By Anna Phelan, Amnesty International USA’s Business & Economic Relations Group
Among my picks for sleeper hits of the summer, is a powerful documentary film called Crude: The Real Price of Oil. The film is described as a real-life high stakes legal drama, set against a backdrop of the environmental movement, global politics, celebrity activism, human rights advocacy, the media, multinational corporate power, and rapidly-disappearing indigenous cultures. For the most part, the main characters aren’t actors… well, I mean Chevron’s invested a lot of money and time in their web of lies, so maybe they’ve been taking acting lessons. And so far, Chevron’s signature method of acting has been to deny responsibility and shift the blame for contaminated soil and groundwater in the communities of the Ecuadorian Amazon.
On Sunday, the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon spoke of how indigenous communities suffer disproportionately from low health standards linked to poverty, malnutrition, environmental contamination and inadequate healthcare marking the International Day of the World’s Indigenous People. The hardship and discrimination faced by indigenous peoples has a lot to do with the fact that they are often excluded from decision-making processes – by both governments and corporations. In her Op-Ed piece, Navanethem Pillay, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, called for more than a symbolic celebration saying, after centuries of repression, they need comprehensive tools to defend their human rights, their way of life, and their aspirations.
And that’s what makes the case against Chevron a compelling story for film – not unlike the Doe v. Unocal lawsuit or, more recently, Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Shell. Indigenous peoples are gaining access to the legal system to challenge governments and transnational companies and defend their human rights. You might not know their names, but the 30,000 indigenous people who filed suit against Texaco (now Chevron) in 1993 are more than Extras. They are the real-life protagonists.
Sleeper hits are made by word of mouth recommendations. Crude: The Real Price of Oil opens to larger audiences on 09/09/09. Take action now to show your support of human rights for the indigenous communities of Amazon’s Ecuador.
By Tony Cruz, Amnesty International USA’s Business & Economic Relations Group
Starting July 1, 2009, the Chinese government is mandating all PC makers such as Hewlett Packard and Dell install software that filters Internet content. The government says it is to help give parents control over inappropriate material, such as pornography, but Business Week reports that the software blocks political and religious websites. And after the government of China’s recent internet crackdown on the 20th anniversary of Tienanmen Square earlier this month, and the widely known controversial self-censorship of companies such as Yahoo and Google, it is clear that the Chinese government continues to use technology to suppress freedom of expression.
For the last three years, I’ve represented Amnesty International USA (AIUSA) at Yahoo! and Google’s shareholder meetings addressing their decisions to self-censor. I’ve asked executives to support freedom of expression on the Internet through such legislation as the Global Online Freedom Act (H.R. 275) which could help IT companies resist information requests by the Chinese government.
Imagine this scenario: if Yahoo! and Google backed this legislation three years ago, the choice facing HP and Dell today would be an easy one — respect human rights or go to jail. But they have not taken concrete steps to rectify their decision to self-censor, a decision that even Google co-founder Sergei Brin calls a “mistake”. In fact, AIUSA recently pulled out of the multi-stakeholder initiative we joined in 2007, with the goal of establishing voluntary principles to promote and respect human rights on the Internet, because we saw no tangible results.
This week we’re able to see in real-time how critical the Internet is for Iranians as a forum for protest and communication. In China, the Internet is equally vital in voicing dissent and discussing justice and rights. If PC companies cave into the Chinese government’s demands to install software that filters internet content, then it could be the next step towards stifling this budding online democratic movement towards accountability, transparency, citizens’ right to participate.
So what’s next for PC companies? Will they be pioneers in socially responsible business practices or will they bend to the Great Firewall of China?
By Tony Cruz, member of Amnesty International USA’s Business & Economic Relations Group
On Wednesday, May 27th, I traveled to Chevron’s Annual Shareholder Meeting to represent Amnesty International USA (AIUSA) and its interests as a shareholder of Chevron Corporation (CVX) and to join other NGOs in a delegation to address the company’s role in some of the most well publicized human rights abuses across the globe. Maybe you’ve heard the good news that Toxic Waste Won’t Make You Sick!
Unfortunately, I was turned away at the door. I had the AIUSA proxy (ticket) in hand, but I did not have a letter from the AIUSA brokerage firm. Chevron claimed that I lacked sufficient documentation to attend the meeting. In other words, I had the legal right to attend, but was denied entrance because of a technicality.
Attending these shareholder meetings is one the highlights of my year: a 3-5 minute war of words with the MAN, a verbal boxing match between Amnesty International and Chevron. Had I been allowed to represent AIUSA at the meeting, I would have made the following statement:
In a recent 60 Minutes interview, your representative claimed that the judicial system in Ecuador cannot be trusted. But the fact is that the trial is currently taking place in Ecuador at Chevron’s request after the company REQUESTED that it be transferred out of the U.S. federal court, where it was filed in 1993. Can you explain why you have changed your mind, aside from wanting to drag this case out as long as possible with utter disregard for the rights of the plaintiffs? And in the same interview, your representative claimed that the toxic sludge that the Ecuadorian communities are exposed to is no worse than the makeup she is wearing. Do you really believe that?
I didn’t get to represent AIUSA members inside the meeting, so I dusted myself off, walked to the front of Chevron Headquarters, and joined the strong 100 protesters in supporting the NGO delegation. Later that afternoon, I went online and read the headlines: Chevron Meeting Heats Up Over Ecuador Lawsuit; Chevron CEO Clashes with Activists at Annual Meeting; and “Chevron CEO says Resemblance to Pinocchio is just coincidental”. Ok, so I made that last one up. But it was a victory! The meeting received great press. I have never been more confident that Chevron will be held accountable because of everyday people, who showed up at the crack of dawn on a Wednesday morning in San Ramon, California to support people they will never meet.
The thousands of communities living among Texaco’s decades-old toxic waste pits in the Amazon will be so relieved! It turns out that despite decades of scientific research, long-term exposure to crude oil and drilling waste-waters causes no harm! In fact, you could use a little as facial moisturizer if you wanted.
Oh, I wish I was kidding. Even for a company like Chevron, so entrenched in its own lies and cover ups, this is a new low.
I have to be honest, it has taken me a few days to regain my bearings after watching a Chevron executive explain to the American public on the CBS news program 60 Minutes that exposure to crude oil contamination and toxic wastewaters is no worse than the “naturally occurring” oils used in cosmetics. Not that it was the first time I have heard Chevron try to make such erroneous claims, but this was truly absurd. If only it weren’t so tragic.
A couple of years ago I visited the Amazon villages that are the subject of the landmark case against Chevron – one oil-polluted village after another – meeting people who struggle everyday to find clean drinking water, and take care of ill family members whose health has been compromised by vast pollution of their lands. In the Northern Oriente region of the country, communities have been rallying together across indigenous villages and campesino towns, to defend their way of life and seek justice. These people deserve their day in court, and Chevron needs to stop obstructing the judicial process with blatantly dishonest propaganda.
Here are a few of the big lies Chevron told to 60 Minutes:
The health impacts of oil used in cosmetics is equivalent to the health impacts of decades of exposure to the toxins left in the water and soil after Texaco dumped more than 19 billion gallons of toxic wastewaters and spilled 16.8 million gallons of crude oil into the Amazon forest.
In the thousands of soil and water samples they have taken in the Amazon there has been no detection of any type of toxin that is not naturally occurring in the environment…and that is dangerous to human health or the environment (this directly contradicts laboratory reports Chevron submitted as evidence in the trial, available as public records).
The judicial system in Ecuador cannot be trusted (the trial is currently taking place in Ecuador at Chevron’s request after the company asked that it be transferred out of U.S. federal court, where it was filed in 1993).
The case is frivolous (a court appointed expert estimates the damages at $27 billion – making it the largest environmental lawsuit in history).
Chevron can’t be sued because of a 1990s agreement Texaco struck with the Ecuadorian government to clean up some of the contaminated sites – sites that had been abandoned for years (the agreement with the Government did not cover claims of individual litigants).
Chevron has invested a lot of money and time to cover their tracks, and it appears that they will not back down anytime soon. In the meantime, these Amazon communities are being slowly poisoned. But what Chevron doesn’t seem to realize is that these communities have nothing left to lose, and they will never give up. Just a few years ago few people in this country even knew about Chevron’s toxic legacy in Ecuador. I hope that with increased media attention here in the U.S., they will find even deeper reserves of courage to keep up this fight and demand justice.
When a good friend left for Iraq, I noticed I began to pay even closer attention to the daily news reports coming out of Baghdad. I emailed, but didn’t hear back. Then reports of more suicide bombings, killing dozens. Then the outbreak of extreme levels of violence in Israel/Palestine. And finally, a thought entered my mind: if I had the money, I’d hire a Blackwater guard and fly over there, see for myself, find those I care about and make sure they’re ok. Wait, what did I just say? I’d hire Blackwater?
As soon as I entertained the thought, I delved immediately into reflection on it.
Maybe it is the same political, economic, religious or other fervor that drives states and peoples into conflicts and into dependence on (or addiction to) military and security forces (public or private) that I was experiencing on a micro level –feeling an urgent and desperate need to do something, go somewhere, be someplace. As time passed without information, communication, resolution, the need to protect my own interest consumed everything in its path.
Driven by emotion. Untamed by perspective or rationality. This thought inherently dangerous because of its drunken-stupor-foundation in restlessness and despair. But that’s what law and regulation is there for. When people, states, companies become engulfed in a tidal wave of philosophy, belief, or emotion, we rely on time-tested structures and principles to protect ourselves from ourselves.
This is why Amnesty and other human rights groups have been pushing so hard for stronger regulation of companies that operate in conflict zones – places that are extremely vulnerable to rampant human rights violations, attacks on civilians, killing of innocents. We can’t let the urge to protect our own interests at any cost consume everything else.
Maybe a lot of us are watching horrific violence unfold in the pages of the daily paper or on our TV or computer screens and feel uncomfortably helpless in the comforts of our own security. But there is a lot we can do on our own soil. We don’t all need to hire private security detail and hop a plane to the Middle East. We need to work now – sober, dedicated and strong – to make sure we improve law and enforcement mechanisms that will ultimately protect the human rights in lands near and far.
The to-do list of the incoming administration and the next Congressional session is already packed with urgent agendas – improved law relating to companies operating abroad, particularly in conflict and war zones, must not be forgotten.
The New York Times reported yesterday that “[t]he Australian government plans to test a nationwide Web filtering system that would force Internet service providers to block access to thousands of sites containing questionable or illegal content, prompting cries of censorship from advocacy groups.”
Not surprisingly, according to the article, Australia is using the same tried-and-true justification of needing to protect itself (and its citizens) from terrorism and child pornography.
It’s not to say that child pornography and terrorism aren’t legitimate concerns. It’s just that these are the same, all-too-often abused excuses used to cast a much wider net that unjustifiably censors peaceful expression.
So, it’s understandable that people would fear that Australia may be joining the ranks of more infamous censoring regimes, like China, that routinely limit access to information and restrict freedom of expression.
The implications for U.S. companies that provide internet services in Australia are clear: just as in other parts of the world, they will likely again be asked to comply with requests that violate human rights standards relating to freedom of expression and privacy.
A role for the U.S. government is also clear: congress must act to reinvigorate and pass the Global Online Freedom Act (GOFA), previously introduced by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ). GOFA, in its previous form, would allow the U.S. government to step in and stop U.S. companies from complying with requests that violate international human rights standards.
In indicting five Blackwater personnel, and accepting a guilty plea of a sixth, for the 2007 Nisour Square shootings resulting in the death of 17 Iraqis, the Justice Department relied on a much discussed law, the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA) to get jurisdiction over the contractors. (U.S. criminal law is generally restricted to the confines of U.S. territories and thus inapplicable to crimes committed elsewhere.)
A debate about whether MEJA would apply to these contractors centered on one question: whether State Department security contractors, including Blackwater, could be said to be supporting a Defense Department mission in Iraq, and thus be considered “employed by the Armed Forces” as it is defined in the law.
Yet, whether the court ultimately decides that MEJA, as it stands, is applicable to DOS contractors in this instance or not does not mean there isn’t room for improvement in the law.
Now is the time to pick up the ball again and continue moving forward. We shouldn’t wait for the next Nisour Square to contemplate whether U.S. law has kept pace with U.S. companies that regularly operate internationally, often in high-risk environments like conflict zones. It’s not hard to imagine that the next case won’t involve a DOD mission at all, and we’ll be scrambling for law and order, again.
On September 16, 2007, the fury that must have existed in Nisour Square set off another nucleus of confusion and activity – once the killings were known, the issue was what could be done about them. Representative David Price (NC) was already on top of the issue, introducing a bill and leading an effort in the House to expand and clarify MEJA and better regulate the military and security industry. Senator Barack Obama led the cause in the Senate.
With Senator Obama now President-elect Obama, let’s hope that the move to the White House will bring not only fulfillment of promises to be a better neighbor in our foreign affairs but also that our new President will continue to support the efforts of his tireless colleagues in Congress to set the stage for a more humane way for the United States to do business.
But, if what comes to your mind when you think of US contractors operating in Iraq with immunity is, for example, the indiscriminate shooting and killing of civilians by Blackwater personnel, read the fine print – the new assertion of joint Iraqi-US jurisdiction doesn’t apply to companies contracted by anyone other than the Defense Department.
This means Blackwater personnel working on a contract with the State Department — the same one under which Nisoor Sq killings occurred – are good to go with Iraqi immunity.
There are murmurings that US State Department contractors will be subject of similar, future agreements. It’s not clear why this agreement couldn’t have defined contractors more broadly to begin with.
The report helpfully encapsulates many of the calls for better oversight, monitoring and accountability that HRF, Amnesty International and others have been calling for with regard to companies, like Blackwater, Titan, KBR…, whose personnel have engaged in human rights abuses from rape and torture to killing, with impunity.
It also posits some fresh ideas into the conversation, such as extending the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to these companies and reforming state secret and other privileges that often get in the way of justice for victims.
However, the report suffers from an oversimplification, with an implied reference to fossilized examples as representative of the scope of the problem. In this sense, it feels like a recycled agenda from a “multi-stakeholder” conference.
We should be working together to progress most of the recommendations in the report, but a few things should not be sacrificed in the name of appearing practical: human rights abuses should be prosecuted because we don’t tolerate them, period, not just because they foster hostility toward us and undermine military missions; the US shouldn’t consider whether to ban contractor roles in rendition, it should prohibit any role in rendition, which is illegal; UCMJ application to company personnel shouldn’t be revised, it should be repealed — why should we potentially subject the entire world (the result of subcontracting of third-country nationals) to the US military justice system?
Finally, let’s tell it like it is: many companies that provide services directly or indirectly to military operations shun “military” as part of an identification of their industry, instead often preferring “security” contractor or provider which sounds more benign. With few exceptions, HRF’s report should make them happy. Even its title does not mention the word military.
In the fake July 4, 2009 edition of the New York Times distributed yesterday, pages were filled with stories many hope will one day be true – ending of war, healthcare for all, and accountability for past transgressions of the US administration. It also included “ads” for real companies that spoke tellingly about the often capricious, opportunistic corporate approach to social responsibility and respect for human rights.
An “ad” for ExxonMobil states “Peace can also be lucrative”; a De Beers “ad” explains how purchases of diamonds will go towards prosthetics for Africans whose hands were lost in the brutal diamond conflicts.
The messages in these careful, clever ads were both optimistic and pessimistic. On the one hand, corporate responses to their human rights impacts are often only skin-deep. On the other hand, there are real opportunities for us as conscious citizens of the world to press companies to do the right thing; where there’s a market, there’s a way.Just check out the McDonald’s “ad”, which exclaims, “we’re lovin’ revolution”. If we lead, companies will follow.
While human rights obligations should never be contingent on a company’s ability to turn profits, as the KBR “ad” explains, “if you make it law, we’ll make it work”.
Amnesty International works to protect human rights worldwide. We have more than 2.2 million supporters, activists and volunteers in over 150 countries, and are completely independent from government, corporate or national interests.
Learn more about us at AmnestyUSA.org »
Zahir Janmohamed is the Advocacy Director for the Middle East and North Africa at Amnesty International where he helps coordinate the organization's lobbying and community organizing on Middle East/North Africa related issues. See all »
