Unocal becomes 1st to stand trial for rights abuses
Unocal becomes 1st to stand trial for rights abuses
Agence France-Presse, Los Angeles
Oil giant Unocal on Tuesday became the first U.S. firm to stand trial in the United States for alleged human rights abuses abroad, in a case centered on the building of a gas pipeline in Myanmar.
Myanmar villagers have sued the California-based oil titan claiming it was complicity in human rights abuses by the Southeast Asian country's brutal military junta, including forced labor, rape and torture.
The trial in Los Angeles stems from two lawsuits filed by up to 15 unidentified villagers from the nation formerly known as Burma over the construction of the 62-kilometer (39-mile) Yadana natural gas pipeline.
The villagers claim in their seven-year-old lawsuit that Unocal turned a blind eye as junta troops murdered, raped and enslaved villagers and forced them to work on the US$1.2 billion pipeline in the 1990s.
"Burmese soldiers enforced a system of slave labor and committed horrible acts of violence on Unocal's behalf," said Terry Collingsworth, executive director of the International Labor Rights Fund, which represents some of the villagers.
Unocal, which did not directly operate the field that was owned by the Myanmar government, strongly denies any involvement in abuses.
The case centers on the construction of the much-disputed pipeline, built by Unocal and partners including France's Total, to carry natural gas from Myanmar to neighboring Thailand.
The villagers are suing for unspecified damages alleging that Unocal benefited from use by the Yangon junta of forced labor and its soldiers' use of murder and rape, even if it did not agree with the abuses.
At issue in the first part of the complex trial is whether Unocal can be held liable for the conduct of its subsidiaries which invested in the pipeline.
Daniel Petrocelli, Unocal's lead lawyer, said California's "alter-ego doctrine" bars plaintiffs from trying to tap a parent corporation if a subsidiary has valuable assets of its own.
"The whole case boils down to one point: If the subs (subsidiaries) can pay, the case goes away," he told a crowded courtroom in opening arguments.