Oil Companies
Colonise Turkey: MAI by the Back Door?
BP and other oil companies
have secured complete freedom from regulation for a pipeline they
propose to build across Turkey, a group of non- governmental organizations
has learned. The agreement, which was published in Turkey's Official
Gazette on 10 September 2000 but only recently obtained, 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not superseded by the agreement is the Constitution.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 planned
1700km oil pipeline – 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 – 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 route chosen 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 western
funding sources, including 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”.
Non-governmental
organizations charged that the agreement was "colonialist" and
reminiscent of the discredited OECD proposal for a Multilateral
Agreement on Investment (MAI) which was rejected in 1998.[3] “The
MAI was rightly rejected by governments 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." 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. “Turkey is now divided into three countries”,
said Hildyard: “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 from North to South, where BP
is the effective government.” 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 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 neighbouring countries appear to be left without
recourse for damages.“This is a clear example of why the Earth
Summit must deliver global rules on corporate accountability,"
said Tony Juniper of Friends of the Earth. "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.” The HGA also
paves the way for 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.
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,"
Lustgarten added.
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.”
[1] For a detailed
analysis of the Host Government Agreement, contact nick@fifehead.demon.co.uk
or khrp@khrp.org
[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.
