DeFazio to USTR: Say No to Chevron's Bullying!

Last week Newsweek reported that Chevron is lobbying the U.S. Trade Representative to withhold U.S. trade preferences from Ecuador, to pressure the Government of Ecuador to interfere against a lawsuit brought by peasants in Ecuador seeking redress for the dumping of toxic oil waste in the Amazon. Incredibly, USTR confirmed that it was considering Chevron's request.

The attitude of Chevron towards democracy and the rule of law in Ecuador was summed up by a Chevron lobbyist:

"We can't let little countries screw around with big companies like this -- companies that have made big investments around the world."

Oregon Representative Peter DeFazio has initiated a letter of Representatives to USTR, urging USTR to reject Chevron's request, and to affirm that access to the U.S. market will not be used as leverage to interfere in Ecuador's legal process.

Last week, Chevron announced a second quarter profit of $6 billion - an increase of 11% over the same period in 2007. It would seem that Chevron could afford to compensate Ecuadoran peasants for toxic dumping in the Amazon.

In 2006, Senators Obama and Leahy wrote to USTR, urging the administration to let the Ecuadoran peasants to have "their day in court." That's otherwise known as "respecting the rule of law." An Obama spokesman said recently that the senator "stands by his position" that the case is a "matter for the Ecuadoran judicial system."

You would think, given that Senator Obama is standing by his position that the U.S. should not interfere in the case, Representatives who think that the U.S. government should respect the rule of law in Latin America would be willing to raise their voices.

Let's put this proposition to the test. Ask your Representative to sign the DeFazio letter.

Comments

[ChamberPost]

The Newsweek article you reference ("A $16 Billion Problem," 4 Aug) suggests it is somehow inappropriate for the U.S. government to defend the interests of a U.S. company overseas " in this case, Chevron in Ecuador.
On the contrary, when Congress approved the Andean Trade Preference Act in 1991, it set forth requirements that its benefits should only go to countries that treat U.S. investors fairly (e.g., by respecting contracts and the rule of law).
In Ecuador, unlawful expropriations and contract violations have cost U.S. investors hundreds of millions of dollars. The legal system provides little or no protection; indeed, the judiciary is plagued by delays, unpredictable judgments, and inconsistent rulings. In the case of Chevron, Ecuador"s government attested a decade ago that its environmental remediation was satisfactory, but the country"s courts continue to provide U.S. trial lawyers a forum for grandstanding.
What we"re seeing in Ecuador is an effort by U.S. trial lawyers to go global. As Brian Murray of Murray, Frank & Sailer recently observed in an unguarded moment: "All the fields have been plowed in the United States. If you want to enter new markets, you have to go outside the United States."
If Ecuador wishes to continue enjoying preferential access to the U.S. market, its government must uphold the rule of law and show respect for the sanctity of contracts.
See: http://www.chamberpost.com/2008/07/progress-or-pop.html
John Murphy - USCC

[PublicAdvocate]

Because of Texaco's (now Chevron) destructive, negligent and illegal policies of environmental recklessness for oil profiteering, Ecuador now has its own Chernobyl-like waste land the size of Rhode Island spilling out toxic waste into the environment.
Texaco dumped 18 billion gallons of waste sludge into the once pristine Amazon and created open air toxic pits of waste water and waste oil riddled with benzene to be left to the Ecuadorans and the jungle to clean up.
http://NPR.org had a talk program on this topic this morning from 10-11AM. It will repeat tonight at 7PM EST and may be available at the website as well.

[Chevron]

Newsweek"s article, as well as this blog, omit key points highly relevant to Chevron"s case in Ecuador.
Most importantly, the comments in Newsweek attributed to an unnamed lobbyist working for Chevron do not reflect our company's views regarding the Ecuador case. They were not approved by the company and will not be tolerated.
Significantly, neither the article nor the blog states that Petroecuador " Ecuador"s state-owned oil company " has exclusively operated the oil fields for the last 18 years. The company"s operations are publicly admitted to be mismanaged, with 4.4 million of gallons of oil spilled since 1990.
In 15 years of litigation, lawyers have never substantiated their clients" health claims. Tellingly, in a related case brought in San Francisco by one of the lawyers behind the Ecuador case, the federal judge found that health claims had been fabricated and, in addition to dismissing the claims, fined the lawyers involved.
The fact is that Texaco Petroleum, which Chevron acquired in 2001, performed a $40 million environmental remediation and public works program upon the conclusion of its role in Ecuador. The remediation work was certified and approved by the Republic of Ecuador and scientifically validated by Ecuadorian university laboratories.

[RobertNaiman]

I'm honored that "Chevron" is using its prodigious resources to reply to my post.

Perhaps "Chevron" can explain away why two of the plaintiffs got the Goldman Environmental Prize:
http://www.goldmanprize.org/2008/centralsouthamerica

[RightWingMarine]

I tried to post on this before but apparently I was too controversial.

This poster raises some very interesting and valid points which, in the interest of honest debate, should be addressed.

That seems bland enough.

[CateM]

Seems to me that Chevron had no problem with a corrupt system back when it was profiting off of the country"s oil or when it was trying to get the case moved from NY back to Ecuador where it could buy a favorable verdict or even when it was attempting to purchase some fictional release from liability with it"s "cleanup" - but now that the political winds have changed this is suddenly a grave injustice? Please.
It's obvious that Chevron is only acting out now because things aren't going in their favor. In March an independent, court-appointed expert surveyed the damage and calculated the cost of a clean up that should have been done decades ago, and now Chevron suddenly wants to change its story and rail against the "corrupt" Ecuadorian government.
It may be convenient to call a court that does not side with you corrupt, to accuse them of "leftist" politics and claim you are the victim of injustice; however, that doesn"t mean it"s true. The 30,000 residents living in the contaminated area where Texaco operated are just trying to seek justice the only place Chevron would allow them to file their lawsuit: in Ecuador. Miraculously Chevron hasn't been able to use their muscle and money to shut down the process yet. I hope that they don't manage to corrupt the system themselves.

[jsteinbeck]

Chevron"s blog response is another example of their desperation to misrepresent their $16 billion litigation risk in Ecuador. The 10 facts below clarify the reality of this case:
Fact #1: Chevron didn"t have an identified lobbyist in Isikff"s piece because they refused to go on record with him when requested.
Fact #2: Petroecuador"s operations in Ecuador are irrelevant to this case. It was Texaco (whom Chevron bought in 2001), that dug 916 toxic unlined pits, exclusively dumped 18.5 billion gallons of toxic waste into the Amazon, and built the oil infrastructure that was designed to contaminate to lower production costs. Petroecuador"s subsequent use of this infrastructure in no way absolves Chevron of responsibility for this.
Fact #3: This lawsuit is not about health claims: it is for environmental damage only. Still, the plaintiffs have submitted 5 peer-reviewed studies that show elevated rates of leukemia and other cancers around where Chevron operated. A special master appointed by the court found 428 excess deaths in the region due to oil contamination, which he considered a conservative figure.
Fact #4: The San Francisco case that was dismissed is completely unrelated to the Ecuador case where Chevron faces the $16 billion liability.
Fact #5: Chevron"s "remediation" is a sham: the special master in the trial found "the level of petroleum contamination in the pits that were cleaned up by Texpet [Texaco Petroleum Co.] appears to be no lower than the contamination in pits that Texpet did not clean up."

[Chevron]

The state has since sought to renege on its agreements with Texaco Petroleum and openly collaborated with the plaintiffs. The current administration has gone so far as to pledge the full support of the state in making the plaintiffs" case.
In Ecuador, where the International Bar Association has concluded that "there is a serious politicization of the judiciary" and "that in many cases no effective independence exists," such pronouncements have a profound effect on a trial.
Both writers also insinuate that Chevron is trying to interfere with the judicial process in Ecuador through the U.S. government. This is not true.
The Republic of Ecuador"s failure to honor its contractual and legal obligations related to Texaco Petroleum"s past activities in Ecuador is contrary to the spirit and letter of the trade preferences granted to Ecuador under U.S. law.
Foreign companies doing business in the U.S. expect and deserve fair treatment by our judicial system. Under the U.S.'s bilateral relationship with Ecuador, U.S. companies including Chevron should be able to expect the same fair treatment. When this does not occur, it is important that the U.S. government and other U.S. companies be made aware of the problem.
Additional information on the lawsuit can be found at http://www.texaco.com/ecuador.

[jsteinbeck]

More Facts to combat Chevron"s misrepresentations:
Fact #6: It is Chevron, not the plaintiffs, who has tried to convince the current government of Ecuador to stop the trial and quash the legal rights of its citizens. These extra-judicial efforts are ongoing, though have yet to succeed.
Fact #7: Chevron"s agreement with the previous Ecuadorian government is irrelevant to this lawsuit: the "release" Chevron received specifically did not cover private claims.
Fact #8: The court in Ecuador is impartial and independent. When the case was being heard in U.S. Courts, Chevron submitted ten expert affidavits supporting this exact position. Now facing a massive liability, Chevron is contradicting itself.

Fact #9: Chevron has repeatedly tried to interfere with the judicial process in Ecuador through the U.S. government. Since 2004, Chevron has sent 3 letters to the USTR requesting they withdraw trade preferences for Ecuador due to this case. Chevron has also hired an "army" of lobbyists in Washington to further push this position.
Fact #10: Ecuador has respected Chevron"s investment in the Amazon and has abided by the release it provided the company after its sham remediation. It is Chevron that violated the provision of its operating contract that required it to conduct its oil field operations in a manner that would not contaminate soils or water.

[PublicAdvocate]

Texaco (now Chevron) was and is in flagrant violation of both U.S. and International industry standards for environmental responsibilty and mangement . Over 70,000 water and soil samples have been scientifically tested, shown to be still fully contaminated and expose Chevron's clean up as a sham and a public relations scam.

Following Exxon/Mobil's tactics to protect extreme sin, gross injustice, and outright criminial behavior for the the Valdez incident, Chevron has been dragging out and trying to bankrupt the plaintiffs for over a decade, discrediting the court (it has previously enthusiastically approved) and seeking to buy special exemption status from the rule of law from the Bush/Cheney corp. Chevron's goal is to retain its private profits and leave all the waste products and destruction behind for the Ecudorans and environment to pay. Ralph Nader would certainly take Chevron to task for its behavior.

Thanks to lax enforcement of International law an area the size of Rhode Island has become a dead zone littered with open air pits of waste venting toxic sludge into the air and leaching benzene and other pollutants into the ground water and land. Additionally the once pristine Amazon has been used as a free utlity toilet to dump over 18 Billion gallons of waste from Texaco's operations and save money at environmental expense. A program on this castastrophe was on NPR this morning on the show "On Point".
http://www.onpointradio.org/

[RobertNaiman]

UPDATE: James P. McGovern, Raúl M. Grijalva, Lloyd Doggett, Dennis Kucinich, and Maurice Hinchey have signed the letter.