Uphold Human Rights Amid Globalization

After passage by Congress of permanent normal trade relations for China, it is important to focus on realistic prospects for developing mechanisms to enforce human rights in China and other nations that have yet to show respect for the rule of law.

One option to be disregarded immediately is that World Trade Organization membership itself will facilitate China’s adherence to human rights principles. For example, China’s neighbor, Myanmar (formerly Burma, renamed by the military regime), continues its onslaught on human rights undeterred by its membership in the WTO.

There is nothing in the organization’s charter to incorporate universally accepted human rights principles into the rules of trade. Thus, even the systematic use of forced labor that is common practice in China and Myanmar does not currently violate the WTO’s rules.

The lawsuit over Unocal’s alleged actions in Myanmar is a test case for using the courts to enforce human rights. In 1996, a group of refugees from Myanmar filed a landmark case in U.S. federal court detailing their stories of being forced by Myanmar’s military regime to work on a gas pipeline. The refugees named Southern California-based Unocal Corp. as the defendant, asserting that Unocal’s partnership with the brutal regime made it liable for forced labor and torture endured by the plaintiffs, who alleged they were ordered at gunpoint to build infrastructure for the pipeline and to act as porters for the military security patrols protecting the pipeline. Unocal denies any responsibility for any injuries the plaintiffs may have suffered.

Based on the Alien Tort Claims Act, a U.S. law that permits aliens to sue for violations of the “law of nations,” the court denied Unocal’s motion to dismiss and permitted the plaintiffs to conduct discovery and gather evidence from Unocal.

This case is still being litigated. A hearing on a motion for a summary judgment, which, if granted, would dismiss the case, is set for Monday in Los Angeles before U.S. District Judge Ronald S.W. Lew. Attorneys for the plaintiffs have submitted a mountain of evidence that I believe provides credible support for their key allegation that Unocal knew, or should have known, that the military regime in Myanmar would use forced labor if given any role in the construction of Unocal’s pipeline.

The fundamental issue here, however, goes beyond the alleged actions of one corporation. If the court finds for the plaintiffs and holds that there is sufficient evidence to proceed to trial, this would create a much-needed process for adjudicating claims that American companies operating abroad may have violated the basic human rights principles prohibiting slavery and torture.

More positively, the Unocal case embodies the potential for demonstrating, by example, that human rights principles transcend economic interests. If the rule of law means something, then the farmers and fishermen of Myanmar who allege that they have endured the brutality of Unocal and its partners should be able to approach the law on equal footing with the corporation.

So far, there are virtually no human rights protections included in the rules that govern the global economy. That must change.