Case Study Unocal in Burma

Q1 Answer whether from utilitarian, rights, justice, and caring perspective, Unocal did
the right thing in deciding to invest in pipeline and then in conducting the project as it did.
In your view, and using your utilitarian, rights, justice, and caring assessments, did
Unocal do the right thing? Assume there was no way to change the outcome of this case
and that the outcome was foreseen was Unocal then justified in deciding to invest in the
pipeline?

1.
2.
3.
4.

Unocal which were getting success in the beginning of the business went wrong when they were
not supposed to do wrong. Unocal activities which were being conduct in yadana field project can
be discussed from the 4 moral principles mentioned below.
Utilitarian perspective:
By conducting the project, there were a far greater number of people got benefits from the
projects. A pure utilitarian would say that it was right for unocal to invest in Yadana pipelines.
Costs and benefits can be analyzed to see that was the unocal decision to invest in yadana was
purely utilitarian or not. Unocal and other companies built schools and along the pipelines, small
business were also growing, the project provided Burma citizens with employments, infant
mortality along the pipeline dropped. Thailand was able to enjoy cleaner natural gas from 500600 million cubic feet of gas that was piped in daily through the pipeline instead of using dirtier
fuel.
Hundreds of Karen were used as forced labor and also force them to relocate so that they can
build the pipeline. Allegations of abuse and even murder by the Burmese government for those
who opposed the project.
Rights perspective:
Following points can be considered as from the case study.
The human rights watch and amnesty international issued the report claiming that the Burmese
army was using forced labor.
Brutalizing the Karen population to provide security for the Unocal Workers and equipment.
A report of 1995 by Unocal also stated the human rights violation.
It appeared that based on the rights it was proven wrong for the Unocal to invest in yadana.
During the time period of contract the Unocal again violated the contract against the human rights
and used the forced labor.

Justice Perspective:

The justice in ethics is ensuring that all are treated fairly and equally. Unocal position can be
examined from the three types of justice.
i) Distributive justice: It is concerned with the fair distribution of benefits in the society. From this
point of view unocal made the wrong decision about the investment in yadana due to the reports
from the US, non -profit organizations and even Unocals own studies shows that although the
benefit of project could have in theory been distributed to all the Burma via govt. development.
ii) Retributive Justice: Punishment is morally accepted for breaking a law or rule. From this view
it appear that Unocal was not correct in its decision to invest in yadana as it was sued both by
federal and state courts in US.

iii) Compensatory Justice: the just way to compensate people for what they have lost when they
were wrong by other. From this view Unocal was right in investing as Karen population suffered
as a result of the project were compensated through the out of court settlement.
Caring Perspective

Ethics from caring point of view means the care to relations or care of people near to us. From
this perspective unocal was not right as the people of Karen were not treated in good manner by
Burmese army and they have violated the ethics of care in this way. The conditions could be
much better if the army treated the people of Karen in good manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q2 In your view, is Unocal morally responsible for the injuries inflicted on some of the
Karen people? Explain.
In ethics moral responsibility depends on 3 components. Knowledge, freedom and involvement.
Each factor contributes maximum in the moral responsibilities. Lets see how Unocal was morally
responsible.
1. Knowledge:

Before investment unocal conducted socio political analysis of the state of Burma

Unocal made a contract with the consulting firm to review the 1991 Amnesty international report,
which documented abuses against the Burmese by the army

Although it received the explanation of violation of human life in Burma as well as risk that can
occur, Unocal still continued investing in that project.

Unocal hired consultants to investigate conditions in yadana region and again got the report that
human rights would be affected during pipeline construction.
2. Freedom:

It was unocals free will to invest in the project and no one forced them to do that.

The cleaning activity was done on behalf of the Unocal by the army which resulted in relocation,
forced labor, torture, murder, rape of the Karens by the Burmese army.
3. Involvement:

Unocal was involved in the injury held to the people of Karen by the army.

The army was greatly involved in the project and was the main reason of causing injury to the
citizens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q3 Do you agree or disagree with Unocal's view that engagement rather than
isolation is the proper course ... to achieve social and political change in developing
countries with repressive governments. Explain.
Unocal knew the conduct and track record of their local partner in Myanmar, and they knew too
that their partner had had an appalling reputation of human rights violation particularly with
regards to the Karen minority ethnic group. Notwithstanding these facts, they argued that
engagement instead of isolation is the proper course to achieve social and political change in
developing countries with repressive governments to justify their venture into Myanmar, and
their partnership with the ruling military regime. Schwartz (2000) argued that Unocals decision to

choose engagement over isolation was founded on three reasons. First, they reasoned that their
activities were not causing any harm. They had complied with government legislations, abided by
environmental standards, and did not use slave labor. Second, they saw themselves as catalysts
for change, and therefore contended that their involvement would more likely support democratic
forces, stimulate change, increase connection with the outside world, and ensure that the military
government will not survive for long. Third, they claimed that their participation had been
legitimized by global institutions like the World Bank, the IMF, ASEAN, and other international
organizations that have been funding and supporting economic and social projects in Myanmar.
They had earlier refused to participate in a lucrative project in Afghanistan because the World
Bank, IMF, and others would not participate but Myanmar was different. Hence, they could not
see a reason for abstinence.
Engagement does not foster the much touted economic development that necessarily leads to
improvement of human rights, and a democratic government. Myanmars inclusion into the
ASEAN fraternity has proven that. The relationship between economic prosperity and growth and
political liberalization is complex, and there is therefore no causal link between democracy,
respect for human rights, and economic development
As the foreign investments do not translate into infrastructure or sustainable employment for the
population, it is our contention that a disengagement strategy, withdrawal, and banning
investments would not negatively affect the innocent population. It will instead achieve the goal of
cutting off the lifeline of the ruling government as it heavily relies on capital from the investments.
Taking a utilitarian view to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number, we postulate that
some arm-twisting is necessary (and justified) when the road of diplomacy has ended.