Unocal in Burma

1. Executive Summary

In this paper, I will examine the case study of Unocal using four key different perspectives of ethics. Unocal was an American oil and gas conglomerate that was subject to class action suits for alleged human rights violations in Myanmar. These suits were filed at both the US federal and California state courts.

Throughout the paper, I will provide clear and concise definitions to key terms in the area of ethics as it pertains to the Unocal case study. These will be based on literature reviews of books and documentation in the field and study of ethics.

I will also provide my viewpoint on the moral responsibilities of Unocal for the injuries inflicted on and suffered by the Karen people of Myanmar. Lastly, I will examine UnocalÐŽ¦s view that ЎҐengagementÐŽ¦ rather than ЎҐisolationÐŽ¦ is the proper course in achieving social and political change in Myanmar.

2. Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary 2

2. Table of Contents 3

3. Introduction 4

4. Discussion 6

4.1. Justification of utilitarian, rights, justice, and caring perspective 6

4.2. Responsibilities of Unocal 12

4.3. Proper Course of Unocal 15

5. Conclusion 17

6. References 18

Total word count: 3,640 excluding the Executive Summary and References

3. Introduction

Ethics, derived from the Latin word ethica, meaning ЎҐmoral philosophyÐŽ¦ has been around since before the time of Aristotle, the famed Greek philosopher, who contributed major works on the subject including the Nicomachean Ethics. Wikipedia, the free online dictionary describes ethics as covering the analysis and employment of concepts such as right and wrong, good and evil, and responsibility.

Ethics is a kind of investigation and includes both the activity of investigating and the results of that investigation - whereas morality is the subject matter that ethics investigates (Velasquez 2006, p.8). Simply put - ethics deals with understanding and differentiating right from wrong.

Before examining the case in detail, I will first provide a brief background to the two key components in the case ÐŽV Unocal and the residing government of Myanmar. I will also touch briefly on the key points of the case study, which this paper is based on.

Unocal was originally founded in 1890 as the Union Oil Company of California. In 1996, Unocal became the first company in the US to be sued in court using the Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789, a law originally meant to prosecute pirates in international waters. In April 2005, Unocal agreed to a merger with Chevron Texaco (now known as Chevron) and the merger was completed in August 2005.

Once considered the richest nation in South East Asia prior to its independence from the United Kingdom in 1948, Myanmar has since regressed to being one of the poorest countries in the world. Several western nations, most notably the United States have strict isolation policies in place banning among other things, US investments into the military run state due to widely publicised human rights violations and non democratic practices. The military seized and remains in power during an uprising in 1988 and formed the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC), which was later renamed to the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) in 1997.

In 1992, Unocal entered into a contract along with Total SA, a French company who had earlier been awarded development rights for the Yadana fields, an area rich with natural gas deposits off the coast of Myanmar, PTT Exploration & Production Public Co (PTTEPPCo), a Thailand company responsible for purchasing the gas and the Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise (MOGE) which represented the Myanmar government. Total SA would be responsible for the overall project as well as to develop and extract the gas; Unocal would be responsible for building the 256 mile pipe to Thailand for the oil to be sold via PTTEPPCo. Most of the pipe would be undersea with the exception of a 40 mile stretch that would run across the southern part of Myanmar known as the Tenasserim region. The region was home to the Karen people, a minority ethnic group. In return for the 15% commercial share of the project, the Myanmar government was to provide security and rights of way and easement as requested.

In October 1996, 15 members from the Karen minority group with the assistance of EarthRights International filed class action suits against Unocal in the US Federal and California State courts claiming that Unocal through its partnership with the Myanmar government in the Yadana pipeline project was responsible for various human rights violations including forced relocations, forced labour, rape, torture and murder.

In late 2004, Unocal agreed to settle the lawsuits out of court. The terms of the settlement are confidential however a press release published at EarthRights International website states that the settlement will compensate plaintiffs and provide funds enabling plaintiffs and their representatives to develop programs to improve living conditions, health care and education and protect the rights of people from the pipeline region.

4. Discussion

4.1. Justification of utilitarian, rights, justice, and caring perspective

In this section, I will examine the validity of UnocalÐŽ¦s actions in engaging in the Yadana project from four different key ethical perspectives which are the Utilitarian, Rights, Justice and Caring perspective.

Utilitarian Perspective

Utilitarianism is the general term for any view that holds that actions and policies should be evaluated on the basis of the benefits and costs they will impose on society. In any situation, the ЎҐrightÐŽ¦ action or policy is one that will produce the greatest net benefit or the lowest net costs (Velasquez 2006, p.61)

The core concept of utilitarianism is the focus of good consequences for all stakeholders and not just the individual. There are two type of utilitarianism, Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism. Act Utilitarianism follows the teachings of utilitarianism without regard for personal, social or legal constraints. Rule Utilitarianism