|
30 august 2002
johannesburg
foei, crbm, cornerhouse, khrp, platform, cee
bankwatch network, ilisu dam campaign
oil companies colonise turkey
corporate accountability – not!
BP and other oil companies have demanded
an extraordinary and outrageous deal, giving
them complete freedom from regulation for a
pipeline they propose to build across
Turkey.
The planned 1760km oil pipeline is backed
by BP (UK), Unocal (US) Statoil (Norway),
Turkiye Petroleum (Turkey), ENI (Italy),
TotalFinaElf (France), Itochu Oil (Japan),
Delta Hess (US/Saudi Arabia) and the State
Oil Company of Azerbaijan. It would stretch
from Baku on the Caspian Sea, through T'blisi
in Georgia, to Ceyhan on the Turkish
Mediterranean coast. Slated for completion in
2005, it would operate for at least 40
years.
The BP-Turkey agreement, known as the Host
Government Agreement (HGA), creates a
corridor running through some of Turkey’s
most politically volatile regions. The
corridor would effectively be outside the
national government’s jurisdiction for the
lifetime of the proposed project.
The HGA was published in Turkey's Official
Gazette on 10 September 2000 but only
recently obtained and analyzed by a group of
NGOs (FOEI, CRBM, Cornerhouse, KHRP,
PLATFORM, CEE Bankwatch Network, Ilisu Dam
Campaign). It exempts the companies from
obligations under any current or future
Turkish law that may threaten the project's
profits, including environmental, social and
human rights legislation. The only Turkish
law not superseded by the agreement is the
Constitution. [1]
The HGA allows the consortium building the
pipeline to demand unlimited protection from
Turkish security forces, without safeguards
against human rights abuses. Under the vague
wording of the agreement, paramilitary units
could be placed along the pipeline route to
pre-empt “civil disturbance” or “terrorist”
activities. Since the pipeline cuts
repeatedly through villages and bisects
established ownership patterns, people could
find themselves cut off from their families
or land and be forced to trespass regularly
on oil company property in their daily
lives.
Other provisions in the HGA include
unfettered access to water, regardless of the
needs of local communities, and exemption
from liability in the event of an oil spill
or any other harm caused by the pipeline
consortium. The Turkish government can
intervene only temporarily in the case of an
“imminent” and “material” threat to the
public, the environment or national
security.
But what would constitute such a threat
remains undefined. Nor is it clear who would
decide whether such a threat existed. Local
communities and neighboring countries appear
to be left without recourse for damages.
The route chosen for the pipeline is one
of the most expensive possible for Caspian
oil exports. According to BP Chairman John
Browne, its profitability will be dependent
on ‘free public money’ [2] – much of which
will come from funding sources like the World
Bank and export credit agencies. The legal
agreement signed with the Turkish government
further props up the project by preventing
the Turkish government from taking any
actions that could disrupt its “economic
equilibrium”.
The NGOs have slammed the agreement as
"colonialist" and reminiscent of the
discredited OECD proposal for a Multilateral
Agreement on Investment (MAI) which was
rejected in 1998.[3]
Tony Juniper of Friends of the Earth
commented: “This is a clear example of why
the Earth Summit must deliver global rules on
corporate accountability. Left to their own
devices, corporations are quite happy to put
profits before people. BP wants to waive the
rules, destroying the environment and
trampling on the rights of local communities
with impunity.”
Nick Hildyard of the Cornerhouse
commented: “Turkey is now divided into three
countries”, “the area where Turkish law
applies; the Kurdish areas under official or
de facto military rule; and a strip running
the entire length of the country, where BP is
the effective government.The MAI was rightly
rejected by governments for eroding national
sovereignty under pressure from civil
society," said Nick Hildyard of the Corner
House. "Now these companies are trying to
revive the MAI by negotiating directly with
undemocratic governments."
Anders Lustgarten of the Kurdish Human
Rights Project commented that Turkey "has
recently charged students signing a Kurdish
education petition with membership of an
illegal terrorist organisation, and charged a
father who named his daughter after a Kurdish
character in a popular soap with sabotage of
the state. "These precedents do not instil
confidence in the way such nebulous terms as
'civil disturbance' and 'terrorism' will be
applied under this agreement."
Similar agreements between governments and
the oil companies have also been negotiated
for Georgia and Azerbaijan. Commenting on the
implications for Georgia, Manana Kochladze of
Green Alternatives stated: “The requirement
to compensate the consortium for any
disruption caused to the 'economic
equilibrium' of the project by new social and
environmental laws severely curtails the
development possibilities for our
country.”
Press contacts: Joburg
Kate Hampton + 27 72 401 5388
Carol Welch + 27 82 858 6073
Tony Juniper + 27 72 401 5393
Antonio Tricarico: + 27 72 312 8241
Ian Willmore (Media) + 27 72 401 5386
Press contacts: UK
Anders Lustgarten: +44 (0)207 287 2772
Nick Hildyard / Larry Lohmann: +44 (0)1258
473 795
Press contacts: Georgia:
Manana Kochladze: +995 32 22 3874
[1] For a detailed analysis of the Host
Government Agreement, contact the press
office of FOE in London on + 44 207 566
1649.
[2] Financial Times, “Wisdom of Baku
Pipeline Queried”, 4th November 1998.
[3] Negotiated in secret, the MAI was
roundly rejected by national parliaments and
the public after its contents were leaked to
non-governmental organisations and broadcast
on the internet. The agreement would have
empowered private investors to extract
compensation from foreign governments for
legislation that adversely affected their
investments, regardless of the public
interest. The HGA has similar provisions.
|
