Slave Labor?

But TIME has obtained unsealed court documents that challenge the company's assertion. A Unocal consultant warned the firm in 1992 that "throughout Burma, the government habitually makes use of forced labor" and that "in such circumstances Unocal and its partners will have little freedom of maneuver." A later memo, written by another adviser, informed the company that the Burmese military was indeed committing abuses directly connected to the project. The adviser, a former U.S. military attache in Burma, told Unocal of "forced relocation without compensation of families from land near/along the pipeline route; forced labor to work on infrastructure projects supporting the pipeline ... and imprisonment and/or execution by the army of those opposing such actions." The consultant added, "Unocal, by seeming to have accepted the [Burmese military's] version of events, appears at best naive and at worst a willing partner in the situation."

A Unocal spokesman told TIME that the military attache had been unable to visit the pipeline personally because it was in an area closed by the Burmese government. He also said, "Forced labor was not used on the pipeline, and there is no question about that. It was not." The company did acknowledge several years ago that abuses by the military may have been committed in preparation for building the pipeline. Even so, the spokesman argued, as a "passive" investor — Unocal has a 28% stake in Total's pipeline — the company is not responsible for what soldiers may have done. He asked, "If Unocal invested in Los Angeles, would it be responsible for the actions of the Los Angeles police department?" It will be up to the court to decide how much the oil company is responsible for what it may have ignored. And even if Unocal prevails in this case, the wave of litigation and scrutiny has forced America's giant corporations to take a fresh look at the moral code they follow in places that don't abide by the rule of law.