| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Bob Dog" |
| Date: |
03 Aug 2003 11:01:18 AM |
| Object: |
OT: More like friend-of-the-court-jester |
This is not the first time multinational corporations have tried
to benefit from forced labour and slavery in Burma. Pepsico was
planning a factory in Burma until human rights groups garnered
enough publicity to show that Pepsi would benefit from slavery.
Pepsi then claimed "moral reasons" for reneging on the deal.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=429795
Bob Dog
-----------------------------------------------------------------
US oil firm on trial over Burma abuses
By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles
02 August 2003
The US oil company Unocal has been ordered to stand trial to
determine its responsibility for a string of human rights abuses,
including rape, torture, forced labour and extrajudicial killings,
arising from a pipeline project it has co-sponsored in Burma.
The ruling by the Los Angeles Superior Court marks a potential
turning point in the policing of corporations overseas, since it
suggests that US courts can assert jurisdiction when the events
took place on the other side of the world.
The suit against Unocal is based on an ancient US tort law
originally used to combat piracy on the high seas, and could have
profound implications for dozens of corporations accused of
tolerating human rights abuses committed while work was carried
out on their projects in remote areas of the Third World.
Ordering Unocal to stand trial on 22 September, Judge Victoria
Chaney rejected the company's argument that any human rights
violations should be subject to Burmese, not US law. She agreed
with the plaintiffs that there has been "no effective rule of
law" in Burma since the establishment of military rule in 1988,
making any court proceedings there "radically indeterminate".
Judge Chaney also appeared to agree with the plaintiffs that
Unocal knew what it was getting into when it started the Yadana
gas pipeline. She said: "Prior to its involvement ... Unocal
had specific knowledge that the use of forced labour was likely,
and nevertheless chose to proceed." Lawyers for Unocal said that
they would appeal.
The suit has been brought by 14 villagers who allege that Unocal
tolerated systematic human rights abuses by the Burmese military
as the pipeline project progressed.
The pipeline, the largest single foreign investment in Burma
intended to carry natural gas across the border to Thailand, is
a joint venture by Unocal and Total, the French oil company,
which is being sued separately in Europe. The project is being
managed by Burmese subsidiaries of the parent companies.
The success of the legal channel being pursued by the Burmese
plaintiffs and human rights groups such as EarthRights
International has spooked the White House, which has a pursued
a policy of active support of overseas energy projects by US
corporations, many of whom have been generous donors to George
Bush's campaign.
The White House filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of
Unocal, arguing among other things that the suit was a threat
to the war on terrorism. In another case, it is advocating the
release of institutional funds so that two well-connected Texas
energy giants, Halliburton and Hunt Oil, can complete a gas
pipeline project in Peru, despite widespread concerns of
environmental damage.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: More like friend-of-the-court-jester |
03 Aug 2003 04:00:08 PM |
|
|
On 3 Aug 2003 09:01:18 -0700, (Bob Dog) posted in
alt.atheism:
The success of the legal channel being pursued by the Burmese
plaintiffs and human rights groups such as EarthRights
International has spooked the White House, which has a pursued
a policy of active support of overseas energy projects by US
corporations, many of whom have been generous donors to George
Bush's campaign.
It wouldn't surprise me if they changed a law or two, making Unocal
immune from suit when pursuing energy goals, or some such nonsense.
The only difference from current "law" would be that it would have to
be ex post facto, which probably wouldn't bother them.
--
"I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their
numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion,
only His nonexistence could excuse Him."
-A. Einstein (Letter to Edgar Meyer, Jan. 2, 1915)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
