Let the People Decide!

Workers' Daily Internet Edition : Article Index :

Let the People Decide!

Nevertheless…

Oil Monopolies Call the Tune

One of the most glaringly undemocratic features of next Tuesday’s recalled Commons debate on Iraq is that no conclusion will be reached, no vote will be taken on anything substantive to do with any action against Iraq. Instead, the technicality being pursued is that the emergency debate will be on whether the House should adjourn. This underlines the contempt that the government has towards democracy.

Despite the party dominance of the parliamentary procedures, MPs are being recalled in response to the demand for "consultation" but not even being trusted with deciding whether Iraq’s sovereignty should be violated and military action undertaken. This reflects the widespread disquiet among MPs of all parties about war against Iraq, as well as the division between those that would side with the EU as opposed to the US. It reflects the divisions within the ruling circles, as well as the isolated position of Tony Blair among democratic opinion.

So afraid are the government of any informed debate that the famous "dossier" of alleged evidence against Saddam Hussein is only being published on the very morning of the parliamentary debate. Jack Straw has already indicated that, in fact, it will contain nothing new, citing as one reason the necessity not to compromise "intelligence". This is similar to the "dossier" against Osama bin Laden, which proved nothing but was used as a feeble prop to the forcible "regime change" in Afghanistan. In this also, the British government appears to be trailing like a lapdog behind the US administration. On September 12, the White House released a 20-page document which was alleged to substantiate the "threat from Iraq". It did no such thing. Just as Jack Straw is hinting, this document, in the words of the Washington Post, "contains little new information … showing that Saddam is producing new weapons of mass destruction or has joined with terrorists to threaten the United States or its interests abroad". As the British government is also suggesting, again in the words of the US newspaper, "The absence of evidence … suggests that Bush will rely on what he believes are Saddam’s intentions and potential actions, rather than on concrete, current activities."

The people themselves, of course, are not even being "consulted" on whether the government should have a mandate to act against Iraq or not. When the movement of the people is declaring "Not In Our Name" and demanding "Don’t Attack Iraq", it is no wonder the government is keeping the wishes of the people far away from its agenda. It is important that any suggestion that opposition to aggression against Iraq implies support for terrorism or the method of dictate and violence be rejected. The opposite is in fact the case. The British and US administrations are the ones threatening and engaging in state terrorism and the use of inhuman weaponry.

When opinion polls have shown the overwhelming opposition to aggression, Tony Blair’s response has been to suggest only that different questions should be asked, and to take his word on trust. If the government were to act on principle, it would take the lead in explaining why an attack on Iraq were unjust. Instead, the demand presents itself: "Let the People Decide!"

It was reported on Wednesday that the government was backing a move by the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) to loan £64.5 million to a company owned by Lakshmi Mittal, the Indian entrepreneur and Labour Party donor.

In February, the European Bank, which lent Lakshmi Mittal £70m to buy Sidex, the then-state-owned Romanian steel giant, told BBC News it had received "no obvious pressure" from the British government in support of the deal.

The EBRD at the time denied claims that the Department of International Development, headed by Clare Short, had also tried to use its influence to promote LNM, Lakshmi Mittal’s company. "From our point of view we were backing the winner of a privatisation process in Romania which had a sound creditworthy proposition that we could support," EBRD's head of banking, Noreen Doyle, had said.

Nevertheless, facts are facts, and it appears the government is supporting its industrialist backers as a matter of course.

The EBRD lends money for projects across Europe and has been particularly active in helping the East European countries in their transformation to free-market economies. It has 62 shareholders, including Britain and the US.

The corporate promises made at the earth summit in Johannesburg are one thing, but their actions in demanding that no other interests but theirs count for anything are the reality.

George Monbiot, writing in The Guardian at the time of the UN summit, pointed out that the world's biggest corporations, with the UN's blessing, have negotiated a series of "partnership agreements" – voluntary commitments obliging those companies to respect the environment and defend human rights – which will be recorded as official outcomes of the summit. These, they claim, will show that international law is not required to force corporations to respect human rights and the environment. But are these partnership agreements worth anything?

For example, BP, the company most clearly associated with "corporate social responsibility", which has launched one of the new partnerships and sponsored some of the key events at the summit, appears to be saying one thing and doing just the opposite.

BP claims to run its operations according to a set of strict "business policies", which have enabled it to become "a power for good in the world". BP, the policies state, will "respect the rule of law", defend "basic human rights and fundamental freedoms", "be held accountable for our actions" and "will not choose business partners to do things on our behalf that contravene these commitments". As an example of good practice, the company cites, in its statement on environmental and social reporting, the "major stakeholder consultation exercises" carried out in preparation for the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline project.

However, a report publishing the results of fact-finding missions of an international coalition of environmental and human rights groups along the route of this pipeline suggests that BP is far from being a model of good practice. BP's showcase project breaks both the commitments BP has published and the promises business leaders have made in Johannesburg.

The 1,760 kilometre pipeline, the construction of which is due to begin in December, runs from Baku on the Caspian Sea, through Azerbaijan, T'blisi in Georgia to Ceyhan on the Turkish Mediterranean coast. It will carry one million barrels of crude oil a day. Scheduled for completion in 2005, it would operate for at least 40 years. The 1,000 kilometres of pipeline running through Turkey will be built by the Turkish company Botas, on behalf of a consortium of oil firms led by BP: BP (UK), Unocal (US) Statoil (Norway), Turkiye Petroleum (Turkey), ENI (Italy), TotalFinaElf (France), Itochu Oil (Japan), Delta Hess (US/Saudi Arabia) and the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan.

The fact-finding mission visited eight of the villages Botas claims to have consulted. Four of them, it discovered, had not been contacted at all. In the mission's report there is a photograph of the village of Haçibayram, which Botas says it "consulted by telephone". The houses are little more than piles of rubble: the entire village was deserted years ago. It has no telephones.

Though the construction of the pipeline will destroy homes, fields and roads and damage many people's livelihoods, only a minority of those it affects are likely to receive compensation. Most of the land along the route is either not officially registered, or is held in the name of dead people. BP's partner has told the villagers that it will compensate only those whose names are on the official register. No compensation at all has been offered to the fishing communities affected by the construction of the tanker port at the end of the line.

Friends of the Earth have pointed out how BP and the other oil companies, in this extraordinary and outrageous deal, have demanded complete freedom from regulation for the pipeline. The BP-Turkey agreement, known as the Host Government Agreement (HGA), creates a corridor running through some of Turkey’s most politically volatile regions. The corridor would effectively be outside the national government’s jurisdiction for the lifetime of the proposed project.

The HGA was published in Turkey's Official Gazette on September 10, 2000, but only recently obtained and analysed by the group of NGOs (FOEI, CRBM, Cornerhouse, KHRP, PLATFORM, CEE Bankwatch Network, Ilisu Dam Campaign). It exempts the companies from obligations under any current or future Turkish law that may threaten the project's profits, including environmental, social and human rights legislation. The only Turkish law not superseded by the agreement is the Constitution.

The HGA allows the consortium building the pipeline to demand unlimited protection from Turkish security forces, without safeguards against human rights abuses. Under the vague wording of the agreement, paramilitary units could be placed along the pipeline route to pre-empt "civil disturbance" or "terrorist" activities. Since the pipeline cuts repeatedly through villages and bisects established ownership patterns, people could find themselves cut off from their families or land and be forced to trespass regularly on oil company property in their daily lives. Other provisions in the HGA include unfettered access to water, regardless of the needs of local communities, and exemption from liability in the event of an oil spill or any other harm caused by the pipeline consortium. The Turkish government can intervene only temporarily in the case of an "imminent" and "material" threat to the public, the environment or national security.

But what would constitute such a threat remains undefined. Nor is it clear who would decide whether such a threat existed. Local communities and neighbouring countries appear to be left without recourse for damages. The route chosen for the pipeline is one of the most expensive possible for Caspian oil exports. According to BP Chairman John Browne, its profitability will be dependent on "free public money" – much of which will come from funding sources like the World Bank and export credit agencies. The legal agreement signed with the Turkish government further props up the project by preventing the Turkish government from taking any actions that could disrupt its "economic equilibrium". The NGOs have condemned the agreement as "colonialist" and reminiscent of the discredited OECD proposal for a Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) which was rejected in 1998.

Negotiated in secret, the MAI was rejected by national parliaments after a popular movement in opposition grew once its contents were leaked to non-governmental organisations and broadcast on the Internet. The agreement would have empowered private investors to extract compensation from foreign governments for legislation that adversely affected their investments, regardless of the public interest. The HGA has similar provisions.

If, for example, new taxes or new environmental or health and safety rules are introduced, the agreement takes priority. In effect, it forces Turkey to flout international law in order to protect the consortium. BP appears to be legally exempt from paying compensation to anyone affected by oil spills or other impacts of the pipeline project. BP may terminate the contract at any time. Turkey may not.

Nick Hildyard of the Cornerhouse commented: "Turkey is now divided into three countries", "the area where Turkish law applies; the Kurdish areas under official or de facto military rule; and a strip running the entire length of the country, where BP is the effective government. The MAI was rightly rejected by governments for eroding national sovereignty under pressure from civil society. Now these companies are trying to revive the MAI by negotiating directly with undemocratic governments."

Anders Lustgarten of the Kurdish Human Rights Project commented that Turkey "has recently charged students signing a Kurdish education petition with membership of an illegal terrorist organisation, and charged a father who named his daughter after a Kurdish character in a popular soap with sabotage of the state. These precedents do not instil confidence in the way such nebulous terms as 'civil disturbance' and 'terrorism' will be applied under this agreement."

Similar agreements between governments and the oil companies have also been negotiated for Georgia and Azerbaijan. Commenting on the implications for Georgia, Manana Kochladze of Green Alternatives stated: "The requirement to compensate the consortium for any disruption caused to the 'economic equilibrium' of the project by new social and environmental laws severely curtails the development possibilities for our country."

What BP and its partners have done is to negotiate a contract which has the same effect as the multilateral agreement on investment. The company, which has promoted itself in Johannesburg as the exemplar of corporate responsibility, which has promised to respect the rule of law and "be held accountable" for its actions, has exempted itself from the rule of law and overrides the sovereignty of national elected bodies. Such agreements fit ominously well into the world envisaged by Tony Blair and George W Bush in which, under the guise of support for democracy, freedom, peace and human rights, it is the dictate of the monopolies and financial institutions which calls the tune.