A U.S. State Department letter urges a judge in Washington to consider
political and economic implications before standing on principle
The administration of President George W. Bush seems to have removed any doubt about what drives American policy toward Indonesia: cold-blooded commercial interest, now firmly underpinned by concerns over international terror. In a July 29 letter to a Washington judge, the
State Department's legal adviser warned that a lawsuit against a U.S. oil giant for alleged complicity in human-rights abuses committed by Indonesian security forces could prompt Jakarta to discriminate against American firms when awarding contracts, and to stop cooperating in the
global war on terrorism.
The State Department sent the letter in response to a lawsuit against ExxonMobil for alleged human rights abuses by Indonesian security forces protecting the company's natural gas fields in Aceh. The suit was filed by the Washington-based International Labor Rights Fund on behalf
of 11 villagers from Aceh who claim they were victims of murder, torture and rape by Indonesian soldiers guarding the company's gas field. ExxonMobil has denied any responsibility for the alleged abuses by the security forces.
A judge in Washington heard the case in April but delayed his finding until the State Department could offer an opinion on the impact of the lawsuit on U.S.-Indonesian relations. In his response to the judge, legal adviser William Taft avoided addressing the legal issues before the court, but in extraordinarily strong remarks cautioned that the case could have "potential adverse impacts on significant interests of the United States, including interests related directly to the ongoing struggle against international terrorists."
Some analysts believe that Taft's letter, while non-binding, could derail the suit. The State Department intervened in a similar case earlier this year filed against mining giant Rio Tinto over the
violence that led to the closure of its Bougainville copper mine in Papua New Guinea in 1998. The State Department also sent a letter in that case saying that it might adversely affect U.S. foreign policy interests. In what may set a precedent for such cases, a Los Angeles federal court
dismissed the suit on jurisdictional grounds.
The more recent State Department legal advice comes on the heels of efforts by the Bush administration to get Congress to overturn a U.S. ban against training programmes for the Indonesian military imposed in the wake of violence in East Timor in 1999. It has also exposed a split in the State Department. Says one senior U.S. official: "This is the eternal debate in the administration between those who support bilateral and foreign policy objectives and those who say 'hold on, human rights issues are important.'"
Predictably, human rights advocates are furious. "What's remarkable and outrageous is that the State Department has argued that regardless of the merits of the case, it should be dismissed," says Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch in Washington. He points out the irony that the letter was sent during a fired-up U.S. debate about increased corporate accountability. "The message State is sending is that corporate responsibility stops at water's edge," Malinowski says.
In his letter, Taft argues that in the case of ExxonMobil and Indonesia, it would be commercially irresponsible to continue the suit. He warns that a ruling against ExxonMobil, which he never mentions by name, could make it more difficult for U.S. oil and mining firms to operate in Indonesia: "The adjudication of these claims could prejudice the government of Indonesia and Indonesian businesses against U.S. firms bidding on contracts in extractive and other industries."
Taft says Jakarta may instead turn to companies from countries like China that will raise fewer questions about human rights, pointing to acquisitions by state-owned PetroChina and the China National Offshore Oil Corporation of two producing oil and gas fields in Indonesia over the past few months. Taft writes: "We expect that foreign companies, such as from [China], would be far less concerned about human rights abuses or about upholding best business practices."
Taft writes in dramatic terms about how the lawsuit could discourage other foreign investment in Indonesia, which in turn could lead to a deteriorating economic climate and create instability and unemployment. "Instability there could create problems ranging from interruption in vital shipping lanes, to refugee outflows, to a new home for terrorists," Taft says, in what even some U.S. diplomats feel is an overstatement.
As it is, the chief legal adviser says the Indonesian government perceives the lawsuit as "U.S. 'interference' in its internal affairs," which he says could prompt Jakarta to end its cooperation in areas such as fighting international terrorism, progress on human rights and military, police, economic and judicial reform. "In our experience," says Taft, "the government and people of Indonesia react most negatively to any perceived intrusion into areas of Indonesian sovereignty."
Indonesian Input
Taft concludes the State Department's argument by citing an attached letter from Indonesian ambassador to Washington Soemadi Brotodiningrat, which rejects the suit as unacceptable extraterritorial interference because it refers to abuses committed by the Indonesian military. In
fact, the suit itself is aimed at ExxonMobil.
Analysts say Taft's letter tends to undercut efforts led by Bennett Freeman, deputy assistant secretary of state for human rights in the Clinton administration, to get U.S. companies to sign up to voluntary principles on dealing with the security forces of host governments. One of the seven firms that initially supported those principles was Louisiana-based Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold, which owns one of the world's biggest mines in Papua, Indonesia's easternmost province. "The suit may go away," Freeman says, "but the issues on the ground won't."
Some businesses believe the State Department letter may herald a move by the Bush administration to scrap the Alien Torts Claims Act, legislation drafted 200 years ago to deal with the press-ganging of American seaman by the British navy, but which is now being used to hold U.S. companies responsible for human-rights abuses committed by host governments in areas where they operate. "This is . . . sending a signal that the administration is not only not sympathetic to these lawsuits, but may in fact seek to repeal the Act," says one American mining executive of
Taft's letter.
Several years ago, Freeport became one of the first U.S. companies sued under the legislation, but the case was subsequently thrown out by a federal appeals court because of a lack of credible evidence. More recently, a similar suit against Unocal alleged that Burmese officials forced villagers to work on a Burma-Thailand gas pipeline and in some cases raped and kidnapped them. Lawyers say a 1997 State Department letter to the court judge in the case was "fairly neutral."
Some Indonesia-watchers doubt that Jakarta could afford to thumb its nose at Washington even if the U.S. had taken a tougher stance on the alleged abuses. Bama Athreya, a research analyst at the International Labour Rights Fund and former U.S. diplomat in Indonesia, says the country's economic woes make it impossible for Jakarta to "shut down cooperation" with Washington in retaliation for the lawsuit against ExxonMobil. "Indonesia is jumping through hoops to resume cooperation," Athreya says.
laborrights.org
The lengths to which government and industry parties have gone in order to try and sweep it under the carpet is very telling. The message is that human rights do not rate when it comes to corporate profit. Iraq cannot be held up as an attempt to champion human rights in regard to this.
You ask, "What is the proof?", yet you have demanded no proof of WMD's in saddam's control prior to an invasion of Iraq. Or proof beyond maybes and ifs that Iraq was a direct or immediate threat to the US. Your double standards guided by politics are showing. |
