The Yadana project is a favorite target of activists who oppose the current
government in Yangon and advocate a boycott of the regime. They denounce the
repressive nature of the government and its human rights violations. Their criticism is often based
on allegations made by exiled dissidents and is relayed by a number of
NGOs and
Western media. To create a wider audience for their cause in Europe and
the United States, the activists' message has included attacks against
the Yadana
project and Total, as well as against other Western companies that operate
in the country.
Criticism leveled against Total over the years can be
divided into three categories:
 |
 |
|
That Total used
forced labor to build the pipeline. |
|
|
|
That security arrangements for the onshore section
of the pipeline created a militarized zone in the pipeline region where human
rights violations occurred. |
|
|
|
That
Total's presence in the country provides support and legitimacy
to an intolerable regime. |
That Total used
forced labor to build the pipeline.
Although the Group did not begin fieldwork until 1994, the earliest
allegations of forced labor were leveled in October 1992*.
Reports published in 1998 by the International Labour Organization and
the US Department
of Labor
also mention these allegations, while recognizing that the authors were
unable to verify them since local officials regrettably refused to
grant them the
necessary authorization for field visits. Total
has made it abundantly clear that everyone employed by Total E&P Myanmar,
its affiliates and its subcontractors to build and operate the
pipeline was a paid,
voluntary adult with a written
contract, and underwent a physical examination prior to hiring and received
safety training. In addition, local subcontractor compliance with Total's
Code of Conduct was monitored closely and regularly. Nonetheless,
a number of articles in the media continued to talk about the "pipeline
forced laborers," an
allegation that is both an insult to the Group's teams and technically
absurd.
That security arrangements for the onshore section
of the pipeline created a militarized zone in the pipeline region where human
rights violations occurred.
Total was well aware that the Army's presence in the region could have
negative consequences for villages in the area and did everything possible to avoid abuses by the military. The
Group took three kinds of action:
|
|
|
It used the Village
Communication Committees, the Socio-Economic Program staff in the villages
(communication officers, physicians, agriculturalists, veterinarians) and the
many opportunities for direct contact with villagers to stay constantly and
directly informed of the situation in the field so that it could respond very
quickly if an incident occurred. |
|
|
|
It constantly lobbied the Army, both directly and through
MOGE, to attempt to prevent the use of forced labor in the pipeline
region. |
|
|
|
When cases of forced labor were brought to light, it provided assistance to
the victims or their families, in the form of cash or other contributions, and
made sure that the money was received by the intended beneficiary. |
 |
|
Ye-Tavoy railway in the pipeline region
|
|
Certain incidents may have escaped Total's attention
in the very early phases of the project when the Group had only a small
team in the field and was still
developing relationships of mutual trust with villagers. But it seems
more likely that the allegations leveled against it result from a not
always
unintentional link drawn between the pipeline region, where the Army's
actions were very closely monitored by Total, and infrastructure projects
carried out at the same
time in other parts of the Tenasserim region. The confusion in particular
involves the north-south Ye-Tavoy railway, which intersects the pipeline
but is
completely
unrelated
to the Yadana project*.
A large number of witnesses have testified that this Army-managed project
used forced labor extensively.
More generally speaking, the presence of the Myanmar Army, which was
established in the Yadana project area long before Total arrived, has
led to considerable criticism of the supposed collusion between the
troops and the
project's shareholders and of Total's indirect responsibility for abuses
that the Army may have committed in the area. Total
has always clearly stated that it has never had a contractual relationship,
either
direct or indirect, with the Army, and has not provided it with financial
or logistical support. Neither MGTC nor
its operator, Total, has ever had any authority over the Army or given
it instructions. All that can be added
here is that Total, since fieldwork commenced in 1994, has always monitored
the Army's actions very closely to prevent forced labor.
That
Total's presence in the country provides support and legitimacy
to an intolerable regime.
Does Total's presence support the current regime, as claimed by activist
groups that publish blacklists of Western companies operating in Myanmar, and
does that make Total a passive accomplice to the regime's abuses? These
allegations must be seen in the light of a number of considerations:
|
|
|
An oil or gas project involves a very long-term commitment. In the
case of Myanmar, six years elapsed between the signature of the
Memorandum of
Understanding in July 1992 and the pipeline start-up in July 1998. Moreover,
the investment outlays by Total and the other project participants
cover the entire
30 years during which the field will be productive. It is difficult to
predict how the country's political situation could have and will
evolve over such a long period. |
|
|
|
Total's decision to stay in Myanmar, unlike a number
of Western companies that have withdrawn, was a deliberate choice, but it does
not signal approval of any regime. Rather, it expresses the Group's deep-seated
belief that economic development and human rights progress go hand in hand.
Exacerbating an impoverished country's problems through an embargo will not
improve its people's lives. |
|
|
|
In line with its underlying principles, the Group has always maintained
strict neutrality with regard to the government, while actively pursuing
initiatives that support economic development and respect for human rights in
its host regions. |
|
|
|
An oil and gas company has nothing to gain from the absence of democracy. It
would rather operate in a law-abiding country that is free of civil strife and
not threatened by international sanctions. |
|
|
|
Once the installations are in place, they continue producing for the entire
field life. The owners may change but the host country's revenue stream is
unaffected. |
|
|
|
It's true that oil, gas and mining operations generate considerable
revenue for host countries and that these funds are less likely
to be used transparently
if the political system does not support open debate and effective controls.
But it is not the role of an oil company
to tell a country how to best use
that revenue. Only international organizations can legitimately
impose
conditions of this sort. |
