Unocal Corp. said Monday that it would settle landmark human rights
lawsuits brought by 15 villagers from Myanmar who claimed it was
responsible for forced labor, rapes and a murder allegedly committed
by soldiers along the route of a natural gas pipeline in the
Southeast Asian nation.
Terms of the settlement are still being negotiated, and neither
Unocal nor lawyers representing the plaintiffs would disclose
details. In a joint statement, the two sides said the El
Segundo-based energy company would pay the plaintiffs an unspecified
amount of money and fund programs to improve living conditions for
people from the region surrounding the $1.2-billion pipeline and "who
may have suffered hardships."
The case against Unocal was seen as a key test for human rights
activists who want to hold multinationals responsible in U.S. courts
for atrocities committed in other countries. About three dozen
similar suits have been filed in the last 11 years against other
major U.S. corporations, including ChevronTexaco Corp., Ford Motor
Co. and IBM Corp.
None has gone to trial, and none has moved as far along in the
judicial system as the Unocal suits, filed in 1996. The U.S. 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals had been scheduled to hear arguments Monday
on whether the case should go to trial.
A settlement would be a breakthrough. "Nobody can treat these cases
as a joke anymore," said Elliot Schrage, a senior fellow at the
Council on Foreign Relations who lectures on the litigation trend at
Columbia University's business and law schools.
U.S. business groups and the Bush administration have pressed the
courts to turn back the tide of litigation from abroad, and other
experts said a settlement in such a high-profile case could encourage
lawyers to file more and broader human rights abuse suits.
"Major multinationals are terrified," said Susan Aaronson, director
of the Kenan Institute's Washington Center for Globalization Studies.
"They are absolutely terrified."
For eight years, Unocal vigorously defended itself against the claims
that it turned a blind eye to violent acts allegedly committed by
soldiers assigned to guard the pipeline, in which Unocal is a partner
with the French oil company Total and the military junta that rules
the country formerly known as Burma.
Unocal was steadfast in its argument that it shouldn't be held liable
for alleged abuses by the soldiers but acknowledged that they had a
role in securing the pipeline corridor.
On Monday, in the statement issued jointly with the plaintiffs'
lawyers, Unocal didn't refer to its legal defense. A Unocal spokesman
said a confidentiality agreement between the two sides prevented him
from elaborating on the statement. Daniel Petrocelli, the head of
Unocal's defense team, didn't return calls.
The plaintiffs' lawyers said they were pleased with the outcome.
"We're thrilled," said Katie Redford, co-founder of EarthRights
International, a human rights organization that helped the villagers
The statement, 123 words long, quoted Unocal as reaffirming "its
principle that the company respects human rights in all its
activities and commits to enhance its educational programs to further
Heidi Quante, a representative of the Burma Project in San Francisco,
said the fact that Unocal had reached an agreement "speaks louder
than any words they've spoken heretofore."
"You would not settle if you did not think you were guilty," she said.
The agreement is expected to be finalized in a month or two. The
company and the plaintiffs are to report back to the 9th Circuit
Court if the negotiations drag on past Feb. 1.
Unocal wouldn't be the first U.S. company to resolve a human rights
case out of court. In 2002, for example, dozens of retailers,
including Gap Inc. and Abercrombie & Fitch Co., settled suits filed
in U.S. courts by factory workers from Saipan who claimed that they
made clothes in sweatshops.
In the Unocal case, the plaintiffs, who lived in the remote region
near the pipeline, allege that they and their relatives were forced
to help clear a path through thick jungle for the project, laboring
in tropical heat with little rest, food or water.
They claim that the soldiers were brutal, murdering a baby to
retaliate for her father's escape from forced labor and raping a girl
and her great-aunt, who had ventured close to the pipeline to
retrieve a pig for a Christmas feast.
Out of fear for their safety, the plaintiffs live in hiding in
Southeast Asia. They were allowed to file suit in the U.S. as John
and Jane Does to protect their anonymity.
In interviews with The Times two years ago, several of them recounted
what they suffered during the construction of the pipeline project.
"Until the pipeline came, we were free," the plaintiff known as Jane
Doe 1 told The Times. "Burmese soldiers were fairy tales. We never
saw them. But they came with the pipeline."
The resolution of the Unocal case could shape the futures of the
suits pending against the other corporations. All of them were filed
under the Alien Tort Claims Act, a 215-year-old law revived in the
late 1970s to bring suits in the U.S. against foreign dictators and
multinational corporations over alleged abuses abroad. Two years ago,
a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court ruled that Unocal
should face trial, saying it found reason to believe that the company
"gave assistance and encouragement to the Myanmar military." The
company had been appealing the ruling.
In June, in another case, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Alien
Tort Claims Act, ruling that foreigners could file lawsuits in U.S.
courts to address some human rights abuses overseas.
The high court didn't, however, spell out whether corporations could
be held liable for an indirect role in such abuses.
The other human rights suits pending against multinational companies
involve alleged abuses in Colombia, Indonesia, Nigeria and other
countries with poor human rights records.
China, the world's most populous country and increasingly a key
manufacturing partner for American producers of a host of goods,
isn't on the list. The Kenan Institute's Aaronson said a Unocal
settlement could add to the worries of U.S. companies doing business
"Every company feels it has to be in China, but they have no real
means of controlling their multitude of suppliers," she said. "So
that's the new frontier."
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.