A CLASS action lawsuit accusing Total, Unocal and Burma's
ruling
military junta of ''egregious human rights violations"
was filed
yesterday morning in the US federal district court in
Los Angeles.
The plaintiffs include 15 anonymous Burmese nationals who
claim that
they have suffered direct harm including forced
labour and
portering, assault, rape and the death of family members
as a result
of the Yadana gas pipeline being built by the defendants,
according to
Katharine Redford, director of EarthRights International
(ERI), a
Kanchanaburi-based non-governmental organisation.
''For the plaintiffs in this case, who cannot voice opposition
to such
harms in Burma, this lawsuit is their only chance for
justice,"
explained Ka Saw Wa, ERI's field coordinator.
The identities of the Burmese plaintiffs and their location
will
remain confidential for their own safety, Redford said.
The lawsuit also names as defendants two Unocal executives:
John Imle,
current president of the US-based company, and Roger Beach,
she said.
Comments from the defendants were unavailable at press
time because
the suit was not publicly announced until 12.30 this morning,
Bangkok
time.
Earlier this month, however, following the announcement
of a different
lawsuit to be filed solely against Unocal by the in-exile
National
Coalition Government of the Union of Burma (NCGUB) and
the Federation
of Trade Unions of Burma (FTUB), Unocal denied allegations
of human
rights abuses on the Bt30 billion pipeline project.
''All people who work on the pipeline are paid a better-than-average
wage, people have been more-than-fairly compensated for
any land use
and villages are in the same place they always have been,"
the Unocal
statement read. ''We believe that this lawsuit is motivated
solely by
political considerations.
''The people of [Burma] will receive the main benefits
from the Yadana
natural gas project. In particular, the people along the
pipeline
route benefit from new jobs and the US$2 million [Bt50
million] in
socio-economic programmes sponsored by the project," the
statement
added.
Construction of the actual pipeline, which will transport
natural gas
from Burma's Yadana field in the Gulf of Martaban to Thailand,
is due
to begin in November.
The Petroleum Authority of Thailand (PTT) is building the
pipeline on
the Thai side, while PTT Exploration & Production
Plc (PTTEP) has a
25.5 per cent stake in the Yadana gas production venture,
but neither
has been named as a defendant.
''They shouldn't be buying the gas, but based on our present
information they haven't done anything illegal," said
Redford, a
lawyer.
Unocal has also claimed that its involvement in the project
is purely
financial. Earlier this week, a Unocal spokesperson declined
to answer
any specific allegations because the French company Total
is the
project operator. Total officials were unavailable for
comment.
The lawsuit announced yesterday was filed by the Centre
for
Constitutional Rights (CCR), a US-based legal organisation
that has
successfully fought similar court cases, said Redford.
''[The] defendants' conduct violates state and federal
law, and
customary international law, including the prohibitions
against forced
labour and forced relocations, rape and other torture,
and other human
rights violations," according to a statement released
by ERI.
Unlike the previously announced suit, the complaint filed
yesterday,
which comprises more than 50 pages, details the alleged
human rights
violations, Redford said.
Ka Saw Wa added that the incidents had been documented
in interviews
carried out by people under his guidance over the last
year.
''Nobody is arguing that company officers went out and
did these
things themselves, but they can be held responsible if
they were done
in furtherance of the joint venture," said Redford.
''We think the companies know what has been going on, but
[to win the
case against them] we just have to show that they should
have known
what's going on because of Slorc's history of human rights
abuses,"
she added.
Since it is a civil rather than a criminal suit, a guilty
verdict
would result in fines rather than any jail time for the
defendants.
Damages awarded from class action suits have amounted
to billions of
dollars in some cases, but it usually takes many years
before a
verdict is reached.
In this case, it may take several years merely for the
court to make a
decision on the key issue of whether it has jurisdiction
to try the
case, Redford explained.
While Unocal is based in the United States and its executives
are
American citizens, the other two defendants are foreign
entities. The
15 plaintiffs who claim to have suffered harm are Burmese
nationals
and that the alleged incidents took place in Burma.
But there is legal precedence for such suits, said Redford.
US courts
have claimed jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Claims
Act, an
18th-century US law, to try cases in which aliens have
suffered damage
as a result of crimes against ''the law of nations".
Redford said that several conditions are necessary for
a court to
claim jurisdiction: The papers have to be served to the
defendants in
the US; it must be shown that a fair trial could not be
held in the
country where the incidents took place; and there must
be strong
claims that customary international law was violated.
The key precedent was set in 1982 in the case of Filardiga
v
Pena-Irala, she said. The Centre for Constitutional Rights
won that
case on behalf of a Paraguayan man who was tortured and
killed by a
Paraguayan police chief while in prison in the South American
country.
Redford said the idea of filing the suit emerged after
the deceased
man's wife and father happened to spot the police chief
walking down a
street in New York.
''The idea is that the United States should not serve as
a haven for
human rights abusers," said Redford. Despite being found
guilty,
however, Pena-Irala never paid the damages.
One area in which the pipeline lawsuit is different from
previous
cases is that it also names corporations as defendants,
she said.
Usually only foreign governments and government officials
are accused
in such cases.
The suit was also being filed under the Racketeer Influenced
and
Corrupt Organisations Act, she said. The lawyers for the
plaintiff
will argue that there was a conspiracy to commit human
rights abuses
in furtherance of the project.
A guilty verdict under this act would allow for treble
damages.