My Indonesian Yacht Cruise Was A Raft Trip On The Yentna With Ted Turner

[For those who are used to Twitter and need the this to read this in 20 seconds, skip down to the bolded question, What does this have to do with yachts cruising Indonesian islands? For those that want some context (and a little history on how the Anchorage Assembly first got onto cable, start at the beginning.]

 

Michael Shamberg's Guerilla Television had put video literacy into my life goals.  It pointed out that we are taught to read and write at school and given some skills in recognizing when written language is being used to manipulate us. (This was the 70s when schools still did that.  I think many still do, but I'm guessing a lot don't.)  

Shamberg's premise was that we were getting so much news via television that we needed that same sort of training in videography.  The book was a treatise on what was wrong with how news was created and a citizens handbook for how to make people's videos and how citizen created videos would change the world.  This was at a time when video cameras were pretty bulky and pricey, and there weren't any outlets for citizens to show their videos. There weren't even any Blockbusters yet.

I'd say Shamberg was pretty visionary. Eventually cameras on phones gave everyone a pocket video recorder and YouTube offered everyone a people's theater where anyone could show their videos and anyone could watch them.  Social media have extended the audience even further.  

And so when cable television was beginning to show up I was paying attention.  I was reading cable industry journals and even went to a few conferences on cable public access.  I was especially excited about the contracts around the country that required the cable companies to set up public access video studios with cameras and editing equipment so people could make their own videos. They also required public access channels to play those citizen made videos on. Sure, the audience was limited to cable viewers, but it was a step in the right direction. 

Multivision had bid for the contract in Anchorage.  This was 1982 or 83.  I was working on loan from the University to the Municipality of Anchorage for a couple of years.  I read the Multivision proposal and was dismayed that there was no provision for a public access video studio or a channel for people's video.  I kept telling Cathy Allen, Mayor Knowles' chief of staff (I think that was her title) that the Municipality should be demanding that such provisions - modeled from Outside cable agreements - be included in Multivisions' contract.  She kept treating me like I was crazy.  I kept sending her memos (yeah, email was not available yet)  about the Alaska Public Utility  Commission's meetings on cable.  One was coming up soon where there would be public testimony. On the day of the meeting I got a call to come up to Allen's office right away.  She'd just come back from a national conference and a city manager from a big city had sat her down and told her how important it was to have public access in cable contracts. Nothing I hadn't been telling her, but he was more credible to her than I had been.  So yes, I could go to the meeting and represent the Muni that afternoon.  

Fortunately, I'd been reading the proposal and comparing the prices they were proposing for monthly subscriptions and had lots of information about public access in other cities.  

So there I was, at the last minute, running down the street to the meeting.  There weren't a lot of people there and they all seemed to be Multivisions boosters.  Then my turn to talk came.  I nervously compared Multivisions prices to Outside prices and said something like, "I understand it is more expensive to operate in Alaska than it is Outside, but it's NOT three times as expensive!"  I also talked about how most cities were requiring cable companies to have public access studies and a public access channel.  And I sat down.

At the next break, I was mobbed by six or seven people asking me, essentially, "who the hell are you?" did  I really represented the Muni.  

As time went by I was back arguing that Multivisions should be televising the Assembly meetings live.  Not possible they said.  At that time they were meeting in the Muni's Tudor Road buildings and they said it wasn't wired for cable.  It would have to wait until the new Loussac Library opened.  

But for some reason the Assembly  had to move out of the Tudor building and temporarily went to the new Convention Center on 5th Avenue.  And I knew that building was wired.  By that time I'd gotten some others to join me and we had set up a non-profit for this project - something like Anchorage Media Access Group.  I lobbied the Assembly members and they agreed to a six month trial and allotted a paltry sum - maybe $3000 for that.  Our non-profit sent out an RFP to every third video business in the Anchorage media resources book.  We got two bids.  One was way beyond the money the Assembly offered.  The other was a budding videographer who agreed to do it at a ridiculously low price with the help of volunteers (ourselves and a few others) who would staff the cameras for him.  

At first, he balked. He couldn't trust his expensive cameras to volunteers.   But he relented when we pointed out that he couldn't afford to do it any other way.  And so the Assembly began its six months experiment being broadcast live on Anchorage cable.  

While Assembly members had had a number of doubts - it would lead to grandstanding, those without cable wouldn't have access, etc. - after several weeks they were all won over.  They had so many people say they saw them on cable and they had people showing up saying they were watching at home and had to come down to testify.  At the end of the six months they approved a much larger budget and our videographer got the contract and we stopped having to supply volunteers.  We disbanded our non-profit and gave the Assembly back the $500 we still had left and asked them to use it to support televising the Assembly. 

 

What does this have to do with yachts cruising Indonesian islands? 

Somewhere along this cable path, I got an invitation from Multivision to go on a float trip on the Yentna River with Ted Turner whom they were bringing up to Alaska.  That sounded very cool, but unlike a certain US Supreme Court justice, I didn't consider accepting for a second.  

I understood that I hadn't been randomly selected for this honor, but that it had to do with my advocacy for a better deal for Anchorage citizens and my advocacy for getting the Anchorage Assembly live on cable. And that this might be their way to get me to tone it down or who knows?.  I thanked them and said I couldn't accept their offer. 

Clarence Thomas, on the other hand, seems to have had no qualms about accepting annual half-a-million dollar vacations and didn't see it necessary to report these on his annual financial disclosure forms.  

The wealthy Republicans have been smart and have taken a long range planning approach to maintain power. When Bork got turned down for the Court, they apparently realized democracy was no longer enough.  

Lobbying has been a traditional way to get legislators to vote against the interests of their constituents.  This relationship is strengthened by campaign contributions. And secrecy. But even better would be owning a Supreme Court that decided their way if the legislature wouldn't.  

The Democrats have not been as Machiavellian and were not very good as spotting the stealth takeover  of the Supreme Court the Republicans, through the Federalist Society, had worked on for so many years.  

And with Trump as president, they succeeded in taking over the Court.  Justice Kennedy abruptly resigned to make room for Kavanaugh.  I'm still certain there's a cloak and dagger story about how Kennedy was convinced to step down, that would include his son's work for Deutsche Bank, the last major bank still willing to lend money to Trump for his projects. And Justin Kennedy was the man who made those loans happen. 

But since Trump essentially turned the job of picking his court nominees over to the Federalist Society, it's pretty clear that they had something to do with Kennedy's resignation as well.  The first link is to a speech by Sen. Whitehouse - the Senate's most active and vocal observer of how the Federalist Society has managed the sharp lurch to the right of the Supreme Court.  But for those of you who need a different source, here's a report from The Hill.  Speculation?  Sure.  But a lot of clues point in the right direction. And like Thomas' vacations with the Crows, I'm pretty certain there's lots we don't yet know.  At least there are facts and motives pointing in this direction, which is way more than the Republicans have for every major scandal they scream about daily.  

Breakdown of Norms

From Oxford Bibliographies:

"[Norms] are most commonly defined as rules or expectations that are socially enforced. Norms may be prescriptive (encouraging positive behavior; for example, “be honest”) or proscriptive (discouraging negative behavior; for example, “do not cheat”)."

Basically, norms are the rules that are socially, rather than legally, enforced.  When people break the norms, public opinion is the force that 'rules' the consequences.  Politicians lose elections, officials resign their posts.  

But we're in a period where Republicans, particularly, are no longer constrained by norms.  They're no longer constrained by laws. (Sure, politicians on both sides have fudged the law forever, but they did it clandestinely, not flagrantly out in the open.)  While Trump is by far the most egregious example, his Republican colleagues in the House and Senate have gone along.  The Senate had the power to remove him from office after the House voted for impeachment.  Twice.  

They didn't.  Instead, they rammed through the nominations of Kavanaugh and Barrett.  

Not all the Republicans are completely craven, but they are all much more interested in their reelections than they are in maintaining traditional norms of appearing to support the public interest, 

And Fox News, particularly, has worked closely with Trump to make sure their viewers are fed the stories they (the viewers) want to hear, no matter how much they deviate from truth.  Those Republicans who stood up to Trump, even slightly, have either retired (rather than face Trump's cult in the primaries) or they were defeated in the primaries.  Alaska's Senator Murkowski is the only exception I know of.  She used a write-in campaign to overcome a primary defeat in 2012.  In 2022, Alaska's new Ranked ChoiceVoting went into effect, which eliminated closed party primaries and put all candidates for each office into one primary. 

The wealthy Right Wingers know that their ideas are not popular with the voters.  Ending abortion, no restrictions on guns, racial discrimination, election manipulation are all opposed by healthy majorities of the general population. 

To win, Republicans have to rig the game.  Pack the Supreme Court with judges who rule in favor of business most of the time.  Gerrymander state voting districts to get far more Republicans elected even when the actual numbers of both parties are much more even.  Suppress the votes of minorities and the young in as many ways as they can think of.  Oppose all bills to help overcome the disparities in wealth, access to food, housing, education, and health care. In fact oppose all legislation that might be good for the country that Biden could take credit for.  And now we're seeing the truly power obsessed trying to control women's rights to decide their own health care, even banning out of state travel for those seeking abortions.  

With a strong Supreme Court majority, Republican governors are writing laws so far out of the bounds of US social norms and violate decades old Supreme Court precedents.  They are doing this in anticipation of the new Federalist Society judges overturning all those precedents as just as they overturned Roe v. Wade.  Voting rights?  We're back to a post Civil War Supreme Court that used States' Rights to allow disenfranchisement of blacks and lynchings among other terrible practices.  

And when Clarence Thomas says in his brief official statement that he read the rules and consulted with others and they said he didn't have to report transportation, he's telling me that he has NO business being a US Supreme Court Justice.  

• First, this is so extreme an example - half a million dollar vacations for 20 years!  Any reasonable person knows this sort of 'gift' needs to be reported  (I didn't have to go to law school to know accepting a pricey trip with a celebrity was the wrong thing to do.)
• Second, if Thomas has trouble interpreting such obvious and simple disclosure rules for judicial gifts, then he is hardly qualified to interpret the US Constitution. 
• Third, if he is capable of such interpretation, then he's intentionally flouting the rules and the norms for his own advantage.  In this case his perceived best interest was non-disclosure. One would assume that is also how he often interprets the law and the Constitution in his Supreme Court decisions.  
• Fourth, hanging out with the Crows and their yachting friends helps to shape his ideas of his own best interests and appropriate interpretations of the Constitution.

CONCLUSIONS

Like most such issues, this one is entangled in many overlapping contexts of law, of history, of politics, of economics, of ethics, that it is difficult to discuss it without either leaving important points out or without getting so long and complicated people won't finish.  

A key issue I'm leaving out is accountability of career and elected public officials.  Of course Trump and Fox have so violated societal norms of behavior and of truth telling that we seem to be in a completely different place than we were five or six years ago.  Though another part of me believes that the craziness we hear these days has always existed.  But today's technology enables much more of it to be seen and heard by the public.  

If that's true, the good news is that all this ugliness is being exposed - from police brutality to overt racism (OK, those two are probably intertwined), to sexual abuse, etc.  The bad news is those with norm-violating behavior and thoughts have found support for their anti-democracy desires.  

Before the Republicans get ultimate control of the courts and can manipulate all elections, we need to get all the folks who are still within traditional norms, but have given up on voting, to go vote.  There are still tens of millions of people who have come up with excuses not to vote.  (And this is also in part due to the Right's propaganda about how terrible government is, Democrats are, and how corrupt elections are.)  

Those who want Democracy to carry on have an obligation to get everyone who doesn't normally vote, to vote in the next few elections.  And the Republicans' extreme power grabbing - abortions bans, LGBTQ+ baiting, anti-Semitism, book banning, expulsion of duly elected legislators are all helping to get those voters to the polls in the next elections.   

We need enough Democrats in state legislatures and in Congress to overcome Republican attempts to turn the US into an authoritarian regime favoring wealthy white males who distort the Bible to further their interests.  

What Happens To Jurors Who Work To Get Defendants Acquitted?

Senate President McConnell has said he's working with Trump in preparation for the impeachment trial in the Senate and that there will be a quick acquittal.  Given that, it seemed appropriate to consider what can happen when a juror does this in a court trial.  Here's an example:

From the American Bar Association Journal:

Jovanda Blackson, a prospective juror in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, answered no to each of those questions during voir dire last year, ensuring her place on the panel that would decide the fate of two men charged with murder.
Trouble is, Blackson did know one of the defendants. She did know his wife. And, while this mother of three had no criminal record, a couple of her relatives—including her brother—did.
Unfortunately, the judge and prosecutors didn’t know that until after Blackson succeeded in hanging the jury, prompting a mistrial for both defendants. Only later, thanks to a tip from a jailhouse informant, were suspicions from her fellow jurors confirmed and the truth emerged.
Blackson had known the defendant from grade school. When she appeared for jury duty, prosecutors say, Blackson recognized him, winked to let him know she would take care of him, and later conspired with his wife to either convince her fellow jurors to acquit or hold out for a mistrial.
Blackson is serving 61⁄2 years [published in 2006] behind bars after pleading guilty in May to conspiracy, contempt and obstruction of justice. The man she attempted to help, Lamiek K. Fortson, and his co defendant, Harry Ellis, are serving time too, having been retried and convicted, and an obstruction offense was added to Fortson’s record. Fortson’s wife, Erica Williams, was given a 74 month suspended sentence, five years of supervised release, 500 hours of community service and a $250 fine.

And in court trials, there's the process known as voir dire, where attorneys from both sides can dismiss jurors they feel are biased or likely to vote against their client.  They're estimating this process will take at least two weeks in the Weinstein trial that started this week.

Here are some notes from the Judicial Education Center at the University of New Mexico:

"Judicial Participation in Voir Dire
The judge overseeing voir dire, who is listening first hand to the attorneys' questions and the jury panel members' responses, is in the best position to determine whether voir dire has sufficiently exposed any biases that may preclude jurors from acting fairly and impartially. State v. Martinez, 2002-NMCA-036, ¶35. As previously noted, the judge has the right to control and limit voir dire with the limitation being the ultimate need for fairness in the process. To ensure fairness in the process to both the prosecution and defense, the judge should consider doing the following regarding voir dire:
Determine in advance how much time to allow for voir dire, advise the attorneys of that allotted time frame and work to ensure that it is divided as equally as possible between the two sides.
If the need arises to step in to resolve a dispute between the parties or deal with an objection, call the attorneys to the bench and take care of it outside the earshot of the jury panel. Alternatively, remove the jury panel from the courtroom and deal with the issue outside of its presence. The goal with either of these methods is to resolve the dispute and move on with voir dire while maintaining the critical neutrality of the judge and communicating that to the panel.
If asking the jury panel questions of his or her own, the judge should make efforts to do so sparingly and in a way that does not create the perception that the judge has "taken a side" in the case. In other words, in addition to working to ensure fairness between the prosecution and defense, the judge wants to present him or herself as being fair to both parties and neutral in the case. This is especially critical in stalking and harassment cases where the behavior can be seen as bizarre on its face and responses provided by jury panelists during voir dire can perhaps promote similar responses and reactions."

One might hope that Chief Justice John Roberts would be thinking about these issues.  Except that this is not a judicial trial.  Due Process - which gives the accused the right to a fair trail before their life, liberty, or property is taken away - is not the standard here.  President Trump doesn't risk jail, execution, or even a fine if he's found guilty.

This is more like firing someone for not performing his job duties satisfactorily.  Just cause - the idea that there must be a violation of the rules - is the standard when one is fired.

Perhaps a major news outlet could track down Jovanda Blackson today and interview her about the consequences of colluding with the defendant to hang a jury.  Right after having Sen. McConnell brag about working with the White House.

Obama's Press Conference Message: E PLURIBUS UNUM

Listening to Obama now in his press conference, I think there is one message that he is trying to send:  E PLURIBUS UNUM.  "Out of Many One."

It underlies his answers - which are focused on American values, on things like smooth transition, on following procedures, on minimizing Trump's outrageousness.  "The president still is in transition mode.. . There's a whole different attitude and vibe when you're not in power as when you're in power. . . We have to wait and see how they operate when they are fully briefed on the issues, have their hands on the levers, and have to make decisions."

But lest people miss the message, just look at the camera view of the president at the conference.

Screenshot from White House feed of Obama press conference Dec 16, 2016

Look carefully at the lower right corner of the image.  It's the presidential flag.  E PLURIBUS UNUM fits neatly into the corner of the image.  There is no way that was an accident.  Look at the presidential flag and think about how it has to be folded so that E PLURIBUS UNUM folds so perfectly into the corner of the image.  You'll also notice that much more of the presidential flag is in the image than the American flag.

Image from flagandbanner

As an amateur photographer and blogger, I know that I don't capture that kind of image accidentally.

And if you listen to his comments, he tells us over and over again, in his words and in his tone, that we have to improve the public discourse, that we have to stand together as Americans or foreign nations will exploit our disarray.  We are the strongest nation and that we are the only enemy who can defeat us.


The subtext is the old Pogo message.

Image from here

Keeping Track of the Kulluk - SEACOR Owns The Communications System

From what I can gather online - there is basically one place to keep track of what is happening with the Kulluk: 

Kullukresponse.com  takes you to:  https://www.piersystem.com/go/site/5507* 

This is the site for the "united command" working on the rescuing the rig.  The four entities listed are:  

• Shell
• US Coast Guard
• Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, and 
• Noble Drilling. 

They also seem to have a collective Twitter account:  https://twitter.com/kullukresponse

I mentioned that Kullukresponse.com takes you to a url from piersystems. 

Who is Pier? 

The PIER System is an all-in-one, secured web-based solution for crisis preparedness, communications management, public and media relations, employee communications, business continuity and more.
PIER provides flexible solutions for handling internal and external communications, making it easier to deliver messages, streamline processes, automate tedious tasks and prevent inaccuracy during routine events, minor incidents and major catastrophes.

One Solution for All Your Needs

Unlike other products which offer only individual capabilities, PIER has it all—in one fully integrated system. Every feature of PIER works as a stand-alone or partnered with other functions. This efficiency saves you time, money and resources while making management simple and easy.

Two-Way Communication

PIER enables two-way conversations with stakeholders, helping you to determine trending topics, mitigate rumors and strategically assess the best way forward. By listening to your stakeholders, you can get the right information to the right people when it matters most.

Improve the Way You Deliver Information

Expand the possibilities for improved communication management. Automatic updates keep people informed, allowing communicators to strategically and effectively target their audiences and stakeholders to receive and respond to critical messages quickly and efficiently.

Mobile and Remotely Available

PIER is easily accessible from Internet-enabled computers and mobile devices, allowing businesses and organizations to provide information with minimal interruption in the event of disaster or disruption.

It also mentions that Pier was acquired by O'Brien's Response Management.

And O'Brien's is owned by SEACOR:

SEACOR Holdings Inc. (SEACOR) is a diversified, multinational company that owns and operates marine and aviation assets primarily servicing the oil and gas, industrial aviation, and marine transportation industries. SEACOR also owns and operates bulk commodity barges along the U.S. Inland River Waterways; specializes in the purchase, storage, transportation, and sale of agricultural and energy commodities; and provides emergency preparedness and crisis services to governments and industry.

SEACOR is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) under the symbol CKH.

The New York Times notes in its page on SEACOR Holdings that:

On March 19, 2012, J.F. Lehman & Company acquired National Response Corporation and its affiliated businesses NRC Environmental Services, SEACOR Response, and SEACOR Environmental Products (collectively NRC) from the Company.

I can't tell for sure if this acquisition included the unit that has O'Brien's, but I'm guessing, since O'Brien's still shows up on SEACOR's website, that it doesn't.  


I think it is good that the private companies and the government agencies can work cooperatively in this rescue.  But such cooperation also raises issues of cooptation of the government agencies.  Here are some questions I'd raise:

• If they work closely and cooperatively, what happens to the agencies' responsibilities to monitor the companies and keep them accountable?  
• How will working closely with the people from the companies as a team affect their impartiality and judgment when assessing responsibility and corrective measures?
• What happens when all the information is posted on a site owned by a company that is in the oil support industry and is active in marine drilling and safety?  

At first glance we can appreciate that they are specialized in emergency communication systems - including this website design.

• But what control does the government have of this website?  
• What if the governmental agencies have disputes with Shell and Noble about what should go up?
• Or worse, what if they have no disputes at all?
• What obligations are there for this website to stay operational after the event? 
• Why do media, government, and the public have to fill in information boxes before they can ask questions, but there are no names of people to contact on the website?

This feels a bit like Diebold running the voting machines. 

I don't think the industry that has caused the problem should be the one running the information system the public and the media have to use to get information about what's going on. 

I understand that government salary levels don't allow them to compete with the private sector for the best and brightest computer folks.  But when they contract out for private companies to run the website for something like this, they should get a company that has no interest in the content of the website.  I suspect though that Shell and Noble suggested, and maybe are even paying for, the website.  But there's no such thing as a free website. 

EarthRights Report on Burma and Chevron: The Human Cost of Energy

Last week I posted a copy of an email about a presentation in Chiang Mai entitled "Bio Fuel By Decree." Now I'm following that up with a little more substance. This is a report I got in an email from someone I met in Chiang Mai who works for EarthRights, a group that works to help Burmese Refugees in Thailand as well as Burmese still in Burma. I know a little about this organization and met various people who worked for them. They are dedicated and very competent. The people of Burma - including the last democratically elected President of Burma, Aung Sang Suu Kyi - have basically been imprisoned in their home by the SLORC for 20 years.

When people watched Schindler's List and other movies about the Holocaust, many asked, "How could people let this happen?" Well, variations of the Holocaust are happening now in various parts of the world, including Burma.

I'm posting here the EarthRights report. This report was done by people who have been working on these issues in and out of Burma for many years now. It is well documented. Certainly it does not tell everything because access to information in Burma and from Chevron is limited. But if you want to know what is happening in Burma, and how you support it when you buy Cheveron gasoline, read.

Below is most of the executive summary for those who don't have time to read the whole report. And for those thinking, "What can I do?" there is a recommendation highlighted in the executive summary below of recommendations "To the United States and the world community." [You can easily enlarge the pages of the document by clicking on the magnifying glass]

Human Cost Of Energy - Upload a doc

Read this doc on Scribd: Human Cost Of Energy

From the Executive Summary and Recommendations

. . . EarthRights International
(ERI) began documenting the human
Residents and refugees from fourteen
villages throughout the pipeline region,
with whom ERI conducted over 70
formal interviews in the past five years
as well as additional corroborative
contacts, confirm that, for the people of
Burma, “human energy” means human
exploitation. Chevron and its consor-
tium partners continue to rely on the
Burmese army for pipeline security,
and those forces continue to conscript
thousands of villagers for forced labor,
and to commit torture, rape, murder and
other serious abuses in the course of




Part 1 describes the background of
the Yadana Project, which involves a
pipeline constructed to carry gas from
offshore fields, across Burma, and into
Thailand. In 2005, Chevron became
part of the Yadana Project through its
acquisition of Unocal, one of the original
developers of the project. The Burmese
military junta, a brutal regime routinely
condemned by the United Nations and
the world community for its widespread
violations of basic human rights, is one
of Chevron’s partners in the project
through its military-run oil company,
Myanma Oil and Gas Enterprise.

Part 2 explains how the Yadana Proj-
ect finances oppression. The project is
the single largest source of income for
the Burmese military; it was instru-
mental in bailing out the junta when it
faced a severe financial crisis in the late
1990s, and it has enabled the regime
to dramatically increase its military
spending and continue its rule without
popular support.

Part 3 describes how Chevron was
fully aware of the human rights abuses
associated with the Yadana Project when
it acquired Unocal in 2005, but nonethe-
less chose to stay involved with the
project and the Burmese military. The
Yadana pipeline is guarded by the Bur-
mese army, and the human rights abuses
committed by the army in the course of
providing security have been widely re-
ported and documented; victims of the
project sued Unocal in U.S. courts in the
landmark case Doe v. Unocal.

Part 4 documents the continuing seri-
ous human rights abuses by the pipeline
security forces, including torture, rape,
murder, and forced labor. Seventeen
years after abuses connected to the
Yadana Project were first documented,
and years after they were highlighted
in Doe v. Unocal, these human rights
abuses continue in the pipeline corri-
dor. Residents and refugees fleeing the
pipeline region report that they are still
forced to work for the pipeline security
forces, who continue to commit acts of
violence and terrorize the local popula-
tion. This forced labor occurs thousands
of times each year.

Part 5 debunks the oil companies’
claims that life in the pipeline region has
improved. While some villages have re-
alized minimal benefits from the compa-
nies’ socio-economic program, the ben-
efits do not reach the entire population
affected by the pipeline security forces.
Even for the chosen “pipeline villages”
life remains so difficult and dangerous
that families continue to flee for the rela-
tive safety of the Thai-Burma border.

Part 6 discusses Chevron’s response
to the 2007 demonstrations in Burma
against the military regime and the re-
gime’s crackdown. Despite its threefold
status as the largest U.S. investor in
Burma, the military’s direct business
partner, and a partner in the project that
constitutes the largest source of income
for the regime, Chevron has failed to
take any noticeable steps to condemn
the violent repression or to pressure the
military to respect human rights.

Finally, Part 7 describes Chevron’s
ongoing potential legal liability for its
role in the Yadana Project. Although
the Doe v. Unocal litigation resulted in
a settlement in 2005, that settlement
only covers the claims of the victims
involved in that suit; Chevron remains
responsible for compensating the thou-
sands of other residents of the pipeline
region who have suffered abuse by pipe-
line security forces.

Two appendices offer additional detail
on oil and gas investment in Burma.
Appendix A details the Shwe Project,
a new gas project which could dwarf
Yadana both in revenues for the military
and in the abusive impact on the local
population. The project is being devel-
oped by South Korea’s Daewoo Interna-
tional along with other companies from
Korea, India and China. Appendix B
briefly outlines China’s growing involve-
ment in Burma, especially in the oil and
gas sector.
The Yadana Project remains a serious
problem both for the people of Burma
and for Chevron itself.

In light of this,
EarthRights International makes the
following recommendations:

To the Burmese military regime:
» The SPDC should cease human rights
abuses against the people of the pipe-
line region and throughout Burma,
including extrajudicial killings, sexual
violence, torture, excessive force, ar-
bitrary detentions and imprisonment,
forced labor, and forced relocation,
and abide by its obligations under in-
ternational law to respect fundamen-
tal human rights and environmental
protection.

» The regime should begin a full transi-
tion to a system of government that
allows for all of Burma’s peoples to
fully participate in development deci-
sions and freely determine their own
futures.

To Chevron Corporation and its
partners:
» Chevron, Total, PTTEP, and all other
oil and gas companies in Burma should
suspend ongoing projects, cease de-
velopment of new projects, and refuse
to sell gas that enriches the Burmese
regime until the SPDC fully respects
internationally-guaranteed human
rights and environmental protections
and allows for a full transition to a
participatory system of government as
described above.

» The Yadana consortium and other com-
panies should terminate any contracts
that require them to provide monetary
support to the military regime or that
contemplate or require the use of the
Burmese military as security forces.

» The companies should publicly con-
demn past human rights abuses and
use their influence with the SPDC,
their business partner, to press for
respect for human rights in the future,
not only in the pipeline region itself
but throughout the country.

» The companies should immediately
stop relying on the Burmese military
for any security or other services.
If alternate security measures are
taken, Chevron and its partners must
provide adequate human rights train-
ing and supervision in order to ensure
respect for fundamental human rights
(in accordance with international law
and Chevron’s stated commitment to
respect human rights).

» The companies should allow indepen-
dent third-parties with experience
documenting human rights abuses in
Burma access to the pipeline region,
without military supervision, in order
to monitor the situation. Such moni-
toring should include a mechanism
to allow local residents to bring com-
plaints to an independent body on a
confidential basis.

» The companies should provide ad-
equate compensation to all individu-
als and communities harmed by the
Yadana Project.

» The companies should demonstrate
a serious commitment to their socio-
economic program by expanding it to
include all of the villages that have
suffered adverse impacts from the
Yadana Project, and by inviting groups
experienced in documenting condi-
tions in Burma to participate in de-
veloping, implementing, and regularly
evaluating the effectiveness of, their
programs.

» The companies should support efforts
that promote transparency through
disclosure of payments to all govern-
ment and state-owned or state-con-
trolled partners.

To Chevron’s shareholders:
» The shareholders of Chevron should
support shareholder resolutions that
promote policies and practices de-
signed to improve the promotion and
protection of human rights, the envi-
ronment, rule of law, transparency,
and the rights of indigenous peoples
and affected communities to informed
consent before projects begin and dur-
ing operation phases.

» The shareholders of Chevron should
communicate their concern over the
situation in Burma, the reputational
and legal risks it poses to their com-
pany, and their wish for Chevron to
follow the recommendations outlined
above, to Chevron’s CEO and Board of
Directors.

To the Royal Thai government:
» Thailand should immediately cease
purchasing gas from the SPDC and
cease payments for such gas until the
Burmese regime respects fundamental
human rights and environmental pro-
tections and begins a full transition to
a participatory system of government
as described above. Alternatively,
Thailand should place all such pay-
ments in escrow for the benefit of the
people of Burma under a future gov-
ernment.

» Thailand should immediately require
that its state-owned company PTTEP
suspend its ongoing natural gas explo-
ration in the Bay of Bengal until the
company conducts environmental and
human rights impact assessments,
and until appropriate preconditions
for responsible investment in Burma
are in place, such as a full transition
to a participatory system of govern-
ment as described above.

» Thailand should allow safe refuge
to all Burmese refugees fleeing the
abuses there, in accordance with in-
ternational law.

» Thailand should provide legal mecha-
nisms that allow Thai companies, such
as PTTEP, to be held accountable for
their responsibility and complicity in
human rights abuses in Burma. Civil
society organizations and citizens of
Thailand should advocate for legisla-
tion to create such mechanisms.

To the United States and the world
community:
» The United States and the world com-
munity should make immediate efforts
to cut the flow of money to the Bur-
mese regime, including stopping the
Yadana Project payments and other
gas payments through targeted finan-
cial sanctions.

» The United States and the world com-
munity should condemn the abuses
committed in Burma on projects ben-
efiting multinational corporations,
including Chevron, and pressure the
companies to end these abuses and
adopt the recommendations outlined
above.

» The United States should continue
to pressure the Burmese regime to
respect human rights and the environ-
ment and begin a full transition to a
participatory system of government as
described above; the world communi-
ty, especially China, India, Korea, and
Thailand, should join in these efforts.
for complicity in abuses abroad, and
enable access to justice for survivors
of abuses abroad. Civil society organi-
zations and citizens of these countries
should advocate for legislation to cre-
ate such mechanisms.

To Daewoo and its partners in the
Shwe Project, and other gas compa-
nies in Burma: [See Complete Document
for more]

Thoughts on the Alaska Political Corruption Trials - Part I Conflicts of Interest, Undue Gain, and Improper Influence

Most people who talk about ethics tell us that public officials and administrators must avoid ‘conflicts of interest.” This is the standard mantra. I’d argue that they CAN”T avoid such conflicts. They are built into being human. There is always the potential for a conflict between our personal and professional obligations. The key is what we do about the conflict. The main potential problems stemming from conflicts of interest are:

• Undue Gain
• Improper Influence

Undue gain is perhaps easier to understand if we talk about due gain first. This is what a public administrator or elected official receives in compensation for completing the job duties in the manner set out by contract, policy, law, etc. Generally it includes monetary payment (salary, per diem, etc.), benefits (health insurance, specified leave time, etc.), and possible benefits related to the job (minor use of a copier, tuition waiver for university employees, for example). Anything beyond that is UNDUE gain - extra payments or gifts to do the job one is already being paid for, special treatment of services (free tickets, meals, etc.)

Improper Influence is also easier to understand if we talk about proper influence. Normally, when an administrator makes a decision it is based on some set of decision rules. These could be specific criteria to get, say, a building permit. They could be based on a standard or procedure established for hiring new employees. There are also more general policies and procedures for how to spend money, and rules to prevent unlawful discrimination and privacy violations. Or they could be professional standards (for engineers, attorneys, or nurses, for example) or even unwritten, but known customary procedure. As you go higher up the organization, the decisions are less concerned with individual cases and more with general policy. Policy often takes one into unknown territory and there may not be specific guidelines on how to make decisions. But there will be procedural rules that, ideally, are intended to make the process open and fair. And there are basic management standards and techniques for anticipating and evaluating things like costs and benefits. Improper influence is when you take into considerations factors that are not in the sanctioned decision making criteria, such as whether taking a certain action will benefit oneself and/or one’s friends.

So if we look at the Anderson and Kott cases, we see in the bribery and extortion convictions, that they had undue gain - money and other benefits to do what they were already being paid for by their legislative salaries and per diem. There was also improper influence. The decisions they made were colored with more than the public interest and objective analysis of the issues; they also considered what their benefactors wanted them to do. And while both Kott and Anderson argued that these were decisions they would have made anyway, since they were consistent with their ideology, it is clear that they might not have pursued their positions with such zeal, and that they might have spent more time on other issues their constituents needed.

But it isn’t simply black and white. If a contractor who wants to do business with a government agency leaves a pen with the company’s name on it after a meeting, is that undue gain? If a law firm that does business with the Municipality of Anchorage sends a fruit basket to the Legal Department in December, is that going to lead to improper influence?

Here’s where we see how conflict of interest is a basic tension embedded in our culture (and most others.) Our personal lives are ruled by values of loyalty. Family and friends take priority over strangers. We give gifts and do favors that we freely exchange with people close to us. But when we go into public office, we are expected to make decisions based on the rule of law, on equal treatment to all (rich or poor, stranger or friend). So when people from our personal lives are also involved in our professional lives we have two different standards in conflict. But even strangers we come to know through our jobs should be treated politely and with respect - as people, not as objects. There are human decencies - exchanging pleasantries and doing minor favors - that we do naturally for people we come to know.

Those with an interest in specific governmental decisions take advantage of these impulses to be friendly and helpful. There was a great deal of testimony that Tom Anderson was a naturally friendly guy, eager to help out, to please. Lots of examples. His defense attorney argued that was all he was doing for Prewitt and Bobrick. Other legislators have told me, "I can't be bought for a $10 lunch." In fact they sound like they have been personally insulted when such actions are criticized. "I have to eat. This gives me a chance to talk to my constituents while I'm eating. I'm actually giving up my time." But if we stand back and look at it in terms of improper influence and undue gain, that answer doesn't hold up. If you have to eat, why not pay for your own lunch? Just say, "Fine, let's have lunch, but I pay my own way." If they pressure you or ridicule you, they are really testing your resolve and willingness to play ball. Even if the cost of the lunch doesn't have an effect on your action, the 90 minutes of private time to tell their side of the story, to give you their facts, in private, without someone with a different view their to challenge the accuracy of their facts may well influence your vote.

Of course my argument flies in the face of what's practical. Legislators must listen to constituents, usually in private. They also listen to proponents and opponents of various legislation well before the topic comes up in on the official public chamber. But these one sided conversations mean that legislators often only hear one side of an issue. One way to counter this is to have legislators imply publicly post their work calendars so all people can see how much time they've spent talking with whom. More work? Not too much. They pretty much have to keep a calendar anyway, and logging phone calls is good business practice, and caller id makes this easier to do. Perhaps no one would even look at the information. But at least it should be discussed with an open mind.

The point is to to have legislators themselves question business as usual, to look critically at "how we've always done it" against the dangers of undue gain and improper influence.


I'm going to try to write a series of posts looking at issues relating to understanding corruption using what has come out in the political corruption trials in Alaska. The theoretical framework is based on: Steven E. Aufrecht, “Balancing Tensions Between Personal and Public Obligations: Context for Public Ethics and Corruption” in Dwivedi, O.P. and J. Jabbra (2007) Public Administration In Transition: A Fifty-Year Trajectory Worldwide, Vallentine Mitchell Publishers