[Senate Hearing 110-940]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-940
EXTRACTING NATURAL RESOURCES: CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY AND THE RULE OF
LAW
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE LAW
of the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 24, 2008
__________
Serial No. J-110-122
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
53-620 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California JON KYL, Arizona
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois JOHN CORNYN, Texas
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
Bruce A. Cohen, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Stephanie A. Middleton, Republican Staff Director
Nicholas A. Rossi, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois, Chairman
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware JON KYL, Arizona
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN CORNYN, Texas
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
Joseph Zogby, Chief Counsel
Brooke Bacak, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Brownback, Hon. Sam, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas,
prepared statement............................................. 66
Coburn, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma...... 3
Durbin, Hon. Richard J., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Illinois....................................................... 1
prepared statement........................................... 75
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont,
prepared statement............................................. 117
WITNESSES
Bassey, Nnimmo, Executive Director, Environmental Rights Action,
Lagos, Nigeria................................................. 22
Freeman, Bennett, Senior Vice President for Social Research and
Policy, Calvert Group, Washington, D.C......................... 17
Ganesan, Arvind, Director, Business and Human Rights Program,
Human Rights Watch, Washington, D.C............................ 20
Krilla, Jeffrey, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy,
Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. Department of State, Washington,
D.C............................................................ 4
Wa, Ka Hsaw, Co-Founder and Executive Director, Earth-Rights
International, Washington, D.C................................. 14
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Amnesty International USA, New York, New York, statement......... 31
Bassey, Nnimmo, Executive Director, Environmental Rights Action,
Lagos, Nigeria, statement...................................... 37
Brutus, Dennis, Jubilee South Africa............................. 67
Chevron, San Ramon, California, statement........................ 68
Cramer, Aron, President and Chief Exective Officer, Business for
Social Responsibility, San Francisco, California, letter....... 71
Freeman, Bennett, Senior Vice President for Social Research and
Policy, Calvert Group, Washington, D.C., statement............. 78
Ganesan, Arvind, Director, Business and Human Rights Program,
Human Rights Watch, Washington, D.C., statement................ 83
Global Witness, Washington, D.C., statement...................... 91
Hendry, Krisla, Director, Human Rights and Business Roundtable,
the Fund for Peace, Washington, D.C., statement................ 99
International Council on Mining & Metals, John Ruggie, London,
United Kingdom, statement...................................... 102
International Labor Rights Forum, Washington, D.C., statement.... 105
Krilla, Jeffrey, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy,
Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. Department of State, Washington,
D.C............................................................ 108
Maassarani, Tarek Farouk, International Human Rights Fellow,
Cohen Milstein hausfeld & Toll, Takoma Park, Maryland,
statement...................................................... 119
Slack, Keith, Extractive Industries Program Manager, Oxfam
America, Washington, D.C., statement........................... 126
Wa, Ka Hsaw, Co-Founder and Executive Director, Earth-Rights
International, Washington, D.C., statement..................... 131
Walton, Abigail Abrash, Antioch University New England, Keene,
New Hampshire, statement....................................... 148
EXTRACTING NATURAL RESOURCES: CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY AND THE RULE OF
LAW
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2008
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:47 a.m., in
room Sh-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J.
Durbin, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Durbin and Coburn.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN, A U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Chairman Durbin. This hearing of the Judiciary Committee's
Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law will come to order.
The subject of this hearing is ``Extracting Natural Resources:
Corporate Responsibility and the Rule of Law.'' After some
opening remarks, I am going to recognize Senator Coburn, the
Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, whom I expect to attend and
be here very shortly. He will make an opening statement and
then we will turn to our witnesses.
This could be the last hearing in this Congress of this
Subcommittee. I want to thank especially Senator Patrick Leahy,
the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, for
establishing this Subcommittee and allowing me the opportunity
to serve as its first Chairman.
We have accomplished a lot in a short period of time. We
have held the first-ever congressional hearings on the law of
genocide, child soldiers, crimes against humanity, sexual
violence in conflict, and the U.S. Government's enforcement of
human rights laws.
And, as I said when I became Chairman of this Subcommittee,
we have focused on legislation, not lamentation. Last year,
Congress unanimously passed and the President signed into law
the Durbin-Coburn Genocide Accountability Act, which makes it a
crime under U.S. law to commit genocide anywhere in the world.
Last week, Congress unanimously passed the Durbin-Coburn Child
Soldiers Accountability Act, which makes it a crime and
violation of immigration law to recruit or use child soldiers.
Today we are breaking more new ground. This is the first-
ever congressional hearing on the human rights responsibilities
of American oil, gas, and mining companies.
In recent days, we have been reminded that we live in the
age of globalization. The state of the U.S. economy--and the
actions of American companies--have repercussions around the
world. That is especially true in extractive industries, like
oil, gas, and mining.
American families, small businesses, and farmers are
struggling with the increase in oil prices. The untold story is
that people on the other end of the oil supply chain are also
suffering. We import about two-thirds of the oil that we
consume. American companies drill much of this oil in countries
with high levels of corruption and poor human rights records.
And this can lead directly to higher oil prices for Americans.
Nigeria, the fourth largest oil supplier to the United
States, is a case in point. The country consistently ranks
among the most corrupt in the world, and senior government
officials have been implicated in human rights abuses and the
theft of oil revenue.
Despite generating billions of dollars in oil revenue each
year, the Niger Delta is the poorest region in the country.
Today we will hear how human rights violations, extreme poverty
and environmental destruction have fueled tensions between
local communities and oil companies in the Niger Delta for
decades. The emergence of an armed conflict in the Niger Delta
in 2006, with militants taking oil workers hostage and
profiting from the trade in stolen oil, has sharply decreased
Nigeria's oil production and driven oil prices up.
This is not a black and white issue. There is no doubt that
American oil, mining, and gas companies operating in countries
with poor human rights records face extremely difficult
challenges in protecting their employees and operations.
However, when American companies choose to go to these
countries, they assume a moral and legal obligation to ensure
that security forces protecting their operations do not commit
human rights abuses.
Let me be clear: Governments are primarily responsible for
protecting the human rights of their citizens. But extractive
companies also have an important role and responsibility in
preventing human rights abuses, and, as we will hear today,
some have fallen short of this obligation on more than one
occasion.
Today we will examine the legal responsibilities of
extractive companies to protect human rights; voluntary
industry standards for preventing human rights abuses; and
whether Congress needs to consider additional legislation in
this area.
The United States has long been a leader when it comes to
the legal responsibilities of U.S. companies to protect human
rights when they operate in foreign countries. The Alien Torts
Claims Act, which was a part of the original Judiciary Act of
1789, allows civil suits in U.S. courts for human rights abuses
that take place in a foreign country. We will hear more about
cases relating to that law today.
The U.S. has also played a leadership role in establishing
the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights. This
important initiative brings together governments, companies,
and nongovernmental organizations to develop human rights
standards for the extractive industries.
However, as we are going to hear today, the Voluntary
Principles are difficult to enforce. It is also troubling that
oil-producing governments like Nigeria are not part of the
process. This hearing will help us evaluate the effectiveness
of the Voluntary Principles and consider whether Congress
should make any of these standards mandatory.
Protecting human rights abroad is the right thing to do. As
Martin Luther King said, ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to
justice everywhere.'' In a globalized world, we have even more
at stake. American families are harmed when human rights abuses
and instability in oil-producing regions result in higher oil
prices. Our reputation suffers when U.S. companies are
complicit in human rights abuses committed by their security
forces.
I hope we can work together to address the critical human
rights challenges extractive companies operating in repressive
countries face.
Now I turn to my colleague and Ranking Member, Senator Tom
Coburn. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM COBURN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
OKLAHOMA
Senator Coburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, again,
congratulations to your staff. Great work and great
preparation.
Human rights are basic. They are basic everywhere, and as
we face the global economy that we have, there cannot be an
excuse for any company to not recognize the value of that in
terms of their own future and their ability to do that.
I am thankful for some of the behind-the-scenes information
that was given to us by some of the contractors. I am also
somewhat disappointed that we will not have actual testimony,
Mr. Chairman, for that. But I think that the purpose of this
hearing is to bring to light where we fall short of what we
stand for as a country and to make sure we make whatever
corrective action is necessary so that we can continue to lead
the world in terms of the preservation and protection of basic
human rights. And for that I thank you.
And I also will apologize. Because of the nature of the end
of the session, I will not be here for the whole hearing, but I
appreciate you having the hearing. Thank you.
Chairman Durbin. I want to thank Senator Coburn. We have
accomplished a lot in this Subcommittee because of the
extraordinary bipartisan cooperation. These bills would never
have been passed or signed by the President were it not for
that cooperation, and I want to thank you in particular, and
also your chief counsel, Brooke Bacak, for her dedication and
commitment to the issues that this Subcommittee has faced.
Next we are going to hear from two witness panels. At the
outset, I want to say I am disappointed, as Senator Coburn has
indicated, that ExxonMobil and Chevron declined our invitation
to testify. I think it would have been helpful if they would
have come forward to talk about the challenges that they face
overseas trying to run a company on a global basis. But,
unfortunately, they declined our invitation. I think it would
have been valuable to have their perspective, and I hope they
will consider at least submitting written statements that we
can add to the record. Their absence is going to detract from
what we have to say this morning, but, fortunately, we have
some extraordinary people testifying.
On our first panel, we have Jeffrey Krilla of the State
Department. Mr. Krilla, you are going to have 5 minutes for
your opening statement, and then we will ask you some
questions. The tradition of the Committee is to swear in our
witnesses, so if you would please stand and raise your right
hand. Do you affirm that the testimony you are about to give
before the Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Krilla. I do.
Chairman Durbin. Thank you. Let the record indicate Mr.
Krilla has answered in the affirmative, and now we invite you
to testify.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY KRILLA, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU
OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND LABOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
STATE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Krilla. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to testify on human rights
issues in the extractive industries here today. Your interest
in this important subject is certainly appreciated.
I ask that my full statement be included in the record.
Chairman Durbin. Without objection.
Mr. Krilla. I also wish to acknowledge the nongovernmental
organizations that are here today as part of this hearing--in
particular, Human Rights Watch, with whom we partner on many of
our corporate social responsibility initiatives.
I would also like to take the opportunity to thank my
predecessors in my position at State, including Gare Smith and
Bennett Freeman, who is going to be testifying here today, who
were instrumental in laying the groundwork for several of the
corporate social responsibility efforts that we pursue in the
Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.
I also would have hoped that we could have heard from the
corporate community today. For corporate social responsibility
initiatives to succeed, we need engagement from the three
stakeholders--governments, companies, and nongovernmental
organizations.
The promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as
embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is a
cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy. We work very hard to
promote and safeguard human rights for individuals the world
over and believe that respect for human rights helps secure the
peace, deter aggression, promote the rule of law, combat crime
and corruption, strengthen democracies, and prevent
humanitarian crises. Successfully combating human rights abuses
requires a coordinated response from key stakeholders, which
begins with governments, but also includes corporations and
nongovernmental organizations.
We take a multi-stakeholder approach, recognizing that the
expanding reach and influence of multinational corporations has
led to increased demand for voluntary corporate social
responsibility in general and more specifically as it relates
to promoting respect for human rights. My Bureau, DRL, actively
engages corporations, both multinational and domestic, on these
priorities--encouraging them in turn to adopt policies and
practices that promote respect for key corporate social
responsibility tenets.
Although abundant natural resources in developing countries
can offer the promise of economic development and prosperity,
they also provide the opportunity for corruption, exploitation,
and conflict. These negative effects are certainly not unique
to the oil, gas, and mining sectors. But given the focus of
this hearing, I will focus my remarks today on human rights
concerns relating to the extractives industry. We document
these concerns in our Annual Country Reports on human rights
practices.
For example, the challenges related to the oil and natural
gas sector in Nigeria's Niger Delta have been well publicized.
There have been problems in Angola's diamond-rich provinces and
in the Democratic Republic of Congo's mining sector, including
issues related to child soldiers. This is an issue in which we
appreciate your leadership and applaud the recent passage of
the Child Soldiers Accountability Act, a very helpful tool for
us to use as a Government.
Human rights obligations rest with governments, and for
human rights abuses in the extractives industries to be
stopped, ultimately good governance is requisite--rule of law,
transparency, and accountability. That is why we press
governments to adhere to internationally accepted human rights
standards and norms.
The international community has a role to play as well.
Other governments and the multinational companies with
extractive operations in these host countries must work
together to promote good governance and respect for human
rights.
One of the ways in which the Department of State has worked
with U.S gas, oil, and mining companies on these issues is
through voluntary corporate social responsibility initiatives
such as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative and
the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, or VPs.
We have also worked closely with the diamond industry and civil
society through the Kimberley Process to prevent rough diamonds
from financing conflict. I believe most of you are familiar
with these efforts, but I would like to focus on the VPs in
particular.
The Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights were
established in 2000 under the Clinton Administration to provide
practical guidance that will strengthen human rights safeguards
in company security arrangements in the extractive sector. The
short-term goal of the VPs is to encourage extractive companies
to better understand the environment in which they operate,
improve relations with local communities through dialog, and
uphold the rule of law. The long-term goal is to create a
better environment for sustainable economic investment and
human rights.
The VPs were negotiated and adopted in response to the
concerns of governments, extractive companies, and civil
society where difficult operating environments create
challenges to both security and human rights.
Today, the VPs participants include four governments--the
U.S., the U.K., the Netherlands, and Norway); 18 oil, gas, and
mining companies; and seven international NGOs. The current
four government participants are the home governments of the
major oil, gas, and mining company VPs participants.
In these initiatives, participation of the international
community is crucial but not sufficient. Participation of host
governments is equally critical. For example, within the
context of the VPs, many of the guiding principles to which
companies commit with regard to their interactions with public
security can only be truly effective with the support of the
host government. Under the VPs, for example, companies
volunteer to request that host government public security
personnel receive human rights training and are vetted to
ensure that they have not committed human rights abuses.
For these actions on the part of companies to be truly
effective, host countries must embrace the Voluntary
Principles. Let me be clear: Participation in the Voluntary
Principles does not confer a ``Good Housekeeping'' seal of
approval on a host country. The VPs were not created to be an
exclusive or elite club, nor were they intended as a
certification standard for human rights in the extractives
industry. Membership in the VPs does not signify an endorsement
of any participant's human rights practices, whether it be
companies, governments, or NGOs.
The VPs are a process of mutual learning and improvement,
yet are built on firm commitments embodied both in the
Principles and in the unanimously approved Participation
Criteria.
We are working closely with our fellow VPs members and hope
to be able to welcome host governments to the table in the near
term. I just returned from a trip to Nigeria and the Democratic
Republic of Congo where I pressed the importance of adhering to
internationally accepted human rights standards and norms. I
raised the VPs in both countries and highlighted their value in
serving as an additional tool available to those governments in
addressing the grave issues I highlighted earlier concerning
human rights in the extractives industry.
We can spotlight problems and draw international attention
to human rights concerns, but without the commitment of host
governments, no effort to address human rights concerns in the
extractive sector, or any other, can be successful. As
voluntary initiatives become more globally accepted,
expectations for companies to adhere to the good corporate
practices that they promote grow. That said, voluntary
initiatives, like the VPs, are important complements to, but
can never be substitutes for, the obligations of governments to
meet their commitments under international law and to establish
and enforce the rule of law domestically.
There are some who believe that in the face of poor human
rights enforcement records of some governments around the
world, the obligation to enforce human rights should be somehow
transferred onto corporations. We strongly disagree. Yes,
companies must bear responsibility for their policies and
practices. But it is governments that ultimately must be held
accountable.
Transferring the enforcement obligation onto companies
would only lead governments to expect that they can opt out of
their obligations because companies will do the job for them.
The best option, and the key to ending exploitative practices
by private sector companies or any other actor, is for
governments to engage in good governance and thereby protect
human rights enforcement and the rule of law.
We are committed to advancing our work in corporate social
responsibility, and we certainly appreciate the opportunity
that this hearing presents for us to share our views on this
important issue. We look forward to continuing this dialog and
our cooperation with Congress.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Krilla appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Krilla, and I apologize for
not reading your bio before asking you to speak. I just want to
say for the record that you have served as Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor in the State
Department since January of 2006. You oversee the Office of
International Labor Affairs and Corporate Social
Responsibility, with primary responsibility for the Voluntary
Principles. There is more to be read and we will put it in the
record. I would like to get to the questions, if I could.
Mr. Krilla. Absolutely.
Chairman Durbin. So let's do a hypothetical here. Let's
assume that I own an extractive company, and I want to do
business in a country. As I might expect, I have to go to the
leaders of the government of that country to get their
permission in various ways--permits, follow their laws, and
work through their process, whatever it may be--so that I can
set up shop and start mining a mineral in this country. And
then I find out that the security which will be provided to me
at my workplace will be by that same government.
Now, I start my operations, and I quickly learn things are
not going well. This government that is supposed to be
providing security to me is engaging in things that would be
absolutely outrageous and unacceptable in the United States:
forced labor, rape, torture, kidnapping.
What is my responsibility at that point under the Voluntary
Principles? And what do you think my responsibility is under
the Alien Tort Claims Act?
Mr. Krilla. Well, unfortunately, that scenario is not all
that foreign to some companies that do work overseas, as I am
sure you can imagine. The Voluntary Principles were created to
give the companies that participate in this part of the
process, first of all, a greater understanding of the
environments in the countries in which they look to operate,
ideally in advance of their engagement in those countries. So
putting that aside, I think that is a very important piece of
the puzzle, and the State Department feels fundamentally that
we owe companies all the information that we put together in
our Human Rights Report, all the information that our embassies
compile on the human rights records of these governments, even
in anticipation of going into these emerging markets.
But that being said, the Voluntary Principles is a very
helpful tool for governments, for NGOs, and in this case for
companies to better understand the environment and ways to deal
with these situations.
The companies themselves can rely upon the NGOs and the
governments to help better understand the environment and
better understand what sort of training regimen should be
implemented for their security forces, starting off with risk
assessments that are an integral part of the Voluntary
Principles to better understand the environment. These
trainings would better equip the security forces to understand
the human rights situation as well as how they as security
forces should deal with the environment. And I think this sort
of training is fundamental. It is mostly done by the NGOs that
are part of this?
Chairman Durbin. I do not want to interrupt you.
Mr. Krilla. Yes, sir.
Chairman Durbin. You are giving me the preventive measures.
I am describing a scenario where we are beyond that. My company
is in business, and I look around and see the military forces
of government doing things which are nothing short of
outrageous. What is my obligation under the Voluntary
Principles or under the Alien Tort Claims Act?
Mr. Krilla. Your obligation is to pressure, to work with
the other stakeholders in this, to work with the host
government to ensure that the security forces, as you said that
in some cases are out of your control, receive the training and
are brought to justice, that the vetting occurs for human
rights abuses so that individuals that are accused of human
rights violations with credible evidence are removed from the
employ of the government and from the facility.
Chairman Durbin. So do I have an affirmative obligation to
document what I have seen and notify the government of the
conduct?
Mr. Krilla. You have a committment under the Voluntary
Principles to document your implementation of this, to stand up
to the criticism that you would receive, and the assessments
from the NGO and government pillars as to how you have
implemented them, and in the case that you have highlighted,
sir, to actually talk about how you have addressed it and then
work with the other pillars to put pressure on the host
government to implement this sort of regimen.
Chairman Durbin. And if they fail to do anything and it
continues, do I have any obligation beyond notification of my
objection to their conduct?
Mr. Krilla. Well, your committment under the Voluntary
Principles is to address it through the means that are
available, through the mechanisms of the Voluntary Principles,
which we consider to be rather robust. Having the governments,
not only the United States but the other three governments that
are involved, raise these issues in bilateral as well as
multilateral fora is a very strong tool that we have at our
disposal and one that would not be available short of a
Voluntary Principles mechanism.
So the company does have a committment to work through all
means available within the VPs, and there are a number of
levers through the VPs that are available.
Chairman Durbin. So, finally, on the Alien Tort Claims Act,
what kind of liability do I face if I have seen this outrageous
conduct by the government forces that are supposedly
responsible for my security? What kind of exposure do I have?
If you were the attorney advising the company and they want to
protect themselves from liability under the Alien Tort Claims
Act, what should they do?
Mr. Krilla. Well, I would answer that more generally, sir,
in terms of what their obligations as companies are operating
abroad under the expectations that we have as the State
Department. I mean, we give them as much information as
possible, and we expect them to not worsen the human rights
conditions, not be complicit. We hope that they implement
mechanisms such as the Voluntary Principles.
In terms of the alien tort statute, I am not as familiar
with the U.S. application. If you would like, I could get you
back an answer to that for the record, because I think it is an
important one to address more fully for you, sir.
Chairman Durbin. Thank you.
Senator Coburn?
Senator Coburn. Thank you. I just want to follow up on
that.
Let's say I am drilling for oil--and I will not name the
country--and I see human rights abuses, and then I raise those
with the government and with the NGOs; and the human rights
abuses I see are then perpetrated against my own employees.
Then what do I do?
Mr. Krilla. I will say that in a lot of these environments,
there are well-documented, comprehensive challenges across the
board for human rights, and the Voluntary Principles are not a
cure-all for all of the challenges that we face.
In terms of addressing specifically the issue of human
rights and security forces, this is a very helpful tool. If you
are a company and are having challenges with your employees and
the government or security forces--you have your own personal
engagement with the government and you have the resources of
the United States Government to engage with that government and
express our concern.
In terms of the company itself, the Voluntary Principles
may not be the best mechanism to address all of the treatment
of your employees, but it is certainly one mechanism that would
help highlight the challenges of the security forces and the
human rights conditions of the security forces that in many
cases are required to be employed by you.
Senator Coburn. OK. The point I am getting to is I have
security forces. They are well documented. They believe in
human rights. And rebel forces that are there were reporting
what action--maybe they are rebel forces within the military of
the country, but they are certainly not honoring human rights.
I report that. Then my facility gets attacked because I
reported it. OK? Because I have engaged in Voluntary
Principles. Now what do I do? Where is moral dilemma? Do I pack
up and go home? Or do I report again and expect to get attacked
again?
In other words, what is the position--you know, what we are
wanting to do is a very good thing, but without the rule of
law, which we often take for granted in this country, which is
very limited in many of these countries, without the rule of
law to protect an extractive industry, what are they to do?
Let's say they followed the Voluntary Principles to the ``T''
and all it has done is cost them their ability to produce. Then
what do they do? Where are they from a moral standpoint? Do
they continue to protect and have their business completely
shut down? Or do they withdraw? Or do they just remain quiet
because they have followed the Voluntary Principles once and it
has been very painful? What is your advice to me? I am an
exploitative energy company.
Mr. Krilla. Sure. Well, unfortunately, these challenges do
continue to exist in a number of these countries, and I think
the lesson that we have learned is that the Voluntary
Principles do offer a very helpful tool. If you use them once
and you have gone back to the government as a company and
expressed your concern and not gotten satisfactory responses
through inadequate rule of law, through inadequate attention to
anticorruption, or whatever the issue is, you have the
additional partners, the additional stakeholders of the
governments and the NGOs that you can bring into the equation.
Truthfully, a lot of it is affected by community
engagement, and in that respect, NGOs have been invaluable
partners in this whole voluntary process, the Voluntary
Principles process. So I would say if your first initial
inquiries with the government are ineffective, you have many
tools within the Voluntary Principles to bring to bear.
Now, that being said, if things continue to get worse and
you feel as though your operations are hindered, certainly
companies could choose to leave. But I think short of using all
the mechanisms through the Voluntary Principles, there is
certainly a lot of opportunity to bring other partners to help
solve these problems.
Senator Coburn. One follow-up question. How many countries
embrace these Voluntary Principles and then do not enforce
them?
Mr. Krilla. Well, right then, Senator, you have
highlighted--
Senator Coburn. Give me a guess.
Mr. Krilla. Sure. I would say we have four governments that
are directly involved in the Voluntary Principles that embrace
them wholeheartedly. It is the host governments that are the
next step right now for us to work to engage. I think we have
seen some engagement from governments like Colombia and
Nigeria. They are not formally part of it, but we hope to
welcome them at some point into the process more formally, and
we think that having them at the table will help to strengthen
and improve human rights conditions in those countries.
Senator Coburn. All right. Thank you. I do not have any
other questions.
Chairman Durbin. I would like to follow up, if I can. I
understand Senator Coburn may not be able to stay, but I sure
thank him for being here this morning, for being part of this
hearing.
You testified that the participation of natural resource-
producing countries in the Voluntary Principles is critical for
their effectiveness, yet 8 years into the process, none of
these countries has joined and there is not even a process in
place to admit them. So why haven't they joined?
Mr. Krilla. Well, as I did note, it is important to have
them as part of this process. We have had a lot of engagement
with these governments, but I think the important part of the
process was several years ago when we actually created
Participation Criteria for new entrants to understand what they
were entering into. We have had governments--as I mentioned,
Colombia and Nigeria--that have engaged the VPs to varying
degrees--certainly Colombia has been very involved up to the
highest levels. The Vice President has been personally
involved, Vice President Santos, in making sure the Voluntary
Principles are implemented in all new contracts that the
national oil company has signed.
So we have seen a lot of engagement, although these
countries have not entered as formal VPs members because we are
still working out new entry criteria for governments. It is
something that, as I briefed your staff several months ago, we
are actively working on right now. All the governments are
hoping to involve new entrants, but at this point now, we do
not have any more than the four governments that were initially
formally involved.
Chairman Durbin. Which four?
Mr. Krilla. The United States, the U.K., Norway, and the
Netherlands, sir.
Chairman Durbin. Now, you mentioned Colombia as not
formally part of the VP. They have some human rights problems
that have been reported through the State Department and other
sources, as do Indonesia and Nigeria. Should they be allowed to
join?
Mr. Krilla. Well, the majority of the participants in the
Voluntary Principles see this process and this mechanism as one
that is very inclusive. I would much rather have governments
that are interested in improving their human rights records at
the table with the NGOs, with other governments, and with the
companies to understand greater the challenges that they face
and be better prepared to put together a road map to address
those challenges.
The country of Colombia is a perfect example of that, where
there are well-documented human rights challenges that they
still face, but their involvement in the Voluntary Principles
leads to a much greater understanding and much greater ability
to address certain problems. VPs will not solve all of their
human rights problems, but certainly could lead to a much
greater understanding and ability to address problems in human
rights and security around the extractive sector.
Chairman Durbin. Let's talk about Nigeria for a moment. It
was one of the three original priority countries for the
Voluntary Principles, but in the 8 years since they were
created, the security and human rights situation in Nigeria has
deteriorated significantly. Why were the Voluntary Principles
not able to play a role in preventing this?
Mr. Krilla. Well, unfortunately, as I said earlier, the
Voluntary Principles are just one tool in our toolbox. That is
not to say it is the only one that we are using in places like
Nigeria. The United States Government--the State Department in
particular--has a number of tools. Certainly, things like
awareness raising through our Human Rights Reports, even
through things like this hearing, are extremely helpful. Our
engagement with the NGO community, our capacity building and
support for civil society is a key part of raising awareness of
the human rights challenges that the countries still face.
I will say I am disappointed that the Government of Nigeria
has not been more engaged on Voluntary Principles. I think that
we have seen some interest. We certainly could see more. Part
of the purpose for my trip just last week was to get the
Government of Nigeria to more aggressively work to help
implement these Voluntary Principles.
But I will say, despite the lack of aggressive
implementation from the Government of Nigeria, we are seeing
the companies implement the Voluntary Principles across the
board in the country with the help of a lot of NGOs.
So I hold out hope that the companies and the NGOs and the
home governments to these companies are going it alone.
However, it is no substitute for having the Government of
Nigeria as a willing partner.
Chairman Durbin. For the record, you have mentioned NGOs
generically. Are there specific NGOs that have been extremely
helpful or extraordinarily helpful in implementing these
Voluntary Principles?
Mr. Krilla. Absolutely, and they play a key role. I myself
come from an NGO background before I came to work at the State
Department. Without helpful partners like Human Rights Watch,
Amnesty International--we have got seven NGOs that are very
critical in not only implementing but better understanding the
challenges that we face, and I think they are very key
stakeholders in this whole process.
Chairman Durbin. I would appreciate it if you would enter
their names for the record. I think they deserve that
recognition.
Let me ask you, in the embassies around the world,
particularly in countries with natural resources that are
extracted and exported to the United States, are the Voluntary
Principles an ongoing issue? Is it one where there are people
within the embassy or consulate that work on this issue on a
regular basis?
Mr. Krilla. Yes, sir. In fact, one of the highlights within
the State Department of working on the Voluntary Principles
initiative is that it brings several different parts of the
State Department and also several parts of the embassy
together, whether it is our energy and economics officers or
human rights officers or our political officers that more
holistically follow the situation on the ground. So I think it
is a real strength of this process within the Department, and
then also within the embassy, that it brings all aspects of the
embassy together to better understand and address this
challenge.
Chairman Durbin. Annually, the State Department issues a
human rights scorecard. Is this whole issue of the conduct of
extractive industries taken into consideration as a part of the
grading or evaluation of countries overseas?
Mr. Krilla. Sure. Well, I would not call it a scorecard so
much as a very thorough, comprehensive report. I actually
brought a copy of it here to show you just how extensive it is.
This report judges the human rights condition in countries
and judges governments. There is certainly mention of
companies, companies' behavior. Primarily--as I mentioned
earlier and I think you noted as well, we hold governments
accountable, but certainly the situation around corporate
behavior is mentioned in the reports as well.
Chairman Durbin. Do you hold companies responsible as well?
If there is a company, an American company, that is not
participating in Voluntary Principles or not doing the right
thing, is that reported as well?
Mr. Krilla. Absolutely. It is reported in the sense that we
engage with those companies and try to better increase their
understanding of the situation and encourage them to get
involved in different initiatives like the Voluntary
Principles. In other industries, there may be other sorts of
industry best practices that certain companies are not
complying with, and certainly better educating them and
encouraging them to move toward those practices is our goal.
Chairman Durbin. So if I read that evaluation, will I see
the names of companies that you believe are not doing a good
job when it comes to this?
Mr. Krilla. You will see the names of facilities where
human rights incidents have occurred. I think our report well
documents situations which need to be addressed, and in some
cases companies are mentioned.
Chairman Durbin. I know that there are many companies that
pride themselves on the sources of products that are sold in
the United States--Whole Foods, Starbucks, companies of that
nature. And it appears that they believe that this is something
that American consumers will pay attention to. I think we have
an ample history of those companies that have failed to pay
attention being caught in the act, and they have to change
their policies and practices. So I would think that that
reporting might have a valuable impact on corporate conduct
overseas.
This is an extremely complicated situation. I would hope
that we can work together on this in terms of acknowledging the
companies that are doing the right thing--I think they deserve
a pat on the back and recognition--but also those that are not.
And that might help the American consumer to decide. Sometimes
that consumer decision can have more impact than any law we
pass.
So I thank you, Mr. Krilla, for testifying today. We will
have some follow-up questions we will send your way.
Mr. Krilla. If I could just add one more thing, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Durbin. Of course.
Mr. Krilla. I think we do do a great job of highlighting
companies that are doing the right thing, best practices. I
think the Secretary's Award for Corporate Excellence really
helps highlight some of these companies. In fact, two of your
Illinois companies last year were finalists: Motorola and
Caterpillar.
Chairman Durbin. Great.
Mr. Krilla. So we are pleased to do more of that, and
thanks again for having us up today.
Chairman Durbin. I am happy that you mentioned some
Illinois companies. I appreciate it. Thanks a lot for your
testimony today.
Chairman Durbin. We are now going to move to the second
panel, and we are honored to have a distinguished panel of
witnesses to share their views on this topic. Each of these
witnesses will have 5 minutes for an opening statement. Mr.
Bassey and Mr. Ka Hsaw Wa have both traveled a long way to be
here, so we are going to give them a little more latitude in
their testimony. Their complete written statements will be made
part of the record.
Before the witnesses are seated, I am going to ask you for
the purpose of administering the oath to please stand and raise
your right hand, if you would. Do you affirm that the testimony
you are about to give before the Committee will be the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Bassey. I do.
Mr. Ganesan. I do.
Mr. Freeman. I do.
Mr. Wa. I do.
Chairman Durbin. Thank you. Let the record reflect that the
four witnesses answered in the affirmative.
Our first witness, Mr. Ka Hsaw Wa, is the co-founder and
Executive Director of EarthRights International and a member of
the Karen ethnic nationality in Burma.
After leading peaceful student demonstrations in Rangoon in
1988, he was arrested and tortured by the Burmese regime. Mr.
Ka Hsaw Wa fled the country after his release and has since
traveled clandestinely to remote areas of Burma to interview
witnesses and victims of human rights abuses committed by the
military junta. Mr. Ka Hsaw Wa has documented human rights
abuses, including forced labor, torture, killings, and rape
resulting from the Yadana pipeline, which cuts through the
Tenasserim region of Burma.
Mr. Ka Hsaw Wa has been honored for his work with the
Goldman Environmental Prize, the Reebok Human Rights Award, the
Sting and Trudie Styler Award for Human Rights and the
Environment, and the Conde Nast Environmental Award.
Mr. Ka Hsaw Wa came all the way from Thailand to testify
before the Subcommittee, and I thank you very much for doing
that. It is an honor to have you with us today, and we look
forward to your testimony. You may proceed. Make sure your
microphone is turned on.
STATEMENT OF KA HSAW WA, CO-FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
EARTHRIGHTS INTERNATIONAL, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Ka Hsaw Wa. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman and the
rest of the members. This issue is extremely important for me
because as I have been documenting human rights abuses
committed by military, we have a corporation for 15 years. We
all know the horrible human rights record of the Burmese
military junta. This army has a contract with Chevron on the
Yadana natural gas pipeline. That very same military who shot
and killed monks on the street last September, who did not
allow any humanitarian aid during the cyclone disaster in
Burma, and who killed many of my friends and other
demonstrators and tortured me for 3 days.
Chevron hired the brutal military dictatorship to provide
security of the pipeline. Human rights abuses are happening
before, during, and after construction and are still happening
today.
The pipeline is the single largest source of income for the
military. This revenue has allowed the military to dramatically
increase the military budget and size over the last decade. My
organization, EarthRights International, helps voicless people
of Burma to seek justice in U.S. courts against Unocal, which
was bought by Chevron in 2005, for slave labor, torture, rape,
killing associated with this pipeline in the historic lawsuit
called Doe v. Unocal.
It is so incredible for me to see that a U.S. corporation
like Chevron is allowed to continue to contract with brutal
military. Thousands of Burmese soldiers in the area, in the
village, along the pipeline route committing human rights
abuses against the local people. The military rape the women,
children, and conscripting slave labor. They kill and abuse
villagers anytime they want with total impunity. Villagers are
forced to work the pipeline corridor, first for the repair and
maintenance of infrastructure for the pipeline, and carry
ammunition while military are taking security for the pipeline.
While projects were being built, hundreds of people who were
working as slaves built helipad, road, military barracks for
the pipeline security forces.
I want you to understand the situation of my people in the
pipeline region. Many of the people in the pipeline region are
farmers, and then because the military do not allow them to go
to their farm, they have not enough food. And at the place
where they are allowed to go is very limited. And in order for
you to go one place to another, you have to get permission from
the military. The only way for you to get the permit is you
have to bribe military with chicken, money, alcohol, things
like that. If you cannot get any permit, if they see you in
your farm, they could kill you, they could torture you. They
will do anything they want to you.
I talked to a person, a family member of a person that his
son was simply killed because he did not have permit from
military in his farm. It just happened 3 weeks ago. And women
were raped, children were raped, too. I talked to a witness who
saw the rape of the soldier to the little young girl in the
pipeline--the village in the pipeline, because the two little
girls, one is about 7, one is about 9, were bathing and playing
in the river near their village. Two military go down there
and, you know, start to grab them, and one older sister could
run away, but the younger sister, 7-year-old, being raped by
the military that are taking security of the pipeline. And the
corporation know that. They admit that. And they knew that this
happened, and they don't seem to do much about that.
Last year, I personally took a village head from the
pipeline region to the hospital in Thailand because he was
beaten by the military simply because he was--military force
him to provide timber for the military, and he and his
villagers working for 6 weeks to provide timber for the
military. And when military come and get timber, they found
another pile of timber that villagers were collecting to build
a school. But they want to take that, too. But he tried to stop
it, and they beat him up really, really badly, and he was
severely injured. And then because of help from his friend, he
could come to Thailand because he couldn't get any medical
attention in the area.
It is so difficult to see the situation because I have been
there for many years. I have been talking to many, many people,
and we have been systematically documenting those human rights
abuses for many years. And I just think about if this happened
to you, to your family, how would you do that? The only thing
for those people is hopelessness. They have no voice. They have
no power. That is why I am here to tell you this story, and
then I would like to give them hope. And, you know, if they
know that somebody like you are doing something about this kind
of horrible things to stop, they would be so happy. And I am so
happy that--and, also, I would like to say that as you
mentioned about Alien Tort statute, which corporations do not
fancy that statute, and they want to take it away from--they
want to take it away.
So, I mean, this law is so important for the victims of
human rights abuses to get justice in U.S. court. This law
allows people from my country to get justice in United States
court. It is from, you know, slave labor, killing, rape,
torture, and other abuses happening on the Yadana pipeline. I
think also you should be proud of having this law that holds
corporations accountable.
People in my country would welcome company if they know the
corporation would respect the rights and the dignity as human
beings. If a company like Chevron will not accomplish it in the
kind of human rights abuses that I have described today, they
wouldn't have to spend millions of dollars on public
relationship campaign aimed at covering the truth. And people
around the world would have more positive image of America. I
mean, like it or not, corporations are perceived as
representatives of the United States. When those de facto
ambassadors are complicit in human rights abuses like Chevron
still in my country, they see Chevron as American. It is an
image that I believe we should not give to the world, that we
will go anywhere, do anything, partner with the most brutal
military to get whatever we need.
I saw in the news Chevron recently pressured the Bush
administration to cancel or suspend Ecuador trade preferences,
unless the court case again Chevron for massive environmental
damage in the Amazon is dropped, and then when you see that the
spokesperson even say that ``we cannot let this little country
screw around with big country like this,'' they treat people of
the country horribly. They don't respect any human rights in
the country that they are working in.
So, another thing EarthRights International fully supports
is passage of the Extractive Industry Transparency Disclosure
Act. While the act does not address specific human rights
abuses by corporations, transparency and accountability go hand
in hand in addressing the root cause of these abuses;
therefore, solutions must address both issues.
Most importantly, laws that regulate corporations and
prevent them from committing human rights abuses give people
hope--hope that one day they will not be victims of human
rights violations by anyone, and especially for American
corporation who claim they are improving people's life. And I
want to believe that one day, but for now what Chevron gives us
is hopelessness, sadness, and suffering.
Thank you so much for listening to us, and I believe that
together we can help stop some suffering of the world.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ka Hsaw Wa appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Durbin. Thank you. Thank you for coming such a
great distance, and I will have some questions for you after
the panel has had a chance to testify. But I really do
appreciate your being with us today.
Our second witness, Mr. Bennett Freeman, is a Senior Vice
President for Social Research and Policy at Calvert. From 2003
to 2006, he led Burson Marsteller's Global Corporate
Responsibility practice, advising multinationals on policy
development and communications strategies related to human
rights, labor rights, and sustainable development. As Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor from
1999 to early 2001, he led the development of the Voluntary
Principles. He received a bachelor's degree from the University
of California at Berkeley and a master's degree in modern
history from Oxford.
Mr. Freeman, thank you for being here today, and please
proceed.
STATEMENT OF BENNETT FREEMAN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR SOCIAL
RESEARCH AND POLICY, CALVERT GROUP, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Freeman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the chance to
testify today, and I do hope that my full statement can be
entered into the record.
Chairman Durbin. It will be.
Mr. Freeman. Thank you very much.
The theme of my testimony is the critical, indispensable
role that governments--especially the U.S. Government--must
play in leading the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human
Rights, a corporate responsibility initiative which has yet to
meet its potential but which, in my view, remains more
necessary than ever.
After the launch of the Voluntary Principles in December
2000, the process drifted without clear direction and in 2006
descended into a crisis of accountability and credibility--a
crisis that has threatened the survival of the initiative in
its present form but now appears to be very close to positive
resolution. The near breakdown of the global plenary process
has not only diluted focus on the imperative of strengthening
implementation in key countries, but has obscured much of the
concrete progress that is being made by a number of companies
on the ground in many countries. That progress must now in turn
be reinforced by stronger outreach to host country governments
and security forces, which has seriously lagged due to
insufficient priority, focus, and resources on the part of the
U.S. and the other Voluntary Principles convening governments.
The Subcommittee's focus on the Voluntary Principles is
especially timely for four reasons that I will use to frame
very briefly specific recommendations.
First, the Voluntary Principles are more important than
ever, not only to protect human rights and to promote corporate
responsibility, but also to support U.S. foreign policy and
energy security goals. There are a growing number of countries
and regions where vital oil and gas and mining operations are
in close proximity to active, latent, or potential new conflict
zones in which a combustible mix of conditions and incidents
threaten both human rights and the ability of companies to
operate.
As has been observed already in this hearing, Nigeria,
Indonesia, and Colombia were the original three priority
countries for the initiative. They appropriately remain so, but
I want to underscore the urgency of accelerating and deepening
Voluntary Principles implementation in Nigeria, where an
upsurge in violence since late 2005 has put U.S. companies at
greater risk, and especially the human rights of the peoples
and communities of the Niger Delta. This has indeed become one
of the most dangerous operating environments for business in
the whole world and one in which the Voluntary Principles,
unfortunately, should be invoked on almost a daily basis. Just
over the past weekend, further incidents occurred that
underscore the urgency of driving Voluntary Principles
implementation forward in Nigeria.
My full statement includes a partial list of the many, many
other countries around the world where I believe the Voluntary
Principles are highly relevant. It is a far longer list even
than we had in mind back in 2000 when the original process was
put together.
The second reason I want to underscore briefly why this
hearing is so timely is that the Voluntary Principles have
become a lightning rod in the important global debate over the
efficacy of voluntary versus legally binding standards bearing
on the human rights responsibilities of business, far beyond
the oil and mining industry. The ability of the Voluntary
Principles to demonstrate their effectiveness, their
credibility, will go a long way to bolstering confidence on the
part of companies in other industries, including the Internet
companies, which have been a focus of an earlier hearing of the
Subcommittee, that, in fact, voluntary approaches can make a
positive difference.
The imminent agreement I referred to with respect to
``participation criteria'' for the VPs would nearly, but not
totally, complete the architecture of accountability which has
been so long in the formation.
A final element of that architecture is the completion of
the long delayed reporting criteria for the initiative, which
is absolutely essential as a baseline for any accountability
whatsoever.
The third reason I would like to highlight the importance
and timeliness of the hearing is to underscore the strong
leadership that is so necessary now on the part of the original
convening governments to fulfill the initiative's potential by
engaging much more directly and effectively with host country
governments whose security forces are its most critical
operational focus. And at the same time, I believe that the
addition of new governments to the global plenary process can
make the VPs both more inclusive and accountable at the same
time.
The embassies of the convening governments can and should
play more active roles in facilitating dialogs with those
governments and security forces to support implementation
efforts by the companies.
The final reason that I want to underscore why this is such
a timely hearing is, frankly, the approach of a new
administration which gives us the opportunity to renew and
revitalize the State Department's leadership of an initiative
which urgently needs greater focus, resources, and momentum to
achieve its original and still vital objectives. It is so
important for the next administration to strengthen focus here
because the Voluntary Principles are far more than a corporate
responsibility initiative. They are closely linked and must be
even more so to a more strategic and comprehensive U.S.
approach to energy security in a world of continuing conflict.
I believe that there are a number of very specific steps that
the new administration should take without delay, building on
some of the recent progress that Deputy Assistant Secretary
Krilla mentioned. I will not go through the entire list of the
recommendations I make in my full statement. I would just
highlight several quickly before concluding.
One is to elevate the diplomatic priority attached to VPs
implementation with key countries, especially Nigeria as well
as Indonesia and Colombia, and to tie that implementation more
closely to support for related initiatives such as the
Extractive Industry Transportation Initiative, particularly in
Nigeria where only a comprehensive approach can begin to ease
the violent tensions and achieve structural reform in the Niger
Delta.
A second recommendation I would like to highlight is to add
staff and assistance resources to embassies and USAID missions
in priority implementation countries to support outreach to the
host country governments, as well as to civil society and local
communities.
Two others I will just highlight very quickly before
concluding. One is to adapt human rights training for security
forces, both military and police, in priority implementation
countries to cover Voluntary Principles content, programs such
as IMET in particular. And, finally, to add elements related to
the Voluntary Principles to OPIC loan guarantees and Ex-Im Bank
projects in the extractives sectors in relevant countries.
Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by emphasizing that renewed
and revitalized State Department leadership of the Voluntary
Principles can connect corporate responsibility and human
rights to stronger governance and rule of law in countries that
are critical to our foreign policy and energy security goals.
While the Voluntary Principles address what are usually narrow
issues and situations, they touch on some of the largest
problems and challenges that our companies face in the world--
ones which cannot be solved without greater leadership,
diplomacy, and resources from the U.S. Government consistent
with our broader interests.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Freeman appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Durbin. Thank you very much.
Our next witness is Arvind Ganesan, who is the Director for
Business and Human Rights at Human Rights Watch. He works with
governments, companies, and multilateral organizations on many
issues involving business and human rights, and has authored a
number of publications on the subject. He has focused on human
rights issues related to energy development in countries such
as Angola, Burma, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of Congo,
Indonesia, and Nigeria. He testified previously at the
Subcommittee's hearing on ``Global Internet Freedom.'' I thank
you for joining us again, Mr. Ganesan.
STATEMENT OF ARVIND GANESAN, DIRECTOR, BUSINESS AND HUMAN
RIGHTS PROGRAM, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Ganesan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity
to speak today on natural resources, human rights, and
corporate responsibility.
As you noted earlier, energy prices are at all-time highs
and have strained consumers and companies, and as policymakers
are searching for ways to wean the U.S. from foreign oil, we
are missing a part of the debate, and that is, who receives the
money and what actually happens on the ground. And the picture
is not a pretty one.
Over 60 percent of U.S. oil comes from abroad. But, sadly,
corruption is rife in many of these countries, and these
governments are often undemocratic and abusive.
We have seen the creeping autocracy in Russia and Venezuela
by governments who are emboldened by billions of petrodollars.
And on September 19th, Venezuela expelled our staff from the
country after we issued a report critical of President Chavez.
U.S. companies are major investors in many of these
countries, and U.S. consumers pay for this oil.
In Angola, we documented how the government, ruled by the
same president for almost 30 years, could not account for oil
revenue equivalent to about 9.25 percent of the country's
annual GDP between 1997 and 2002. By comparison, it would be as
if the Government ``lost'' $1.2 trillion a year for 5 years
here in the U.S.
At the same time, Angola had some of the world's worst
human development indicators and was considered among the most
corrupt. Angola is the sixth largest supplier of oil to the
United States.
Equatorial Guinea is an extremely repressive country, ruled
by a dictator who seized power from his brutal uncle in 1979.
Oil has fueled an almost 13,000 percent increase in the
country's GDP since 1992, but the State Department, IMF, and
others have repeatedly noted how the Government does not spend
adequate money on its own people. However, the president and
his family lead lavish lifestyles. The most brazen example is
the president's son, Teodorin, who has purchased multimillion-
dollar houses and exotic sports cars throughout the world--
apparently on a government official's salary of about $4,000 a
month. In April 2006, he bought a 15,000-square-foot mansion on
an estate in Malibu for $35 million, the same year the
government only spent about $12 million for social service
infrastructure. The U.S. imports about 66,000 to 101,000
barrels of oil per day from this country.
In many parts of the world, oil and other natural resources
are located in the midst of conflict or have become flashpoints
for other disputes. Government and companies have legitimate
reasons to safeguard their employees and operations, but in too
many cases, security for the extractive industry has meant
human rights abuses in countries such as Burma, the Democratic
Republic of Congo, Nigeria, Indonesia, and elsewhere.
To help address these problems, we have worked with
industry, governments, and other human rights organizations to
develop the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights.
But even with the new procedures in place that people have
discussed, we do not really know whether companies are fully
implementing the VPs since there are no meaningful reporting
criteria, no monitoring mechanisms to assess compliance, and
because at the end of the day they are voluntary. And we are
concerned that current or new member governments will not
actually change their practices or meet their responsibilities
because the standards so far are too weak to actually compel
them to do so.
In order to address these problems, the State Department
and other agencies should have and should dedicate the
resources to fulfill their responsibilities under the VPs, and,
crucially, they should be required to report on company and
government compliance regularly to Congress.
Other steps that the U.S. can take to ensure better
implementation of the VPs is, like Bennett Freeman said,
ensuring that the Export-Import Bank and Overseas Private
Investment Corporation require extractive companies to have
effective policies to address security and human rights and
monitor their compliance; ensure that military assistance
programs are contingent on respect for human rights and that
there is accountability for violations; and consider
legislation to ensure that extractive companies and private
security providers follow human rights standards. I think we
see over and over again where trusting companies to voluntarily
do the right thing oftentimes falls short. And to combat the
corruption and the misuse of funds that often accompany these
abuses, Congress should support the Extractive Industries
Transparency Disclosure Act, which, on behalf of a number of
people, I would like to thank you for your leadership on this
issue. But also ensure that the SEC and Department of Justice
aggressively investigate violations of the Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act, and strengthen the U.S. anti-kleptocracy
initiative first announced by President Bush in 2005. In
particular, ensure that the relevant branches of Government
aggressively identify corrupt officials and use existing
anticorruption and anti-money-laundering laws to thwart them.
And, finally, start a program to identify assets in the
U.S. obtained by corrupt means and work to freeze them and
repatriate them to their rightful owners: the citizens of those
countries.
These actions will send the message to companies and
corrupt officials that their illicit activities and abuses will
not be tolerated, and it will send the message to the citizens
of those countries that the U.S. will stand with them so that
they can hold their governments accountable.
Now is the time to change things so that these problems do
not come back to bite us through instability, skyrocketing
prices, corrupt governments, abusive security forces, or
corporate excess.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ganesan appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Ganesan.
Our final witness in this panel is Mr. Nnimmo Bassey. He is
the co-founder and Executive Director of Environmental Rights
Action, a Nigerian advocacy organization. He has documented
environmental and human rights abuses involving the oil and gas
industry in Nigeria and campaigned for peaceful resolution of
environmental and human rights challenges. Mr. Bassey is an
architect by training and has published four books of poetry.
Thank you for traveling so far to be with us today, Mr.
Bassey. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF NNIMMO BASSEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL
RIGHTS ACTION, LAGOS, NIGERIA
Mr. Bassey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity
to address your Committee on the issue we are focusing on.
I come from the Niger Delta, and over the past 15 years, I
have worked on human rights issues and environmental rights
abuses in the Niger Delta. Oil has been exploited in commercial
quantities in the Niger Delta for about 50 years now, and there
have been 50 years of dashed hope, 50 years of environmental
degradation, and 50 years of human rights abuses. These abuses
heightened in the last two decades, and we have noticed that
this has been as a result of big corporations of the United
States not being willing to engage in dialog with communities.
Now, before I speak further on that, I would like to say
that the oil industry activities are inherently challenging to
any environment, especially the Niger Delta environment,
because right from the exploratory stages where seismic lines
are cut, we have the experience of heavy deforestation and
invasion by opportunistic people who want to take advantage of
the opening up of the land for them to exploit also. And when
oil exploitation actually starts drilling, it is accompanied by
a discharge of radioactive waste into the water bodies and onto
the land.
And then we have a series of oil spills. Industry sources
place it at about 300 oil spill incidents every year, but
independent observers suspect that we have up to 1,000 oil
spill incidents every year in the Niger Delta. Most of these
spills are not reported, and most of the spills are not ever
cleaned adequately. And so this makes the land and the water
bodies unproductive for people who depend on water, natural
streams and creeks for potable water, and who depend on the
land for agriculture on which they subsist.
Besides this, we have massive cases of gas flaring. The gas
that comes out when oil is extracted could either be reinjected
into the ground or harnessed for use as liquified natural gas.
But it is more cheaper for the industry to just set the gas on
fire, and so for decades, about $15 million worth of gas goes
up in smoke in the Niger Delta every day--day and night, no
break. And this gas flares up right in the communities where
people live, and some of them in the middle of the communities.
If it were just economic wastage, that would not be so much of
a challenge for us. But it is a very big environmental issue
because the gas flares release a whole lot of greenhouse gases
into the atmosphere. They release other toxic elements that
cause blood disorders, cancer, bronchitis, asthma, and also
acid rain which challenges the corrugated iron sheets that
community people use to roof their houses. They have to replace
these roofs, and so we have a situation where the economic life
is completely dislocated by oil spills, seismic lines being
cut, and also this gas flaring that goes on continually.
Now, over the years, the community people in the Niger
Delta have always sought avenues for dialog with the
corporation and the state, but over the years we have noticed
also that whenever they make this move, they are visited with
disproportionate use of force, human rights abuses, and by the
use of the military. And the U.S. Department has repeatedly
reported that the industry did not address it and the military
are engaged in extrajudicial killings and also do not show any
form of accountability.
By 2003, the Niger Delta region was already characterized
as a high-fatality region in the world, comparable then to Iraq
and Afghanistan. I do not think that is the case now. Further,
recently we have got a rise in militancy in the Niger Delta,
and we condemn the use of violence by any people on any side of
the debate, either from the communities or from the military or
from the corporations. And we call for dialog, which is what
the community people have been asking for over the years, and
greater transparency in dealings between the corporations and
the military in Nigeria through the government.
Now, I would like to give two examples of where communities
have sought dialog and have been met with violence. The first
case would be the Ogoni people. The Ogoni in early 1990s
organized themselves under the Movement for the Survival of the
Ogoni People under the leadership of Ken Saro-Wiwa, one of
Nigeria's foremost poets, playwrights, environmentalists, and
minority rights activists. He was murdered by the state in
1995, after a trial at which Shell had a watching brief, after
the kangaroo trial at which he was found guilty. And really to
underscore the fact that this was an illegal act of
extrajudicial killing, the Nigerian Government has only this
week named a street in the Federal capital after Ken Saro-Wiwa.
Now, the Ogoni people engaged in a model peaceful mode of
agitation by producing the Ogoni Bill of Rights in which they
highlighted what they wanted from the state and how they wanted
to negotiate and how they wanted respect and dignity to live as
citizens in the country. But that was not respected, and with
the very serious and active engagement of Shell and the
Nigerian state, the people were visited with extreme violence
that led to many environmental refugees, some of whom have not
returned to Ogoniland even as I speak.
Now, moving over to 1998, which was long before the
emergence of militant activities in the delta, we had an issue
that occurred on a Chevron facility known as the Parabe
platform. This was in May 1998. Community leaders from the
Ilaje community had gone to the platform in a peaceful
demonstration and said they would sit there until Chevron
officials go to the village on shore to discuss with community
elders about simple things they were complaining about--lack of
employment and also environmental degradation. And a few days
later, they received information that there was some kind of
progress in the discussions on shore in the village with the
community leaders. And the youth said, ``Well, if that is the
case, we are ready to go back. We are ready to leave the
platform.'' And they would leave the following morning because
they got the message late in the evening. But by the time they
woke up in the morning, Chevron conveyed troops with the
helicopters onto the platform, and the resulting attack--the
attack that followed resulted in the death of two youths,
injury to many, and others were hauled away into detention in
very inhumane conditions. And we are grateful that that case
eventually is going to trial next month in a Federal high court
in San Francisco.
Now, just 2 months ago, I decided to visit Ilajeland to see
whether things have changed 10 years after that attack. When I
got through the creeks and got to the community, I was received
by the leader of Awoye village in Ilajeland, and he told me in
discussion that usually they welcome visitors by presenting two
things: one, a glass of water; and, two, fish to eat. And I
said, ``I love to drink water and I like to eat fish.'' He told
me, ``Well, we don't have any fish,'' because the canal dredged
by Chevron to move in their equipment has brought salt water
from the ocean and polluted the entire freshwater system and
also degraded their farmlands and the people were more or less
destitute. I said, ``OK. If you don't have fish, give me water
to drink.'' And he brought me water that did not have this
color, water that was not even as clean as green tea. And I
said, ``I would not be able to drink this, with all due
respect. Where did you get this water from?'' And he told me
that they fetched that water from the Chevron facility. And I
said, ``How could you fetch this kind of water from the Chevron
facility? Why would you drink it?'' They said they have no
option. I said, ``Don't you know that this is not healthy?''
And they said, ``Even Chevron tell us it is not healthy to
drink the water, but we have no option.'' And that is what they
are drinking.
And so we have over the years seen cases where communities
demand simple things, demand for dialog, and they are met with
indifference. And when there is a response, it is a lethal
response using the military and attacking the people.
I would like to conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying that as
far as the environment and human rights are concerned, we all
live downstream. And it is important to note that this is one
world that we live in, and abuses anywhere must be exposed
everywhere. I believe that the Voluntary Principles I have
heard so much about is something that should be made into
something mandatory and legislated upon, because industries are
not, as we have experienced, willing to take any voluntary
action that diminishes their profit margins.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bassey appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Bassey. I appreciate the
sacrifice that you and Mr. Ka Hsaw Wa and all of the witnesses
made to be with us today.
You noted that the State Department's Human Rights Report
found that Nigeria's human rights record is poor, that Nigerian
security forces committed extrajudicial killing and used
excessive force. You also testified that Chevron ``directly
requested the intervention of the Nigerian forces, regularly
houses and feeds those forces, and pays them above their
government salaries.''
What should Chevron do to address this situation?
Mr. Bassey. Mr. Chairman, I believe that Chevron, No. 1,
has to be a responsible corporate citizen in Nigeria. They have
to operate in a way that is not characterized by double
standards, and they have to stop doing things that further
worsen the human rights situation in the oil fields. They
should deal with the military in a more transparent way and
report their dealings clearly. We do not need to scream and
struggle before we get information about how they are dealing
with the military. They have to show very good examples
following the principles to which I believe they are already
endorsing, the Voluntary Principles. They have to put this in
practice in their daily dealings in Nigeria. Otherwise, the
situation is that nothing has changed and it is the same old
story.
Chairman Durbin. One of your recommendations is that
Chevron and others directly report the payments they make to
the military forces and security forces of other nations. I
assume that would be one of the starting points for this issue.
The other would be that they put money into the actual training
of the security forces regarding the standards of acceptable
human conduct. I think both of those things are very obvious.
I am sorry that Chevron is not here today. I would love to
hear their side of the story, if they have one to give us. It
would have been very interesting to hear their response to
this.
Mr. Ka Hsaw Wa, I have basically the same question for you.
You have testified that Chevron has employed the Burmese
military to provide security on the Yadana pipeline and that,
as a result, there have been horrific human rights violations.
How do you believe that Chevron should address this?
Mr. Ka Hsaw Wa. From my perspective, Chevron can address
this issue by really committing to change the situation. For
example, with regard to the military, they can train them, or
monitor the situation very closely, or let independent groups
monitor the situation. For example, when I talked to the
villagers, they always said that the military tells them if the
corporation goes, you will be in trouble. When Chevron and
corporation people closely monitor the situation, the human
rights situations decrease, and, could disappear--but the thing
is they just simply are going around, they don't put the staff
member on the ground as, according to some of the villagers I
talked to. But they do not monitor human rights violations very
closely. That is one thing.
The other thing is they do have influence over military
government--I strongly believe that--because when I talked to
the villagers, they were telling me that whenever they talk to
the corporation employee, the soldiers around there always come
and listen. They do care about that. And later those, military
behave better.
And so my perspective is Chevron could simply commit to
human rights, to changes, and then just simply to monitor the
situation of the pipeline very closely.
Chairman Durbin. Mr. Bassey, you also testified very
eloquently about the environmental damage caused by oil
production in the Niger Delta--oil spills, gas flares, and
dredging. I was particularly struck by a quote in your
testimony from a man--I hope I pronounce his name correctly--
Bola Oyinbo--and I know I will not pronounce this correctly--an
Ilaje--is that correct, Ilaje community?
Mr. Bassey. Bola Oyinbo, Ilaje community. That is fine.
Chairman Durbin. That was pretty close. An Ilaje community
leader, who said, and I quote--``Go to Awoye community and see
what they have done.'' This quote goes on to say, ``Everything
there is dead: mangroves, tropical forests, fish, freshwater,
wildlife. All killed by Chevron.''
Can you elaborate on this environmental damage? And do you
consider this to be a human rights violation?
Mr. Bassey. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by saying that,
unfortunately, Bola Oyinbo died a few years after the Parabe
attack, Bola that we are quoting in this testimony. He was one
of the leaders of the demonstrating youths who went to the
platform. And if he had been alive, he would have been in the
United States next month testifying in the court case.
Now, the sort of environmental degradation we have in the
Niger Delta is nothing short of human rights abuses. We cannot
distinguish between the kind of environmental abuses we face
and any other form of human rights. I believe personally that
the environmental violence is just as grave as violence by the
gun, because this violence completely cuts people off their
means of livelihood. They just do not have a way--they
struggle. Fishermen depend on imported fish just to eat because
the waterways are polluted and the oil spills are hardly ever
cleaned. You should visit the Niger Delta. You will find that
the best technological advanced methods used by these high-tech
corporations is just buckets and spades to clean spills. And
when they are tired of cleaning the spills, they simply set the
rest on fire. So we have got fires being burned, and even the
river is on fire. So when you visit the Niger Delta, we always
advise people if you see fire don't drop into the water,
because the water may be the next to be on fire, because spills
are so massive and so frequent. And so we have aquatic life,
animal life, and everything just being so challenged by the
activities of Chevron, Shell, ExxonMobil, and the other
corporations. It is really--there is no other way to
characterize this than to say that this amounts to enormous
human rights infringement.
In fact, in the case of gas flaring, some communities sued
the corporations, especially Shell, and asked the court in
Nigeria to declare if gas flaring is illegal activity and what
it means about human rights. And the judge did agree with the
communities in November 2005 in a judgment in the Federal high
court in Benin City where I live, that gas flaring in Nigeria
is an illegal activity; No. 2, that it is a human rights
affront and that it should be stopped. But the particular gas
law which judgment was given, which is run by Shell
Corporation, gas flaring is still continuing there. About 3
weeks ago, when community people went on an environmental site
visit just to see the flare, Shell ordered troops to arrest
them, and 25 community people, environmental NGO members, and
journalists were detained for over 5 hours by military on
behalf of Shell for just going to look at the gas flare.
Chairman Durbin. Are you allowed to travel in this area,
Niger Delta?
Mr. Bassey. Yes, anybody can travel in Niger Delta, but you
just have to be ready for whatever you meet on the way.
Chairman Durbin. Mr. Freeman, you were nodding when I
talked about environmental damage and human rights violations.
It is hard to separate the two. If you are endangering the
lives of people, cutting them off from their livelihood,
destroying the environment they live in, this certainly reaches
a level of assault and battery at least.
Mr. Freeman. I would agree, Senator. I had the opportunity
to visit the Niger Delta in July of 2000 when I was still
serving in the State Department with the specific purpose of
consulting on what was to become the Voluntary Principles. And
I traveled to a number of communities and villages in the
region and was struck by the obvious pollution visible while
traveling by motorboat through the mangrove swamps.
I would also note the dramatic but really degrading effect
of the gas flaring that has been mentioned, which continues,
and, unfortunately, Shell has not met its full commitment to
diminish that gas flaring.
It is very difficult to be on the ground for any period of
time in the Niger Delta with any human rights sensibility
whatsoever and to observe the environmental degradation that is
everywhere, not to view that as a human rights abuse.
Chairman Durbin. Let me ask you this: Mr. Bassey has
suggested, Mr. Freeman, that Congress should consider enacting
legislation creating criminal penalties for American companies
that are complicit in human rights abuses in conflict zones or
countries with repressive governments. I would like to ask both
you and Mr. Ganesan what is your reaction to this suggestion.
Is the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act a possible model?
Mr. Freeman. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is indeed a
possible model, as are the provisions which have been the basis
of lawsuits over the last decade in the Alien Torts Claims Act.
I believe that unless companies can demonstrate their
commitment to and implementation of the Voluntary Principles on
the ground in key countries such as Nigeria, such legislation
might be necessary.
That said, I have believed in the voluntary approach here
taken explicitly by the Voluntary Principles, but have been
dismayed by the failure of the process to fully achieve the
potential positive contribution to human rights. I could
envision, if not explicit legislation around criminal
penalties, I could at a minimum envision explicit legislation
to bolster implementation of the Voluntary Principles. One way
to do so would be to require reporting by companies
participating in the process. I think that kind of legislation
would be necessary and appropriate unless the Voluntary
Principles process can finally, after almost 8 years after its
launch, finalize the reporting criteria.
I also suggest in my testimony that Ex-Im Bank projects and
OPIC guarantees require Voluntary Principles commitment and
implementation for certain projects in certain countries. I
think that would be an appropriate objective for legislation.
But criminal penalties I think may be necessary, but I do
think that at least the Alien Torts Claims Act provides a basis
for those lawsuits, and I look forward to a next administration
that will not repeat the efforts of the current one to
defenestrate the use of Alien Torts Claims Act as a basis for
these kinds of complaints in extreme situations.
Chairman Durbin. The Defenestration of Prague I remember
from my history.
Mr. Ganesan, could you comment on that?
Mr. Ganesan. Yes, I think the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
would be extremely useful in the context of this type of
legislation for a couple of reasons. One is the Voluntary
Principles actually lay out a process that is very similar to
the FCPA in that a company is supposed to--is required to do a
risk assessment to determine whether there are risks of abuses,
to actually intervene or deal with state governments and
private security forces. And contrary to what the State
Department said earlier, if an abuse occurs, they are actually
required to investigate the veracity of the case, report it to
law enforcement authorities, and follow up on the proper
resolution of those cases. It is not simply a roundtable
discussion with the State Department, NGOs, and others. There
is a path it can go down.
The FCPA does the same thing in that it requires a company
to have accounting processes in place to prevent bribes from
being paid, and it can also punish them if their systems break
down and they actually pay bribes. So it is a very useful model
because both would require some kind of risk assessment, both
would require an assessment of whether they have policies and
procedures in place, and both could potentially hold companies
culpable if they did not have the systems in place or, in fact,
if abuses occurred and they did nothing about it. So I think it
would be quite useful and would be quite complementary to how
the Voluntary Principles are laid out.
Chairman Durbin. I find it hard to understand why a corrupt
practice such as bribery would be prohibited under American law
even if it is done overseas and we do not treat human rights
abuses and environmental abuses the same way. That would seem
to me to be at least morally comparable.
Mr. Ka Hsaw Wa, you have been pretty critical of the
Voluntary Principles. In your testimony, you suggested that
there is no mechanism for enforcement, no remedy for
infraction, and no government that will monitor these
corporations' compliance, and that failure to comply will
subject these companies to the court of public opinion, but no
other court. And that is assuming the public learns about the
infractions. You say we must develop laws, not voluntary
standards.
So you do not seem like you are a big fan of Voluntary
Principles.
Mr. Ka Hsaw Wa. I came from a country like Burma, and then
I see what happened on the ground. I see what corporations are
doing and ignoring stuff. So those voluntary mechanisms are not
going to work. I believe that the only thing that is going to
work for those corporations working in a country like Burma is
only clear law, like Alien Torts Claims or other law that, you
know, hold them accountable for their behavior. But voluntary
in a country like Burma, they just do not care. They do not
even put their energy resources on the ground.
Chairman Durbin. You mentioned Chevron. Are there any other
oil companies based in America that do business in Burma other
than Chevron?
Mr. Ka Hsaw Wa. No. Texaco was there, but they pull out of
Burma after a while.
Chairman Durbin. Mr. Bassey, Shell, ExxonMobil, and Chevron
are the largest oil producers in Nigeria. In addition, I
believe that the French company Total and Italian company Agip
operate in Nigeria. the three largest companies--Shell,
ExxonMobil, and Chevron--are all participants in the Voluntary
Principles. Shell and Chevron have been involved from the start
of the process, and ExxonMobil since 2002.
So based on your experience on the ground in Nigeria, how
effective have the Voluntary Principles been in preventing
human rights abuses and environmental abuses committed by
public and private security forces and other employees of these
companies?
Mr. Bassey. I would say, Mr. Chairman, that the principles
have not worked on the ground in Nigeria. Chevron is a
signatory to it, and I would give you one example. In just July
of this year, one community that was complaining about
Chevron's gas flare, Chevron used the military to intimidate
the community people, and they had to write a petition to the
Governor complaining about Chevron using the military to
intimidate and harass community members.
So I would say very safely that these principles are yet to
take root in Nigeria.
Chairman Durbin. That is the best I can see at the moment,
too. It seems to be a statement of principles, some
aspirations, but without enforcement or even publication of
violations, it does not take us very far.
I am just struggling with the notion that bribery is a form
of conduct that we find reprehensible and the things that have
been described here in terms of human rights abuses and
environmental degradation are not. I cannot follow the logic
behind that.
I want to thank you for coming, all of you, and for your
testimony today. I would like to place into the record
statements from Senators Leahy and Brownback and statements
from the following organizations and individuals: Amnesty
International, Business for Social Responsibility, East Timor
and Indonesia Action Network, the Fund for Peace, Global
Witness, International Council on Mining and Metals,
International Labor Rights Fund, Jubilee South Africa, Oxfam
America, Abigail Abrash Walton of Antioch University. And since
there is no one here to object, they will be put in the record.
I also want to give special thanks to my staff for all the
work that they have done for this hearing and so many others. I
was concerned, as we undertook this mission of a Human Rights
Subcommittee, that we would not accomplish much and nobody
would notice what we had done. Well, I do not know if notice
has been taken, but I think we have accomplished a few
important things, and this hearing is an example.
I will tell you that we are going to follow through with
letters to these oil companies. We are going to send them your
testimony. We are going to ask them point-blank to respond to
them. And if they fail to respond, we will assume that they
have no defense to offer. I find their conduct as described
here absolutely objectionable, and if they have a defense or
more facts to share with us, I wish they would have joined us.
If not, I hope they will provide them now. I think there is
much work to be done.
I am going to bring this hearing to a close by thanking our
witnesses. I want to urge everyone to reflect on the testimony
of all of our witnesses, but especially Mr. Bassey and Mr. Ka
Hsaw Wa, about the devastating impact that extracting oil, gas,
and other natural resources has on the people in poor countries
around the world. How can we ignore this? I mean, we set our
trash out 1 day a week and hope to never see it again. But to
buy our gasoline and oil and these products and not acknowledge
the price that is being paid to bring them to us I think is
something that does not speak well of our country. We can do
better. We cannot ignore the human toll that is being taken.
As was highlighted today, governments have a responsibility
to prevent human rights abuses. For countries that are home to
the largest companies, like the United States, this also
includes a responsibility to ensure that our companies are
taking appropriate steps to prevent human rights abuses. And
that will be the focus of this Subcommittee as we move forward.
I will entertain any statements from my colleagues and
share questions with you as submitted. I thank you all for
being here today, and this hearing stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Questions and answers and submissions for the record
follow.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3620.016