of an office tower that could 
be blamed on the South-East Asian crisis.

"In regard to Thai and Asian developers, the Asian currency crisis has 
certainly put paid to any chance of them looking externally to carrying 
out property development in Burma," Mr Stevens said. 

With only 12,000 sq m of office space on the market, the chronic shortage 
of space available to the 900 foreign firms based in Rangoon has pushed up 
rentals to levels slightly higher than neighbouring Bangkok and even Sydney.

"The supply in the office market is incredibly limited with most people 
operating from houses, as there are only tow existing international-standard 
buildings and they are 97 per cent occupied," Mr Stevens said.

"There is one building which will be completed in a month's time. The next 
office building will be completed by 2000."

*************************************************************

WASHINGTON POST: BURMA'S IMAGE PROBLEM IS A MONEYMAKER FOR U.S. LOBBYISTS
24 February, 1998  (Page A19)
by R. Jeffrey Smith, Washington Post Staff Writer

The military rulers of Burma are well aware they have an image problem in
Washington. The Clinton administration and human rights groups regularly
recount how the generals took office by hijacking a 1990 election, keep
hundreds of opponents in inhumane prisons and solicit investments from
Asian drug lords.

But a bad image can mean big business for Washington's public relations
and lobbying firms. Several firms have been conducting a campaign on
Burma's behalf in classic Washington style -- producing upbeat
newsletters, arranging seminars and interviews and funding
all-expense-paid trips -- partly to persuade the Clinton administration to
lift trade sanctions against the regime.

For a fee of nearly a half-million dollars, for example, a Burmese company
that U.S. officials say is close to the military leadership last year hired a
former assistant secretary of state for narcotics control, Ann Wrobleski,
and her lobbying firm, Jefferson Waterman International, to communicate
the company's "positions and interests," according to the contract.

Wrobleski is well known to the regime from her counter-narcotics work,
which occurred when Burma was becoming the principal exporter of
heroin sold on U.S. streets.

Another, well-connected firm in Burma's capital of Rangoon hired a public
relations firm and a lobbying firm last year, paying $252,000 to former
television reporter Jackson Bain to help the Burmese Embassy burnish the
country's reputation, and an undisclosed sum to the Atlantic Group, a
lobbying and public relations company that is working more directly to help
overturn the U.S. sanctions.

In addition, various U.S. corporations that want to do business with Burma
or already invest there, including the California-based energy company,
Unocal Corp., have been spending money to promote the idea that
Washington's barriers to new U.S. trade with Burma do not reflect a
politically sound U.S. strategy. The sanctions, which President Clinton
imposed last May, bar new investment by U.S. firms in commercial or
energy projects.

An educational and advocacy organization here called The International
Center drew on donations from such corporations to help fund a trip in
October by three former high-ranking Defense Department and State
Department officials, who met with top military officials as well as with
noted opposition figure Aung San Suu Kyi, the winner of the 1991 Nobel
Peace Prize for her anti-regime activities.

The three former officials, Morton I. Abramowitz, Richard L. Armitage
and Michael H. Armacost, subsequently sent their policy advice to national
security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and briefed lawmakers and
staff on Capitol Hill.

In a private letter to Berger, the three men counseled that some sanctions
should remain in place, but urged that Washington try to adopt a more
flexible approach permitting international loans for health care and
education. Eventually, they added, Washington should reconsider keeping
any unilateral sanctions on Burma. "Sanctions over time will become a
wasting asset and slow Burma's exposure to the outside world," they
wrote.

The administration has given no hint that it plans to relax Burma sanctions.
Unocal, which has a 28 percent stake in a billion-dollar natural gas project
in Burma, gave $50,000 to The International Center last July, after hearing
from Frances Zwenig, the center's director, about the trip proposal in
March. But Zwenig said the funds were not intermingled with those of the
other corporations that helped underwrite the trip.

Unocal also donated funds last year to Georgetown University's School of
Foreign Service to help fund a Capitol Hill seminar series on Asian nations
that is to include a presentation this spring on Myanmar, the name assigned
to the country by the junta. James C. Clad, a research professor at the
school, declined to say how much the company gave. Corporations "pay
but they also get the full spectrum of people" with different views at the
seminars, he said.

Maureen Aung-Thwin, who directs the Soros Foundation's Open Society
Institute Burma Project, complained that the reception Burma gets from
such institutions in Washington "sends really mixed signals to a government
that is beginning to feel the pressure of the isolation and the sanctions."

Lobbyists promoting a positive image of Burma say that they are doing
nothing wrong. Bain said he knows the Burmese government is repressive
and "not ready for prime time." But he said he enjoys the challenge of
trying to disseminate information that gives a fuller picture of the country.

The work is an uphill battle. According to the State Department's most
recent public report on Burma, covering the six-month period ending last
September, the Burmese regime "made no progress" in moving toward
democratization and continued its "severe violations" of human rights.
"Money from the illicit trafficking of narcotics likely accounts for a
substantial net inflow" of the nation's foreign currency receipts, the U.S.
report said. Hundreds of political prisoners were still subject to
"deplorable" conditions, while universities remained shuttered for a second
year to help stifle popular dissent.

U.S. officials say they have no evidence that either of the two principal
Burmese firms that fund lobbying here is implicated in narcotics-related
activities.

Jefferson Waterman International signed a contract in February to provide
"various professional, strategic counsel and public relations services to" a
company in Rangoon called Myanmar Resource Development Ltd.,
including arranging meetings with U.S. and congressional officials,
according to a foreign-agent registration statement filed with the Justice
Department by Wrobleski, the firm's president. The fee is $400,000 plus
as much as $100,000 in annual expenses.

The filing describes Myanmar Resource Development Ltd. as a privately
owned company that invests in Burma. But several U.S. officials said they
believe it is either closely connected with the military regime or an arm of
its leadership, and internal State Department cables have identified
Jefferson Waterman as the "U.S.-based lobbying firm" for the junta itself.
Wrobleski, who worked as a projects director for Nancy Reagan before
becoming assistant secretary of state in 1986, was instrumental in denying
Burma U.S. anti-narcotics aid following social unrest there in 1989. She
said then that Burma was unlikely to make progress in countering narcotics
"until a government enjoying greater credibility and support among the
Burmese people than the current military regime is seated in Rangoon."
That regime remains in place, but Wrobleski's firm recently expressed a
more upbeat viewpoint, advertising Burma in one of its periodic Myanmar
Monitor newsletters as a "beautiful and exotic country . . . [that] offers
much to tourists, photographers, scuba divers, historians and others."
Another newsletter published by the firm repeated the junta's claim that the
United States had engaged in terrorism by helping fund the work of a
dissident group outside the country.

Asked for comment, Wrobleski refused to answer any questions about her
firm's work, saying "we don't discuss what we do for our clients" or any
related issues.

Bain, a former White House correspondent for NBC News and
anchorman for WRC-TV, runs his Alexandria-based consulting firm, Bain
and Associates, with his wife Sandy Bain, a former free-lance contributor
to The Washington Post.

Their filing with the Justice Department states that they earn a monthly fee
of $21,000 from Zay Ka Bar Company Ltd. of Rangoon, a private,
50-employee firm involved in the construction and development of hotels
and other real estate. But U.S. officials say they believe the Burmese
company is engaged in business deals with members of the country's
leadership, and Bain says this may be true.

A series of internal documents from Bain's firm, which was provided to
The Post by sources who asked not to be named, provides a window into
how Washington public relations firms conduct a campaign on behalf of an
unpopular client.

The memos outline an ambitious plan, for example, to improve the
country's image through a series of "defensive and pro-active" measures,
including booking speeches by sympathetic businessmen and journalists,
arranging luncheon briefings with embassy personnel, "coordination of key
messages" with U.S. companies seeking deals in Burma, and "placement of
stories through reporter/editor contact."

Bain said in his Sept. 3 Justice Department filing that his client was not a
part of the government. But his firm has repeatedly sent its advice directly
to the Burmese ambassador in Washington, Tin Winn, or his deputy,
Thaung Tun, according to the documents. Progress reports on its work
were sent directly to Lt. Col. Hla Min, director of the defense ministry's
office of strategic studies and the regime's chief publicist.

On Nov. 12, according to one memo, Bain complained to Thaung Tun that
"the last invoice for expenses and November retainer has not been paid,"
totaling $31,723. He said in an interview that this was merely an effort to
enlist the embassy's assistance in putting pressure on Zay Ka Bar.
Last July was a particularly challenging month for Burma's backers after
Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, attending a meeting of Asian
nations, called Burma the only nation in the group that had refused to honor
election results, and had banned fax machines, had closed universities, and
"protects and profits from the drug trade."

Bain bounced back in August with a promise that "we are actively
cultivating" reporters and editors, and told his client in September that what
the country needed was some "positive, media-quality photos."

In October, he reported that "we are working on scheduling editorial
board meetings with the Washington Post and the Washington Times. We
have hand-selected our targets at these papers and have begun efforts to
arrange meetings for Amb. Rabb and Minister Thaung Tun."

The reference was to Maxwell Rabb, President Ronald Reagan's
ambassador to Italy, who said in an interview that after visiting Burma last
year, he concluded the country is getting a "bum rap." Rabb's daughter,
Priscilla Ayres, is married to Larry Ayres, the head of the Atlantic Group
and a lobbyist for Zay Ka Bar.

A meeting was arranged at the Washington Times that resulted in a story
that quoted the Burmese ambassador saying the country had waged a
successful fight against drugs and encouraged a multiparty system. No
meeting occurred at The Post.

In an effort to suggest that Burma is taking its anti-drug responsibilities
more seriously than Washington alleges, for example, Jefferson Waterman
is offering an all-expenses-paid trip to Burma next month for U.S.
journalists "to hear the government's side," according to an official of the
firm. Bain is paying for a similar trip for U.S. and foreign journalists this
week.

Frances Zwenig, who organized the earlier trip to Burma by three former
senior U.S. officials, is a former staff member for Sen. John F. Kerry
(D-Mass.) who now runs the Burma/Myanmar Forum for The
International Group. In a letter to the president of Unocal last March, she
promoted the idea of "bringing a high-level group" to the country,
according to a copy of her letter.

The credentials of the group she assembled are indeed impressive.
Abramowitz was ambassador to Thailand from 1978 to 1983 and Turkey
from 1989 to 1991 and president of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace
from 1991 to 1997. Armacost was ambassador to the Philippines from
1982 to 1984 and Japan from 1988 to 1993. Armitage was assistant
secretary of defense in the mid-1980s.

Zwenig said she wrote to "lots of corporations" to obtain funding for the
trip, including some that do business with Burma now and some that simply
oppose any U.S. sanctions -- but she declined to name them. In a July 29
letter to the Washington-based director of the Boeing Corp.'s commercial
aircraft division, Zwenig noted for example that "a lot is demanded just
now of those who are concerned about the U.S.-Myanmar relationship"
and said she hoped "we will be able to work together" to fund the
estimated $75,000 cost of the trip.

Boeing, which hopes to gain the right to sell aircraft to the Burmese
government, subsequently contributed $5,000 toward the trip, according
to Maria Sheehan, a spokeswoman for the company. She added that
Boeing has also contributed funds to underwrite lobbying by a consortium
of companies, known as USA-Engage, that was formed to fight state laws
barring investments in Burma and promote the withdrawal of various
federal trade sanctions.

Zwenig, on Sept. 19, sent a draft schedule for the trip to Tun, at the
embassy, saying "I would like you all to review it and help me edit it,"
according to a copy of her letter.

Asked at a Nov. 5 briefing for congressional staff members if they had any
reservations about having embarked on a trip funded by commercial
investors in Burma, Armitage said he would have reservations "had we
been working for any investors" but added, "I don't know that we knew
who was paying for the trip." Abramowitz said "we went without any
agenda" on a trip that was funded by The International Center.
"We didn't go to work for anybody and I find the question offensive,"
Abramowitz added.

************************************************************

THE ECOLOGIST: US PETROLEUM GIANT TO STAND TRIAL FOR BURMA ATROCITIES
January/February, 1998
by Jed Greer

The Case of John Doe I, et al. v. Unocal Corp., et al. 
              
In 1993, the United States-based petroleum giant Unocal agreed to build a
natural gas pipeline and drilling stations in Burma with that country's
military dictatorship, state-owned gas company, and the French energy firm
Total. Three years later, lawyers representing Burmese citizens filed a
lawsuit in US federal court, alleging Unocal's complicity with the
dictatorship's forced relocation, enslavement, killing, torture, and other
human rights abuses of the population living near the pipeline. Unocal
responded by trying to have the suit dismissed. In a March 1997 pretrial 
hearing, however, the presiding judge issued an unprecedented ruling:
Unocal could face trial -- and potentially be held liable -- in a US court
for human rights abuses which its partners  allegedly committed in Burma. 
 
This initial decision is important, first and foremost, because it may
lead to some justice for some Burmese suffering under the unregenerately
harsh yoke of Burma's military junta (called the State Law and Order 
Restoration Council, or SLORC*). But the ruling is also significant 
because it extends an innovative legal trend which combines US and 
international law and, in so doing, marks a noteworthy step in the 
struggle for greater corporate accountability across national borders. 
"This case is not only about Unocal and Burma," law professor Robert Benson 
noted, but instead whether "corporate capital [is] going to be responsible 
for the human rights consequences" of its activities around the globe.1

* In November 1997, SLORC renamed itself the State Peace and Development 
Council as part of an internal consolidation effort, but no serious
observer believes this will alter the junta's policies.
 
Burma, Unocal, and the Yadana Gas Pipeline
 
Shunned by much of the international community for crushing democratic
opposition and imposing martial law in 1988, the Burmese regime's ongoing
brutal suppression of political and civil rights, including repression of
the country's pro-democracy leader and Nobel Prize winner Daw Aung San Suu
Kyi, continues to earn it widespread opprobrium and to interfere with
funding it 
needs to maintain power. In April 1997, for example, President Clinton
declared
a ban on any new US investment in Burma, and a number of US corporations
have succumbed to pressure and divested from the country.2 
 
Not Unocal, however. The company has a 28 per cent working interest in the 
gas pipeline project, which involves extracting and transporting natural
gas from the Yadana gas field in the Andaman Sea across Burma to Thailand. 
Viewing Asia as "the most opportunity-rich part of the world for the energy
business," the company has made the Yadana project a priority recipient of 
its foreign exploration and production group's capital spending, which in 
1997 increased 44 per cent from the 1996 level.3 According to Unocal, the 
project offers "important benefits" to the Burmese populace, "through 
hiring and training programs", use of local vendors where appropriate,
infrastructure improvements, and socio-economic programs (medical care, 
schools, small business development)."4 "We firmly believe," Unocal's 
Chairman Roger Beach asserted in early 1997, "that Unocal can contribute 
as a partner in this region to the betterment of the lives of the people."5 
The company's President, John Imle, echoed these sentiments, saying as well
that "[t]he fastest way to democracy is to encourage economic development."6 
 
The problem with this perspective, however, is the lack of evidence that
the project is furthering either people's needs or democratic reform.
Indeed, says EarthRights International, a Thailand-based organization that
has investigated the effects of the pipeline's construction, the Yadana
gas project is "perhaps the largest threat to human rights and the
environment in Burma today[.]"7 "In building the pipeline," Earthrights
International explains: 

"SLORC is committing a variety of severe and pervasive human rights
abuses, primarily against indigenous peoples....The [Burmese] army has
arbitrarily detained, tortured, raped, intimidated, summarily executed,
and stolen from villages. The army has also forcibly relocated numerous
villages near the pipeline and has confiscated farms along the route
without compensation. Moreover, the regime has been forcing tens of
thousands of villages to work as military porters and as forced laborers
on the pipeline route and other roads, buildings, and military camps
related to the pipeline....Workers are routinely beaten and even killed,
and many others die as a result of exhaustion, disease, or
accidents....[M]any villagers have fled their homes to avoid
pipeline-related abuses and many of these have crossed over into
Thailand." 8
 
Furthermore, EarthRights International points out, the pipeline endangers
both the marine and forest environments along its path. The organization
notes, however, that the extent of this ecological harm is impossible to
ascertain, because no independent environmental impact assessments exists
and Unocal and Total refuse to divulge their own assessments.9
 
Contrary to Unocal's declaration of political and economic beneficence,
the real impetus behind the gas pipeline is the Burmese regime's need for
money. The Yadana project is one of many socially and ecologically
destructive ventures the cash-strapped junta has pursued to obtain foreign
currency. If completed, the project will be a key source of income, worth
up to US$400 
million a year for the next three decades.10 
 
The Lawsuit: John Doe I, et al. v. Unocal Corporation, et al.   
     
The human rights abuses described above -- in particular, torture, forced
labor and relocation -- prompted lawyers from the United States, including
the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, as well as from
Earthrights International, to file a lawsuit in October 1996 in a Los
Angeles, California federal court, near Unocal's headquarters. Filed on
behalf of a dozen Burmese plaintiffs, all farmers in Burma's Tenasserim
region, who sought to represent the many thousands of people residing near
the pipeline's construction route , the lawsuit named as defendants
Unocal, Total, SLORC, and Burma's state-owned gas company (the farmers
bringing the suit are anonymous to protect them from retribution). The
gist of the charges against the corporations is that they "knew or should
have known" about SLORC's history of human rights violations as well as
the specific abuses allegedly resulting from the project, that they
provided decision-making capacity and funds to advance construction, 
and that they are benefitting from the alleged abuses.11
   
Unocal denies these allegations. "We speak only to our projects,"
announced Dennis Codon, the company's general counsel, "there is no 
forced labor."12 He added elsewhere, "[t]he accusations that we have been
involved in torturing people or providing some human suffering: it's
bizarre."13
  
As is common in such lawsuits, however, the initial response of the
defendants -- in this instance lawyers from Unocal -- is not to fight the
claims themselves but to attempt to prevent a trial from ever occurring.
Typically, for instance, US-based corporations accused of causing harm in 
a country, especially a less-industrialized nation, argue that US courts 
are not the proper "forum" to have the trial, which, they say, ought to 
be held in the country where the harms are alleged to have occurred. 
 
Interestingly, Unocal did not make this particular argument with respect
to Burma, a tacit acknowledgement that the country has no legitimately
functioning judiciary that could fairly try the case.14
  
Instead, Unocal attempted to have the lawsuit dismissed through several
other maneuvers. First, it argued that SLORC and Burma's state-owned gas
company enjoyed "sovereign immunity," which, as the name suggests, is a
doctrine that usually affords sovereign states immunity from lawsuits in
US federal court. Judge Richard Paez, who is presiding over this case,
accepted Unocal's contention but rejected its consequent argument: that
Burma's government was a "necessary" and "indispensable" party whose
absence would somehow deprive the plaintiffs of the redress they sought.15
Here, Judge Paez noted in his detailed opinion, the Burmese citizens are
demanding that Unocal (and Total) pay for damages and withdraw from the
project until the human rights abuses cease, neither of which requires
involvement by the country's dictatorship or its gas company if the
corporations are found liable.  
 
Additionally, Unocal asserted, the lawsuit deserved dismissal because it
could interfere with the foreign policy initiatives of the US President
and Congress to exert pressure on SLORC for reform of its human rights
practices. Given the relative unity other branches of the US government
have shown in opposition to SLORC, Judge Paez repudiated this argument as 
well (and in July 1997, the US State Department confirmed that a trial
would neither "prejudice nor impede" US policy with respect to Burma).16
Judge Paez treated Unocal's claim that the plaintiffs' allegations did
nothing to suggest the company's liability for SLORC's actions -- that
Unocal only had a "business relationship" with SLORC -- with even greater
skepticism, declaring it "meritless."17
 
The Alien Tort Claims Act
 
Unocal's most serious objection to the lawsuit -- serious because it
targeted an essential foundation of the suit -- was that the plaintiffs
could not assert claims based on violations of international law against
so-called "private" defendants, that is, individuals or entities that are
not representing a national government. To understand why Judge Paez
determined that the Burmese citizens could assert their claims, it is
necessary to examine briefly the statute on which those claims are rooted,
the Alien Claims Tort Act (ATCA).
 
The Alien Claims Tort Act allows US federal courts to try a case in 
which non-US citizens ("aliens") have alleged a tort (harm or wrong) in
violation of international law. Although it was enacted long ago, the
concerted application of the ATCA is of relatively recent vintage, dating
back less than two decades. Only in 1980 did a US court permit a lawsuit
to proceed although neither party was a US citizen and the alleged harms
had occurred outside the US. And only in 1995 did a US court extend the
ATCA's reach beyond violations that government agents allegedly committed 
to such alleged wrongs by "private" individuals found to be acting in 
cooperation with government officials or significant government aid.18 
The further leap plaintiffs' lawyers made in the case against Unocal and 
Total was to apply the ATCA to corporations.  "For almost all areas of the
law," says Judith Brown Chomsky of the Center for Constitutional Rights, 
"a corporation has liability just like a person if the corporation is the
wrongdoer. If any person can be liable under the statute, then a
corporation can."19

Crucial to the ATCA's application, however, is the nature of the alleged
violation. Not only must US courts recognize the violation as one against
"the law of nations" (those legal norms defined in juridical writings,
national practices, and judicial enforcement of international law), near
universal recognition must also exist. In legal terms, there must be a
violation of a jus cogens norm, which the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties defines as "a norm accepted and recognized by the international
community of states as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is
permitted, and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general
international law having the same character."20 
 
So far, violations which fall under this category are few, and may differ
depending on whether a government official or private individual is the
alleged wrongdoer. Slavery and genocide, for example, qualify as violations 
of jus cogens norms if a private individual -- or, according to Judge
Paez's opinion, a corporation -- is involved, but torture appears to
qualify only 
if the defendant is a government official. Thus Judge Paez's focus on slavery
as he affirmed the ATCA's applicability:

"The allegations of forced labor in this case are sufficient to constitute
an allegation of partcipation in slave trading. Although there is no
allegation 
that SLORC is physically selling Burmese citizens to the private
defendants, plaintiffs allege that, despite their knowledge of SLORC's
practice of forced labor, both in general and with respect to the pipeline
project, the private defendants have paid and continue to pay SLORC to
provide labor and security 
for the pipeline, essentially treating SLORC as an overseer, accepting and
approving the use of forced labor. These allegations are sufficient to
establish...jurisdiction under the
ATCA."21
 
Legal Implications: Small Steps and Large
 
Judge Paez's ruling allowed lawyers for the Burmese citizens to clear a
major hurdle; as of this writing, they and the defendants' lawyers are
engaged in "discovery," a process where they investigate their case
further and exchange information. More broadly, the implications of Judge
Paez's ruling are also significant. According to Carole Basri of the
Greater New York Chapter of the American Corporate Counsel Association, 
even if Unocal and Total are not found liable, corporations "are on notice 
that they may not get by the next time around."22 If the plaintiffs prove
successful, Unocal's general counsel warned, "it could have a chilling
effect with regard to foreign investment."23 
 
While many might justly celebrate if this case prevents current or future
corporate investors from subsidizing or benefitting from forced labor, the
legal battle is far from over. Additionally, particular factors aiding the
plaintiffs' cause warrant mention. The extensive condemnation SLORC has
received is a reflection of the junta's egregious practices, and the
affiliation of Unocal and Total with such a government helped Judge Paez
overcome certain objections discussed above and find the rather narrow if
vital means to extend application of the Alien Tort Claims Act. Cases
involving other kinds of corporate malfeasance in different circumstances
might not fare so well, and attention to a host of legal and political
issues is clearly needed when crafting these types of lawsuits. 
 
Nonetheless, the case against Unocal and Total is a salutary example of
what law professor Harold Koh calls "transnational public law litigation,"
a recent and evolving trend in US jurisprudence.24 Marked by a fusion of
"international legal rights with domestic judicial remedies," where
individuals or governments file suit in US courts contesting violations of
international law, this litigation typically aims not only to compensate
victims of a wrong and deter transgressors but also "to vindicate public
rights and values...[and to ask courts] to declare and explicate public
norms."25 By its nature, in Professor Koh's view, the Alien Tort Claims
Act can and should be a guiding and enabling mechanism for US judges 
 
"? to determine whether a clear international consensus has crystallized
around a legal norm that protects or bestows rights upon a group of
individuals that includes plaintiffs. If so, the court could...make
violation of that norm a federal "tort in violation of the law of nations"
for purposes of the Statute."26 
 
As was evident in Judge Paez's opinion, judges' ability to make such
rulings is circumscribed by the current consensus around a given norm. Jus
cogens norms should define those international law violations for which
the ATCA may be applied, Professor Koh notes suggestively, "[a]t a
minimum."27  
 
In this spirit, EarthRights International takes the possibilities of
"transnational public law litigation" a step further when it argues that
"international law already supports and should explicitly recognize the
human right to a satisfactory environment."28 Observing that violations of
human rights as they are traditionally conceived often go hand in hand
with severe ecological destruction, especially in less-industrialized
countries, the organization has strongly urged the United Nations Human
Rights Commission to endorse and implement various principles and
recommendations which expressly posit this linkage. As EarthRights
International points out, the Human Rights Commission:
 
"? is the global institution with comprehensive responsibility for
promoting and protecting all human rights....It is the UN body with
primary authority to prepare standard-setting instruments of general
applicability and to conduct studies and fact finding related to important
human rights concerns. In so doing, the Commission advances international
human rights law, encourages the creation of national and local norms and
institutions and fosters greater awareness of human rights requirements
and of specific violations." 29
 
Such efforts deserve support, not least because they may at some point in
the future afford "transnational public law litigators" increased capacity
to challenge injustices of which the situation in Burma provides so tragic
an example.    
 
[About the author: Jed Greer studies law at Yale University and is co-author 
of Greenwash: The Reality Behind Corporate Environmentalism (Penang: Third
World Network and New York: The Apex Press, 1996) and TNCs and India: An
Activist's Guide to Research and Campaign on Transnational Corporations
(New Delhi:Public Interest Research Group, 1996).]

Notes
 1. Quoted in Gail Diane Cox, "Unocal May Be Liable For Partner's Acts,"
The National Law Journal, 5 May 1997.
2. Reese Erlich, "Oil Giant Suffers Legal Setbacks," Inter Press Service,
8 May 1997; Jim Lobe, "Pressure Build for Investment Ban," Inter Press
Service, 18 April 1997.
3. A New World A New Unocal, Unocal 1996 Annual Report, pp. 10, 22, 26.
4. Ibid, p. 11.
5. Inter Press Service, 8 May 1997, op. cit. 2.
6. Evelyn Iritani, "Unocal May Be Liable in Myanmar Case, Judge Rules,"
Los Angeles Times, 17 April 1997.
7. "A Special Look at Burma," EarthRights News, vol. 2, no. 1, January
1997, p. 4. See also EarthRights International and Southeast Asian
Information Network,  Total Denial: A Report on the Yadana Pipeline
Project in Burma, 10 July 1996, passim.
8. EarthRights News, ibid, pp. 4-5.
9. EarthRights News, op. cit. 7, p. 5.
10. EarthRights News, op.cit. 7, p. 4.
11. United States District Court (C.D. California) Order, John Doe et al.,
Plaintiffs v. Unocal Corp., et al., Defendants, 25 March 1997, in 963
Federal Supplement, p. 885. Other law groups
representing the plaintiffs include Hadsell & Stormer, Pasadena,
California, and Paul L. Hoffman Law Offices, Santa Monica, California.
12. The National Law Journal, op. cit. 1.
13. Dominic Bencivenga, "Human Rights Abuses: Suits Attempt to Extend
Liability to Corporations," The New York Journal, 4 September 1997.
14. This observation made to author by Katharine Redford of EarthRights
International.
15. Op. cit. 11, p. 889.
16. Investor Responsibility Research Center, Multinational Business in
Burma (Myanmar), 1997, p. iii.
17. Op. cit. 11, p. 896. 
18. Hon. John M. Walker, Jr., "Domestic Adjudication of International
Human Rights Violations Under the Alien Tort Statute," in Saint Louis
University Law Journal, vol. 41, no. 2, Spring 1997, pp. 543-549.
19. Op. cit. 13.
20. Op. cit. 11, p. 890.
21. Op. cit. 11, p. 892.
22. Op. cit. 13.
23. Op. cit. 13.
24. Harold Hongju Koh, "Transnational Public Law Litigation," Yale Law
Journal, vol. 100, no. 3, 1997.
25. Ibid, pp. 2347-2348, 2371.
26. Op. cit. 24, pp. 2385-2386. 
27. Op. cit. 24, p. 2385 (footnote 193).
28. EarthRights International, Human Rights and the Environment, Issue
Paper Presented to the Centre for Human Rights, United Nations Office in
Geneva, January 1997, p. 1.
29. Ibid, p. 4.

[ The Ecologist's address is: Agriculture House, Bath Road, Sturminster
Newton, Dorset, DT10 1DU United Kingdom. email: www.gn.apc.org/ecologist ]

*********************************************************

ANNOUCEMENTS:

TACDB URGENT ALERT: IMPENDING RELEASE OF SAN NAING
24 February, 1998 

Ye Thi Ha, aka San Naing, is due to be released from Bangkhen Special Prison, 
Ngam Wong Wan road, Bangkok on Friday the 27th of February, sometime in the
afternoon. We are urging as many people as possible including human rights
defenders, Burma supporters, and other interested persons to  send URGENT 
FAXES to UNHCR in both Geneva and Bangkok concerning his case. Please find a 
copy of a letter from Asian Forum on Human Rights and Development
(FORUM-ASIA), based in Bangkok- it may help you in writing your own urgent
appeals for San Naing. We feel that UNHCR should be taking a pro-active
role in achieving protection fro San Naing, given the dangers he will face
on Friday. SLORC represetative last year threatened to pick him up outside
of the jail. The 
Thai authorities have given no indication of their plans for San Naing even 
at this late stage. We are all very concerned about what is going to happen 
on Friday. 

# UNCHR Geneva  (Attention Dennis MacNamara, Division of International
Protection): fax +41 22 739 7353
# UNHCR Bangkok (Attention Amelia Bonaficio, Legal Section): fax +662 280 0555

Thai Action Committee for Democracy in Burma (TACDB)

LETTER
=======
20th February, 1998

Ms Ameilia Bonafacio,
Legal Section, Regional Office for Thailand and Cambodia,
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR),
PO Box 2-121, Rajdamnern,
Bangkok 10200, THAILAND.


To whom it may concern,

RE: UNHCR Protection of Ye Thi Ha (aka) San Naing

We would like to take this opportunity to draw your urgent and immediate
attention to the situation of Ye Thi Ha (aka) San Naing, who is currently
due to be released from Bangkhen Special Prison into an uncertain future.
We believe that UNHCR has already had some manner of contact with San Naing
over 
the past six months and is familiar with the particulars of his case.

We urge UNHCR to make an undertaking on behalf of San Naing, and ensure
that he is offered all manner of appropriate protection from UNHCR as a
Burmese refugee at risk of being returned to Burma, and as a person at risk
of further imprisonment at the hands of the Burmese military for a long
period of involvement in pro-democracy and opposition politics.

Many human rights NGO's throughout the region have cause for concern over
the safety of Mr. San Naing after his release from prison on Friday the
27th February, 1998. Threats from the Burmese 'government' (refer to SLORC
Sect-1, Lt Gen. Khin Nyunt's Special News Briefing in the New Light of
Myanmar on the 27/6/97) and a variety of conflicting statements from
relevant Thai government agencies over the future of Mr. San Naing (see
attached documents) have given us great cause for concern. 

We would like to highlight two points in your consideration of our request.
Firstly, Mr. San Naing has renounced all previous actions that he has made.
Please refer to an attached document signed by San Naing on the 7th July
1995 in which he renounces his former actions.  

Secondly, under the general principles of 'rule of law', San Naing has now
made all appropriate retribution for his actions and should no longer be
considered a criminal case from the date of his release. From the date of
his release he is a matter for immigration authorities in Thailand, who
additionally, has a very strong case for UNHCR protection in the manner of
many Burmese refugees who have fled their home country during the course of
recent Burmese history. 

We look forward to speedy confirmation of receipt of this letter and
UNHCR's response. We also urge that a representative from UNHCR be present
during San Naing's release on the 27th February, 1998 at Bangkhen prison
and that UNHCR seek assurances from the Thai government concerning San
Naing's release and consequent safety.

Yours Sincerely,

Somchai Homlaor,
Secretary General,
Asian Forum on Human Rights and Development (Forum-Asia).

Boonthan Thansuthepveeravongse
Coordinator,
Asian Cultural Forum on Development (ACFOD).

cc  Mr. Dennis McNamara, Head of Protection, Division of
International Protection, UNHCR, Geneva.
The Director,  Human Rights Watch, New York.
The Director, Amnesty International, London.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

BURMANET EDITOR: VOA CORRECTION
24 February, 1998 

The VOA: THAI / BURMA / LOGGING report by Gary Thomas posted in 
The BurmaNet News yesterday was "killed" by a VOA editor in the
newsroom...apparently because there was confusion at the moment 
it was filed as to whether Thai forces were actually beginning 
their operation.  Unfortunately, the "kill" was not communicated 
quickly enough to VOA Burmese who aired the report.

**********************************************************