Ethical Issues of UNOCALs Pipeline Project in Burma

Introduction

Companies, when conducting their operations, must always take into consideration the ethical aspect of their business and assess the projects they engage in from the perspective of morality. Some enterprises choose to overlook the established social norms and make profits their priority, while others avoid participating in ventures which can potentially harm their reputation. The case of UNOCALs activities in Burma, also known as Myanmar, presents an interesting situation of a company facing an ethical dilemma. Unocals utilitarian approach to building a gas pipeline off the coast of Burma can be considered ethical, and all the possible negative consequences of such a project can be prevented through international cooperation.

The Ethical Dilemma Faced by UNOCAL

UNOCAL is an oil company based in California which decided to participate in a project which involves cooperating with Burmas government to build a pipeline for supplying gas to Thailand. Nevertheless, there is an ethical dilemma inherent to the situation at hand due to the fact that Burma has a poor track record when it comes to maintaining civil society and democracy. In fact, Burma is a totalitarian state which suppresses opposition and attacks any attempts of civic leaders and movements to change the countrys political landscape. For instance, according to the U.S. State Department, Burmas authorities consistently arrested, harassed, and tortured political activists (Velasquez, 2005). Apart from the local opposition, Burma is also home to several peoples, including Karen, Mon, and Tavoy. The members of these tribes are also subject to abuse from Burmas State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) (Unocal: Making a killing, n.d.). The pipeline which UNOCAL is planning to build will also lay on the territories historically belonging to the aforementioned tribes, which will trigger another wave of violence towards these peoples.

Thus, the ethical dilemma faced by UNOCAL involves two possible scenarios from which the company must choose only one. The first scenario is the companys successful cooperation with Burmas government and earning significant revenues from the project. Such a contract will provide Burma with more resources empowering it to continue its abuse of human rights. At the same time, an economic incentive provided by the cooperation can potentially stimulate the growth of the quality of life in the country, granting locals a chance to earn a living for their families. Moreover, UNOCAL is committed to giving people living in the area of the pipeline access to better health care and education, as well as improved agricultural development (Imle, 1996). The second scenario involves UNOCAL avoiding building the pipeline in Burma and withdrawing from the country. Yet, such a decision will help to prevent the destruction of the traditional regions of living of the local peoples and will stop Burma from receiving financial benefit from the project. Yet, the lack of investment will lead to the absence of development and growth opportunities for both the country and its citizens.

Stakeholders, Their Equities, and Approach for Addressing Competing Interests

There are five main stakeholders in the situation in question, namely, UNOCAL, Burma, the countrys society, Thailand, and the U.S. agencies. UNOCALs equity, in this case, constitutes the potential opportunity to earn considerable sums of money by building a pipeline and facilitating the transfer of gas. Burmas government seeks to gain financial investment in the country from its partnership with UNOCAL and Thailand. Burmas society wants to avoid facing harsh treatment from the authority and simultaneously wishes to increase its living standards through foreign investment. Thailand also can benefit from the creation of the pipeline because it will be the main consumer of the gas from Burma, which will provide the nation with access to cheap fuel. Finally, the U.S. government and its agencies are concerned about the pipeline project since their stance is that Burmas authorities must not receive any support from international partners. The United States wants to affect changes in Burma by subjecting the country to economic sanctions, which eventually must trigger the transition to a democratic regime.

It is clear that there are many competing interests in the current situation, but there are still two main topics which can be outlined here. A share of the stakeholders wants to benefit from the pipeline both financially, while the other share wants Burmas government to restrain its violent and punitive activities. Thus, these common interests can be used as the foundation for a solution which will benefit every stakeholder in the case. Such a solution must involve establishing a special international committee consisting of members from Thailand, the United States, and Burma who will ensure that the project is not accompanied by human rights abuses. If such a plan is implemented, all stakeholders will be satisfied with the entire project. UNOCAL, Thailand, and Burmas government will yield financial benefits, Burmas society will enjoy a better quality of life and avoid facing violence, while the United States will be able to reduce human rights abuse.

UNOCALs Decision from the Perspective of Ethical Frameworks

UNOCALs decision to invest in Burma and build a pipeline for transferring gas to Thailand can be viewed from the perspective of two ethical frameworks, utilitarianism and the moral rights philosophy. According to the utilitarian approach, an action can be considered ethical when it maximizes the benefit for the majority of stakeholders (Scharding, 2018). Although the situation at hand is quite complex, it still is possible to say that UNOCALs participation in the project can be considered ethical in the context of utilitarianism. UNOCAL supports the idea that economic sanctions actually harm totalitarian countries and only improvement in the economic climate of such nations can bring positive changes (Haass, 1998). Thus, the decision of UNOCAL, which not only invests in Burma but also offers assistance to local people, is ethical.

At the same time, UNOCALs actions are not ethical if viewed from the perspective of rights-based ethics. According to the approach in question, an action is ethical if it is in accord with the rights of every stakeholder involved in a given situation (Jonasson & Ingason, 2017). UNOCALs decision to participate in the project can cause a rise in the number of human rights abuses of the local people. There is information about Burmas authorities killing members of the Karen and Mon tribes and using them as slaves, forcing them to work on various projects (Unocal: Making a killing, n.d.). Therefore, UNOCALs decision is certainly immoral in the context of rights-based ethics and should be stopped to prevent violence.

My Ethical View on Engagement is Better than Isolation

I support the idea that isolation is much worse than engagement which it comes to working with authoritarian regimes due to several reasons. First of all, isolation and lack of cooperation do not yield any positive outcomes in the majority of cases. For instance, there is an example of North Korea which does not have any economic ties with the United States or Europe and still manages to remain fairly stable, even despite occasional famines (Smith, 2021). Moreover, the complete isolationism and the refusal of democratic nations to work with the authoritarian ones contribute to the propaganda efforts of the latter, thus stimulating the local populations to support the regime. The intentional avoidance or even restrictions on economic activities with authoritarian countries negatively impacts the citizens of the democratic ones (Haass, 1998). Since isolated countries are often poor, they constitute excellent sources of inexpensive labor force capable of significantly reducing the prices of products sold in more affluent societies.

Thus, I believe that cooperation with authoritarian countries such as Burma is the most ethical way of conduct. Any foreign investments in such regimes benefit not only the government but also its people, who gain more resources and gradually become less dependent on the authorities. Additionally, international projects involve an exchange of ideas and the building of relationships between the locals and the foreigners. As a result, the citizens of the authoritarian countries begin to have a better impression of people from abroad and are more willing to interact with them. Such developments contribute to the creation of a free society where citizens are open to international cooperation. Finally, any potential scenario involving human rights abuses can be prevented by maintaining strict control with the help of international committees in cooperation with the local government.

Conclusion

UNOCAL made a reasonable decision when the company decided to invest in a pipeline in Burma, yet there is still a need for additional measures to make its operations abroad ethical. Despite the fact that the situation with the pipeline project in Burma appears to be complex, there are viable ways to ensure satisfaction for every stakeholder involved in it. Essentially, the project must be closely watched by representatives of all the stakeholders to ensure that no human rights abuses are committed, and every action related to the construction is legal.