Oil Companies Financing Nuclear Threat in Burma, Refusing Transparency

The world has a new nuclear threat on its hands; the first ever in Southeast Asia.

According to a disturbing five-year study released Friday by the Democratic Voice of Burma (DVB), carried on Al Jazeera, and vetted by a nuclear scientist and former director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the ruling military junta in Burma (Myanmar) is "mining uranium, converting it to uranium compounds for reactors and bombs, and is trying to build a reactor and or an enrichment plant that could only be useful for a bomb."

This follows a UN report leaked last month claiming North Korea is exporting nuclear and ballistic missile technology to Burma using intermediaries, shell companies, and overseas criminal networks designed to circumvent UN sanctions against Pyongyang.

A key question underlies the scandal: how could Burma, Southeast Asia's poorest country, possibly afford to finance a nuclear program?

The answer involves the military regime's partnerships with multinational companies, including some of the world's largest and best known oil firms from the US, France, Japan, China, India, Thailand and elsewhere.

In 2009, my colleagues and I at EarthRights International (ERI) calculated that the Yadana natural gas pipeline -- operated by the French oil giant Total, with the American company Chevron, and the Thai company PTTEP -- has generated nearly $8 billion dollars in gas sales since payments commenced just a decade ago. Transporting Burmese natural gas from the Andaman Sea across Burma to neighboring Thailand, ERI estimated that from 2000-2008, billions of dollars of that revenue went directly to Burma's ruling junta, a claim the companies have never denied.

Compounding the junta's notoriously low domestic spending on health and education, in 2009 we also documented that portions of the country's gas dollars found their way into private offshore bank accounts in Singapore, from where the money could be spent on any number of things, including perhaps nuclear technology.

According to a defected senior junta member interviewed by DVB in the documentary that aired on Aljazeera last week, "when [the regime] got that [gas] money, they started the nuclear project."

(This is to say nothing of the ongoing instances of forced labor, rape, torture, killings and other abuses we continue to document against local people in direct connection to the companies' pipeline).

Earlier this year, we traveled to Bangkok to launch an international campaign urging Total, Chevron, and PTTEP to practice complete revenue transparency in Burma and to publish all the data surrounding their last 18 years of payments to the Burmese regime. The campaign is backed by over 160 world leaders, NGOs, unions, scholars, and investment firms, including global leaders like Mary Robinson, Kjell Magne Bondevik, and Kerry Kennedy. It occurred to us that only a monumental degree of intransigence from the companies would lead them to deny the reasonable request for transparency from such a diverse and powerful coalition -- but that's exactly what happened.

About two weeks ago, Total and Chevron released statements effectively saying they had no plans to practice revenue transparency in Burma and no plans to cooperate with the initiative. Had they cooperated, they would have been the first ever companies to practice revenue transparency in the notoriously repressive country.

Curiously, however, the companies cited different reasons for their secrecy. Chevron claimed they're contractually restricted from publishing their payments, while Total implied simply that the regime didn't want them to practice transparency.

Chevron's argument -- that its "contractual obligations related to the Yadana Project do not permit disclosure of payments or other confidential information relative to the Project" -- is simply inconsistent with the company's actual contracts with the junta, which Unocal (now Chevron) disclosed during the partial trial in the human rights suit Doe v. Unocal Corp. In those contracts, there's nothing that would prevent revenue transparency. Moreover, Unocal also chose to disclose dozens of actual payment records to the junta -- records that were introduced at trial as part of Unocal's defense -- without suggesting that their defense was hampered by contracts that required confidentiality. So unless the relevant contracts have changed significantly, or unless Unocal violated court orders in Doe v. Unocal and withheld key documents, Chevron appears to be misleading the public and its shareholders about its contractual obligations in Burma.

Total's markedly different tack is equally concerning. While privately the companies claim the same contractual restrictions as Chevron, now publicly they simply imply, in exceedingly vague terms, that the Burmese authorities might be averse to their transparency ("Total cannot disclose any financial or contractual information if the host country is opposed to such disclosure").

Either way, it appears both Chevron and Total would simply prefer to hide their payments to the world's newest nuclear threat.

Which raises the question: Just how real is the nuclear threat?

The story surfaced in 2009 after a two-year investigation by notable author and journalist Phil Thornton and prominent Australian National University scholar Desmond Ball. Drawing on radio intercepts and a series of interviews with key defectors from Burma, the duo demonstrated that the uncomfortable rumors circulating through intelligence communities were credible: Burma's nuclear intent is real. Their conclusion was that if all accounts surrounding Burma's clandestine program were true, the regime would eventually be able to arm itself with nuclear warheads.

Any existing doubts are now fading fast. The DVB report released last week reflects thousands of top secret internal documents and photographs smuggled out of the closed country by a senior defector from Burma's military ranks. The evidence is clear and damning. Not only is the xenophobic regime constructing an intricate tunnel system throughout the country at exorbitant costs and with the help of North Korea, but it's also developing long-range missiles and nuclear technologies that would only be used for weapons.

The current president of the IAEA Yikiya Amano claims that the UN watchdog group is now looking into the reports and if necessary will seek some clarifications from the junta, and Ban Ki Moon's Special Advisor on Burma just arrived in Singapore for talks with the authorities there about the situation in the country.

A principal concern is that if Burma is capable of long range missile strikes and weapons of mass destruction, the security dynamic in Asia will alter significantly, from India to China and beyond. It would be hard to imagine such a necessary shift in governments' priorities could ever benefit the region's least advantaged citizens, let alone the people of Burma.

Perhaps now that the geopolitical stakes are higher, Total and Chevron can finally be persuaded to start practicing disaggregated revenue transparency in the country. At this point, it'll be difficult to interpret their continued secrecy as anything but nefarious.

 

Comments

[b525]

12:25 PM on 06/11/2010

Little known to the west, Myanmar (formerly called Burma) is now in the midst of an environmen­tal apocalypse funded by China, Thailand, various multinatio­nals and other foreign countries.

Myanmar's military dictatorsh­ip government is being used by these foreign countries/­multinatio­nals to carry out this environmen­tal/human destructio­n.

Deforestat­ion, (Myanmar now has one of the fastest deforestat­ion rates on earth)
Mega-dams, (over 100 since 1960)
Enormous strip mines,
Agribusine­ss land clearing for crop monculture­s,
Oil/natura­l gas extraction­,

The result?...­. millions of riverside fisherman, farmers and hunter/gat­herers forcibly displaced from their home villages/l­ands without compensati­on. Others arrested/k­illed/assa­ulted who attempt to resist the destructio­n and/or return to their stolen villages/l­ands/river­s which are patrolled by government soldiers/p­olice.

Millions of people from 135 tribal/eth­nic groups in Myanmar, who formerly lived off Myanmar"s forests and rivers as small scale fisherman, farmers, and hunters and gatherers are now flooding into Thailand and surroundin­g countries to escape government­/corporate brutality.

Also civil wars within Myanmar, as these forcibly displaced people try to defend themselves and their homelands and are branded as "rebels".

[madeleineblu]

09:45 AM on 06/11/2010

The Karens of Burma, Our Allies 1st and 2nd World War

Sixth paragraph down:

"Transport­ing Burmese natural gas from the Andaman Sea across Burma to neighborin­g Thailand, ERI estimated that from 2000-2008, billions of dollars of that revenue went directly to Burma's ruling junta, a claim the companies have never denied".

This pipeline is going through Karen State.

Ninth paragraph down:

"(This is to say nothing of the ongoing instances of forced labor, rape, torture, killings and other abuses we continue to document against local people in direct connection to the companies' pipeline).

It is the Karen who are being used for forced labour, who are raped, tortured and killed for this and other factors.

Madeleine Blu
Karen in UK (KUK

[Dietrich]

05:04 PM on 06/11/2010

In fact, Madeleine, the pipeline goes through Taninthary­i (Tenasseri­m) Division, 60 kms north of Dawei (Tavoy). It follows a route of about 63 kms, south of the border of Mon State. This is nowhere near Karen State which is further north still. In 1996 a Total survey team was attacked by Karen guerillas: 5 expatriate­s were killed and 11 wounded. There are Karen, Mon and Burman villages along the pipeline route, but the area was chosen because it was pretty isolated. Indeed, the only people killed because of the pipeline have been expatriate­s, killed by the Karen KNLA/KNU. The Thais were very angry at the time because they needed the gas. The KNU have promised not to be so foolish in the future. The pipeline is now buried two metres undergroun­d and needs no protection­. The KNU have undertaken not to attempt any sabotage, which would in any case be extremely difficult technicall­y.

[Matthew Smith]

04:59 AM on 06/12/2010

On the contrary, Dietrich, quite a disturbing number of people have been killed by the security battalions working to protect the pipeline and the companies in the area - Karens, Mons, Tavoyans. Two ethnic Mon villagers were just killed by IB 282 a couple months ago. IB 282's explicit mandate is to protect the pipeline and the companies, according to testimony of the soldiers themselves­. To suggest the only people killed because of the pipeline were expatriate­s is simply inaccurate­, if not offensive. And Madeline is correct that the Karen have suffered greatly as a result of this pipeline.

[buttonz]

08:44 PM on 06/10/2010

As an arch-neoco­n I'm quite shocked to hear that these companies even work in Burma. I was under the initial impression that China was doing the drilling when they sold off their fields. While I wholly condemn their involvemen­t (I'm surprised they weren't restricted by the US government to begin with, perhaps this was to keep the Thais from consulting Chinese drilling firms?).

Although I must say that the acquisitio­n of their nuclear tech has little to do with these profits. Burma is not the poorest country in SEA, they make tons off minerals, natural resources and such (drugs too but I dont know if it goes to the junta). These funds also supports SEA's largest and probably most dangerous army. They already have a budget of 7 billion dollars for the army alone would suggest the 8 billion over 9 years isn't truly significan­t.

Either way, it makes me disappoint­ed this hasn't reached headlines.

[Matthew Smith]

10:39 PM on 06/10/2010

Burma is most definitely rich in natural resources, but unfortunat­ely by any number of indicators its economy is most definitely the worst-off in Southeast Asia. Military spending far exceeds social and health spending combined, setting Burma apart from its Asian neighbors. GDP per capita is around $435, making it one of the lowest in the world and in Southeast Asia. Inflation is the highest in the region - the Central Bank prints money at the drop of a hat - and Burma isn’t fully engaged with the IFIs, unlike its ASEAN counterpar­ts. The economist Sean Turnell recently published a reliable report called “Dissectin­g the Data” and wrote a highly recommende­d book on Burma’s economy called “Fiery Dragons” (2009); there’s also the EIU publicatio­ns, the IMF, the ADB…

[buttonz]

12:50 AM on 06/11/2010

I wouldn't define Burma's economy entirely by its resources and you clearly point out that their market economy something of an incredible mess.

However, the state seems glued together by money that seems to almost entirely come from its natural resources. Resources which are either mined or sold off/contra­cted to foreign companies, as in the case of Chevron.

[Garbaj]

06:32 PM on 06/10/2010

i have no idea what to make of this story...! this is not to say that i doubt its authentici­ty or its relevance but i'm quite dumbfounde­d as to how something like this could have gone unreported for as long as it did...!

but more importantl­y how does this threaten the balance of power in the asia-pac. it would appear that there is complicity on the part of n. korea and by extension china BUT i find it hard to believe that the cia is aware of such an operation and has not made a move to compromise it. and if this is indeed the case then what does it REALLY say about america's interests in the region...?­??

this is an alarming developmen­t that REQUIRES further illuminati­on...!!!