Globe Article:

Drilling for a corporate conscience
Talks have broken off between Talisman Energy and four NGOs.     
Activist Ernie Regehr explains why
   
Ernie Regehr     
Monday, March 20, 2000
     
Talisman Energy Inc. of Calgary has so far done little to
acknowledge the findings of a Canadian government investigation
into its operations in Sudan.
     
The investigation, led by John Harker, found that the company's
presence in Sudan contributed significantly to the violation of
human rights and the intensification of Sudan's civil war -- a war
that since 1983 has caused the deaths of some two million people.
Millions more have been displaced from their homes. And the
Harker Report confirmed that many of the internally displaced are
from the oil-rich region of Western Upper Nile, the site of major
Talisman operations. A forthcoming report from Human Rights
Watch in Washington will draw a similar conclusions.
     
Given all this -- and given increasing public calls for the company to
pull out of Sudan and for shareholders to pull their investments if it
does not -- Talisman ought to be looking for ways to meet its
obligations. Instead, last month talks broke off between the
company and four non-governmental organizations (NGOs) who
were trying to work with Talisman to persuade it to act to mitigate
the negative effects of its operations.
     
The Steelworkers Humanity Fund, the United Church of Canada,
World Vision, and my group, Project Ploughshares, had been
talking with Talisman executives for eight months without making
serious progress. When we pulled out, Talisman spokesperson
David Mann told The Globe and Mail that we had asked the
company "to take responsibility to monitor human rights in the
entire country." He added, "We should not be asked to do this."
Here is our account of the story -- what we actually put forward
and why we believe our proposals are reasonable ones.
     
The NGOs definitely did not ask Talisman oil workers or executives
to become human-rights monitors. We simply urged the company
to meet its responsibilities and take action on the damaging effects
of its oil operations. When we met in Toronto with Talisman
executives we stated that revenues from the oil-extraction
enterprise were easing economic constraints on the government of
Sudan and making it easier for Khartoum to continue its war. We
said that as long as the money flowed, Khartoum was less likely to
enter seriously into peace negotiations.
     
As well, we pointed out that ownership of the resource Talisman
Energy is exploiting is in dispute. The legitimacy of the Khartoum
government, with which Talisman has negotiated to pump the oil, is
challenged at home and abroad. And the people of south Sudan
have no real way to participate in decisions about the use of the
revenues produced by oil taken from their own territory.
     
In response to these concerns, Talisman told us that it believed its
operations actually contributed to Sudan's development. Company
executives assured us that in Talisman's continuing discussions with
the government of Sudan it regularly raised human-rights issues and
encouraged negotiations toward a durable peace. But we
maintained that private, closed-door talks between the company
and the government of Sudan were simply not credible.
     
It's unrealistic to expect Khartoum to devote oil revenues to
development as long as it is fighting a war. Therefore, we said, it is
in the best interests of the Sudanese people and the peace process if
the oil-extraction operations stop until after a clear peace settlement
is reached.
     
But we also insisted that as long as the oil continues to flow, and as
long as a Canadian company is involved, Canadian groups
concerned about Sudan should press Talisman to meet its moral and
legal obligations.
     
The moral obligations are obvious to anyone who has witnessed or
read about the extraordinary suffering of people attacked by
helicopter gunships and driven from their homes in the oil regions,
of schools bombed and children killed. What are the legal
obligations of private firms operating in the midst of (and benefiting
from) such an environment? They are less clear, but conventions
such as the one on the Rights of the Child and the 1949 Geneva
Convention relating the treatment of civilians in conflict must apply.
     
After months of talk, our group presented a three-fold proposal to
the company. It was simple and modest (indeed, some in the NGO
community criticized us sharply for being too accommodating and
too modest).
     
The first point dealt with the company's claim that it engaged in
regular discussions with the government of Sudan about peace and
human rights. We stated that this would be credible only if those
discussions were transparent and verified by independent monitors.
We wanted proof: We wanted the company to arrange for any such
discussions to be held in the company of acknowledged and
independent experts on human rights and the peace process.
     
Secondly, we asked the company to support the independent study
and monitoring of the human-rights situation in the oil region, to be
carried out by professional human-rights investigators. This study
would focus on the issue of the forced removals of populations
from the oil areas.
     
Third, we called on Talisman to initiate monitored discussion with
Khartoum as well as the political/military movements in the south.
We wanted these parties to explore ways in which the oil revenues
currently going to Khartoum could be preserved for the benefit of
the people of the south and for the schools, roads and hospitals the
whole region desperately needs.
     
Finally, we set a three-year schedule and proposed a budget. All
direct costs would be borne by Talisman and paid in advance to
ensure the program's integrity and independence. We estimated the
costs would come in at just under $1-million over three years, a
modest sum compared to the cost of, say, a three-year ad campaign
any major corporation would invest in to enhance its image.
     
The company rejected the plan. Its refusal leaves little hope that
Talisman is prepared to acknowledge even minimally its
responsibility toward the people of Sudan in whose midst it has
chosen to operate.
     
In all discussions of what governments should do about Talisman,
it's important to remember that the primary moral and legal
obligations rest with the company. Its shareholders have a
responsibility to inform management that their continued investment
is contingent on specific, verifiable efforts to address these moral
and legal responsibilities. And if the company's owners and
managers will not meet their obligations voluntarily, then the rest of
us -- individuals, the business community and government leaders --
will surely find the national and international means of compelling
Talisman Energy to do so.


Ernie Regehr is director of Project Ploughshares, which
co-ordinates a Track II diplomacy project on the Sudanese peace
process. He also participated in the investigative mission to Sudan.