While reading this case, “Unocal in Burma”, I thought that there were human rights issues but there were also situations that I thought might have been beneficial to the residents. There were improvements in the country due to the companies that decided to invest in the Yadana project. I will analyze four approaches namely, utilitarian, rights, justice and caring and discuss my point of view in relation to the case.
Firstly, let us take a look at utilitarian approach in connection to Unocal and its Partners decision to invest in the Yadana Field project. Burma is a poor country and has been dealing with poverty for years now. Unocal and the other companies see that if they invest in this project there will be benefits for the companies but also for the people of Burma as well. Although it may be dangerous to transport gas above the ocean in a region where people live, the bigger picture would be how much people will be affected directed or if any at all verses how much revenue this would generate for the country along with benefits. This might be tricky since it is not possible to put a value or cost on someone’s life. Hence the greatest sum total of utility would be the revenue generated from the project allowing the government of the country fifteen percent of the stake, employment for the Burmese, improved health care, improvement in education, small business opportunities and new transportation infrastructure along with the profits for the company. Everyone has gained something.
Secondly, does this give the government of the country the right to make these decisions knowing that some of their resident might suffer? Although the outcome was beneficial for everyone, the people of Burma especially the minority ethnic group should have a voice in what happen in their region. Take for example someone who comes to your house and do not like where your couch is positioned, does that give them the right to change the position of your couch? I would most definitely think not. Well it’s the same with the Burmese. The Country may have the riches natural gases and cheapest labor but that does not give the government the right to contract with companies that are willing to invest in the Yadana project without the approval of their residents? On the other end of the spectrum the government is a body that was put in place to make decisions that may benefits the people of the country and the country as a whole. Therefore, is it legally right for the government of the country to contract with these companies? I would say yes because they are the governing force of the country and has the legal right to make these decisions. Hence the companies have the legal right to contract and perform work in this country. Now the question that we need to ask is was it morally right for the government to provide military security for Unocal who was accused of using forced labor, brutalizing the population of Karen? No one should be forced to work or should be brutalized for any reason. It is inhumane to perform these actions. Therefore in examining these concepts the most humane solution is to relocate the region that would have been affected since this project would improve their standard of living.
This brings me to my third approach which is justice. Now there are three types of justice which is distributive, retributive and compensatory justice. The profit of the project brought benefit to everyone but wasn’t equally distributed therefore there was a lack of distributive justice. Not even the stakeholders received equal amount of profit. It would be difficult to distribute profit evenly because everyone of the company might have invested a different percentage in the project. In relation to the country I think that they received the biggest profit because of the improvement in the standard of living. Retributive justice would only come into play if for example the forty mile pipe had a leakage and ended up harming the residents. Only then one of the companies would be blamed and retributive justice would be questioned. Final of the three is compensatory justice. Families were relocated but not compensated. In October 1996 Member of the Ethnic group Karen claimed that they or one of their family members had been subjected to rape, torture, and murder and forced labor. These are human right issues as well as a compensatory justice concept. These families had been ripped of their homes and should at least been given some form of compensation to start a new life. For those that had been tortured, raped, murdered, I don’t think that any amount of compensation could have helped. The blame should have fallen on the government and not on Unocal. They were the ones who hired the Burmese military, Unocal was just the contractor.
Can we really say that the government or even the companies cared enough to listen to the residents? We are all human being and everyone deserves to be heard. In this case the resident might say that the government did not listen to them or did not care about their country but by them improving living condition shows differently. I think that the government cared enough to find companies willing to invest in the project to bring in revenue which later benefitted the country.
In summary I think that the Companies that invested in the Yadana project got permission from the government of the country which makes it legal for them to conduct work in the country. My problem with this is the way in which the residents were treated. The government failed to listen and in so doing the residents were upset. Unocal made a rather good decision in investing in this project because not only it benefitted the company but the people of Burma. In 2004 the benefits were steadily increasing. I think that Unocal decision was justified because before making its decision some consulting were done. They didn’t just jump into the situation but rather found out about the project and weighed the pros and the cons. Unocal cannot be blamed for the share of the profit since the government is the one who is responsibly for its country.