The Irrawaddy
NGO Slams Total
By Louis Reh
December 01, 2005
The Migrant Assistance Program, a Thailand-based NGO, issued a statement yesterday emphasizing its refusal to cooperate with French oil giant Total in implementing a US $6.12 million compensation package for victims of forced labor and human rights abuses during construction of its Yadana gas pipeline in Burma.
“It would be unethical to be funded by the company whose negligence had allowed these abuses to happen,” read the statement. The MAP Foundation says that in a letter to Total dated November 10, they had objected to the company’s awareness of forced labor and human rights abuses organized by government authorities. “We explained that we did not understand how Total could continue to invest and work in Burma, now that they were aware that such abuses had been organized by the [Burmese] regime.”
The Foundation also voiced concerns as to the manner in which the compensation, agreed in an out-of-court settlement, would be distributed, citing a “lack of clarity” in Total’s planning.
Despite this, the statement said that “MAP Foundation made it clear that we would welcome being part of a totally independent team to identify all victims of abuse in the areas where Total works, to inform the victims of their rights and link them to Total’s lawyers for compensation.”
The MAP Foundation received an email from Total’s senior vice president of international public affairs saying: “I regret your position, that seems to me more ideologically based that [sic] targeting the benefit of the population.”
“We are working in a difficult country but we are sustaining.” Total’s vice president for exploration and production, Jean Francois Lassalle, told The Irrawaddy yesterday. “We’ve always said that forced labor of any form is unacceptable and we’ve always fought against forced labor, which is not yet eradicated in Burma, reportedly.”
Speaking to The Irrawaddy today, MAP Foundation coordinator Jackie Pollock said: “We are not against the money but we against the message that they [Total] are using to get the money to the people, because they are controlling the way they will use the money.”
“The compensation would not help the force labor problem,” said Pollock. “So the best way is that Total withdraws from Burma in order to eradicate the forced labor around the gas fields, until the political situation changes in Burma.”
The Irrawaddy
Why Total Agrees to Compensation in Forced Labor Suit (Online Interview)
An Interview with Jean Francois Lassalle December 01, 2005
Two days after French oil giant Total made a 5.2 million euros (US $6.12 million) out-of-court settlement to end a suit by 12 Burmese accusing the company of involvement in forced labor to build a natural gas pipeline, a Total executive explained why his company agreed to settle. In a phone interview with The Irrawaddy , Total’s vice president for exploration and production Jean Francois Lassalle claimed his company is paying compensation despite the fact “we’ve never used forced labor.” The eight plaintiffs and four witnesses had brought the suit against Total in 2002, claiming forced labor was used by Total in building its Yadana pipeline from Burma to Thailand from 1995-1998. This is what Lassalle told The Irrawaddy :
Question: Total has agreed to a compensation package of €5.2 million. How will the money be allocated?
Answer: There is the first sum that is going to be allocated at €10,000 (US $11,773) per plaintiff. Then there is a further sum of €1.12 million (US $1.32 million), which will be put at the disposal of the people who can justify that they’ve been subject to forced labor at the time of the work in pipeline areas. And then, of course, their cases will be submitted to NGOs in charge of verifying that their claims are exact. If it’s exact, then of course they will be compensated according to their standard. The final sum of €4 million (US $4.7 million) will be allocated for the benefit of [Burmese] refugees at the border in Thailand. Basically, some of the money will be used for social works like the ones that we’ve done in the pipeline area. So, basically, this is for flood protection, water supply, sanitation and professional training. That’s how the funds will be allocated.
Q: Why did Total agree to this level of compensation?
A: Well, it was an agreement that was deemed most sound by the lawyers. Once the suit was brought, the decision was reached rapidly. The lawyers realized that the suit was not the proper way to solve the differences between the plaintiffs and ourselves. We wanted to be in line with what we’ve always done, which is a social economic program. We wanted also to state strongly that we were not directly or indirectly responsible for what happened during the course of the work. We’ve never used forced labor, and neither have our sub-contractors. This is clearly stated in our press release. So, the solution that was found was as I’ve described—not guilty for sure, but socially responsible for the situation we found in Myanmar [Burma].
Q: Burmese lobby groups like Burma Campaign UK have stated that the settlement constitutes a humiliation for Total. How would you respond?
A: I don’t see any humiliation in it at all. What we’re doing in the pipeline area is not humiliating. On the contrary, it involves social cooperation and social responsibility.
Q: You mention social responsibility. Is the compensation package Total has agreed to simply a convenient or cheap way to appease criticism from the plaintiffs and others in the international community?
A: Well, we’re not trying to appease anyone. We’ve provided similar compensation in the past. Remember, there were plaintiffs in 1995 who claimed that they had been used for forced labor. As soon as we knew about it—because we’re entirely against those ways of working—we provided compensation. So, we’re doing the same now. In the present case, instead of addressing the issue with us directly, plaintiffs went to a French court. So, once the judiciary process starts, it’s certainly more difficult to find a solution. But it’s not humiliating, in my opinion. Apart from Burma Campaign UK, reactions that we’ve received so far are rather positive.
Q: €4 million (US $4.7 million) has been earmarked for humanitarian assistance along the Thai-Burma border. How will this money be used? And will it be allocated with the assistance of any other partner humanitarian organizations?
A: We have found two humanitarian organizations that will participate in the implementation of this agreement. These are the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the Catholic Office for Emergency Relief and Refugees.
Q: Have these organizations agreed to receive the funds and distribute them?
A: Yes, under the control of the management committee.
Q: Total has been critical of companies doing business in Burma. Do you think Total’s business ties with Burma ultimately support the regime?
A: We don’t think so. We work anywhere in the world as long as doing so does not conflict with our ethical practices. If there is a legal ban from the UN, for instance, certainly we wouldn’t work. That was the case in Iraq, where there was a legal ban from the UN not to work in Iraq. But, for the moment, it’s not the case in Myanmar. So, we work properly there and show cooperation and social responsibility.
Q: Ethnic and other opposition groups have recently stated that they would like to see Total leave Burma and come back when democracy has been restored and the government is run by a civilian administration. How do you respond to this?
A: We don’t think it’s a good solution because it’s very clear that if we were to withdraw from the country, our position would be taken immediately by another company. There’s a definite need for energy in this part of the world, as you know. So, another operator will make it, and then you will face the risk that all the positive things we are doing there for the population may not be continued. So, what is the change? You had that case several times in Myanmar. Well, important companies withdrew and were replaced by others. You have British-American Tobacco. You have Premier Oil. All those companies have been replaced—sometimes for the better, and sometimes not.
Q: Many international opposition groups claim that your compensation package will result in huge profits for the military government—perhaps as much as US $300 to 500 million—that could be used to further solidify their power. How do you respond to such accusations?
A: First of all, the figure of US $500 million is totally out of proportion. It’s not the right figure, I would say.
Q: What is the right figure?
A: We cannot disclose that. But, the stated figure is out of proportion. You have to keep something in mind. Total is not alone in this joint venture. We have other partners—Unocal and PTT [Petroleum Authority of Thailand]. As partners, we pay not only taxes to the government, but also pay for the gas itself. Although we are the operator of the joint venture, we are only one partner. And the actual figure [of profit for the regime] is much further down.
Q: Do you think that your work in Burma is helping what some have called one of the world’s most repressive governments?
A: We are working in a difficult country, but we are persevering. We’ve always said that forced labor of any kind is unacceptable, and we’ve always fought against forced labor, which is reportedly not yet eradicated in Myanmar [Burma].
=============================================
Total settles out of court in Myanmar forced labour case
Agence France Presse, November 29
The French oil company Total said on Tuesday that it had reached an out-of-court settlement with a group of villagers from Myanmar who complained they had been used as forced labour to build a gas pipeline.
Under the terms of the settlement, Total will pay 10,000 euros (12,000 dollars) to each of the eight claimants, who have in turn agreed to drop the charges they brought against Total in a French court, the company said in a statement.
Total, which staunchly denies the forced labour accusations, has also agreed to set up a 5.2-million-euro solidarity fund -- from which the workers' compensation will be drawn -- to finance humanitarian projects in Myanmar.
The French oil company and its US partner Unocal have been accused of human rights abuses during the building of a 1.2-billion-dollar gas pipeline in Myanmar, which was formerly known as Burma, in the 1990s.
French prosecutors opened an investigation in 2002 after the eight
claimants charged that they were forced by the country's military to work on the construction project.
Myanmar was found guilty by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) of the systematic use of forced labour in the 1990s to build roads and military camps and has since pledged to stamp out the practice.
