Total Oil’s Issue Explained by a Campaign Director

Interview with Mrs. Yvette Mahon (director of Burma Campaign UK)

Interview carried out by Raluca Enescu

Burma Digest: We all realise how important the campaign against Total Oil's involvement in Burma is, but...why a global day of action? Whose idea was it and how did it appear among pro-democracy/human rights groups?

BCUK: It has been decided upon at twice yearly Euro-Burma Network meetings. Co-ordinated activities maximise impact.

Burma Digest: In which way are you contributing to this Global day of Action?

BCUK: Protest outside Total offices, photo opportunity for media and press release.

 

Burma Digest: Total Oil claims that they bring positive development trough what they call "constructive engagement". How would you respond to this and what are, in fact, the consequences of Total's investment in Burma?

BCUK: “The ‘constructive engagement’ that TOTAL claims to have been carrying out in Burma over the last decade has not resulted in a single democratic reform by the regime. TOTAL’s presence in Burma has consequences far beyond its 63-kilometre pipeline across Burmese territory. Its destructive influence goes to the heart of international policy towards one of the world’s most brutal regimes. For that reason, it is essential for all those who want change in Burma to deal with the problem of TOTAL Oil. TOTAL’s project provides significant annual revenue to the regime. Some sources estimate as much as $450million. Also, the accusation that the Yadana project has benefited from the heavy use of forced labour by Burmese citizens, including children, the elderly, and the infirm is well-documented. There are countless reports that Burmese soldiers in the pipeline region conscripted thousands of civilians to perform forced labour for the benefit of the pipeline. As onshore work commenced, the military directed the construction of service roads and helipads, as well as their own camps and barracks, through the use of forced labour. As a direct consequence of the militarization of the pipeline region countless human rights violations against the local population have occurred over the years” (Quoted from BCUK’s report “Total Oil-fuelling the oppression in Burma”)

Burma Digest: In which way does Total Oil influence the political debate on Burma?

BCUK: One of the most significant consequences of TOTAL’s presence in Burma is its influence on French foreign policy. In order to protect TOTAL’s interests, the French government has become an obstacle to any serious strengthening of EU measures against Burma – particularly with regard to economic sanctions.
 

Burma Digest: What would be the consequences of Total Oil pulling out of Burma?

BCUK: Burma has a population of 50 million people, of which three quarters live off the land. TOTAL employs 800 people. It is clear, therefore, that the people of Burma will be largely unaffected by TOTAL’s withdrawal. The financial rewards of TOTAL’s project benefit the regime and not the people of Burma. TOTAL’s withdrawal would represent a massive blow to business confidence in Burma and would stem future revenue to the regime. It would also change the political debate in Europe regarding Burma - Europe has a key role to play in this debate which it is not currently exercising.

Burma Digest: Total oil representatives say on their website: "If we decided to leave, we would immediately be replaced by another company who might not apply the same social or ethical standards." How would you respond to this?

BCUK: It is interesting that TOTAL is accusing its own Asian business partners of having lower ethical standards than TOTAL. This means that TOTAL’s Asian partners would have an incredible disregard for the people of Burma, given TOTAL’s already appalling record. It could be TOTAL is judging other ‘actors’ by the standards of its current partners, MOGE and the Burmese military. It would be useful if TOTAL could name those Asian companies that is sees as being more unethical than TOTAL.

It is not true that Asian investment has flooded into Burma in the absence of Western investment. It is often reported that the majority of investment in Burma comes from the Asian region. However, throughout the 1990s the reality has been very different. Asian countries disbursed $1.32 billion whereas Western countries disbursed around US$ 2.31 billion of investment. Many have taken a cautious approach to investment in Burma as a result of the regime's mismanagement of the economy. In recent years investment has been negligible, but there is a serious concern that it has already started to pick up again. This is why Europe must, in addition to applying an EU investment ban, push for UN mandatory sanctions on Burma. Until such UN sanctions can be put in place, the EU must ensure that no major European company tips the economic balance of power yet further in the regime's favour. The major benefit of TOTAL’s withdrawal would be to remove the main obstacle to a more progressive French foreign policy that would be supportive of such a sanctions policy - foreign policy that supports Burma’s democrats and not its dictators.

Burma Digest: Despite facing strong public criticism, the Norwegian Petroleum fund decided to keep its investment in Total Oil. This fact has been considered by many voices as "bound to have a strong impact on anti-Total campaigns”. What would you say about this?

BCUK: They should have taken a braver stance. However the majority of Total’s shareholders are extremely concerned by the company’s abysmal human rights record and are working from the inside to use what pressure they can bring to bear.

Burma Digest: In which way can ordinary people& responsible citizens of your country contribute to the Global Day of Action against Total's investment in Burma?

BCUK: Attend Day of Action. Send a postcard to Total.

Burma Digest: What impact do you expect the Global Day of Action to have on the public and the media?

BCUK: Increased publicity, media coverage, negative PR for Total, increased public support.

Burma Digest: What do you think Total Oil's reaction will be?

BCUK: They have already revealed how bothered they are by the campaign by ploughing much energy into a counter-campaign to show Total in a better light – paying off plaintiffs in court case – trying to persuade NGOs to accept Total funding, speaking to activists so they can they say to their shareholders they have  ‘engaged’ with stakeholders etc.