Examination of Witness (Questions 520
- 539)
TUESDAY 20 OCTOBER 1998
MR ROBERT
DAVIES and DR
CHRIS GIBSON-SMITH
520. Can I just make that clear, it was
just night vision goggles?
(Dr Gibson-Smith) Night vision goggles, all the
rest is simple misreporting.
Tess Kingham
521. Can I ask for clarification on that.
I do not understand on this issue of the tax. That is a convoluted—well,
it is not to you but it is to me—explanation of the links
between the two. Can you explain again the situation about the
tax.
(Dr Gibson-Smith) In the United Kingdom we all
pay tax and the army is funded through taxation.
522. Yes.
(Dr Gibson-Smith) In Colombia that is partly true
but they have a different system for special state interests and
foreign interests where not only do we pay tax but in order to
protect our property and the state's property we have to pay an
additional tax.
523. To protect via these brigades, via
the army?
(Dr Gibson-Smith) Protect via the police and via
the army, just as the police and the army protect us here.
524. Slightly different I hope.
(Dr Gibson-Smith) We have arrangements with the
police and the army in every facility we have in the United Kingdom.
Colombia on the ground you have to think of as at least ten times
more violent than Northern Ireland.
525. It is more than violent. Can I just
take up on this issue here about these brigades. Be very clear.
You are giving the impression here, I think, that in some way
it is comparable, it is a normal process to go through for companies
to engage police or to engage the army to look after that. That
gives the impression that the police and the army are reputable,
are the kind of people that a reputable company like BP should
be associated with. In the UK of course I would have absolutely
no problem with that at all, as in most of Europe. However, with
brigades that have been implicated in some hideous massacres,
including women and children, do you really think these are good
bedfellows for you? Do you not feel that any kinds of links with
these kinds of brigades, these paramilitary death squads they
have been called in some areas, is a slur on the reputation of
a company? I do understand the violence issue, it is an area I
have worked in before. I am quite aware what these brigades are.
(Dr Gibson-Smith) It is right at the heart of
one of the issues of business in conflict in these countries so
can we broaden the question but stay on it?
526. No, I would like a specific answer.
Do you feel that by having any kind of contact with a brigade
that has been implicated in human rights abuses and massacres
of innocent civilians those are the kinds of bedfellows that BP
should have? Do you not feel that it would be in order for a reputable
company to have no contact with these people at all? You know,
there are options obviously.
(Dr Gibson-Smith) There are no options for having
no contact with these people.
527. Would you then consider to be pertinent
not to put your profits above human rights abuses and people's
lives and actually withdraw from that situation?
(Dr Gibson-Smith) You profoundly misunderstand
the nature of social development in this country.
528. I understand where women and children
have been massacred, where brigades have been implicated and the
fact your company, I believe, is putting its profits before those
kinds of activities in actually engaging with these brigades.
(Dr Gibson-Smith) Would you like to listen to
an answer? This is right at the core of the dilemma. Unless we
approach it with some thoughtfulness we will not make progress.
529. I have given it a great deal of thought
I can assure you.
(Dr Gibson-Smith) The countries in which violence
is endemic need help to step out of that. Broadly the greatest
source of help—broadly—available to countries at the
moment is international business which transfers skills, transfers
standards, transfers training and makes wealth available to the
country in principle. That is the core foundation. Now in countries
in which the social development has not reached the stage of our
own, or in which there is civil war or conflict, then you start
the process of perversion of that central intent. The question
is are you going to stay with it as a basic source for good and
influence it and change it or are you going to leave? That is
the central question.
530. So you are saying you are in there
for the human development angle rather than profits for your company?
(Dr Gibson-Smith) Let me finish. The Colombian
Government is quite clear they want us to stay. The Colombian
Government is democratically elected, receives 85 per cent of
the wealth benefit at this opportunity. As we work through these
issues, which are real, serious and awful and it is our own people
exposed as well as Colombian people, we are in constant dialogue
and work with people like Robert Davies' organisation, the World
Bank, to raise and raise the standards. We are working with Amnesty[11]
to provide codes of conduct whereby we can influence the Colombian
army. We have arranged for an audit of their behaviour when they
operate around our installations. We have arranged for international
Red Cross training. We have arranged for them in the contract
to agree and state clearly that the Colombian Government is a
signatory to the human rights' declaration and therefore expects
its armies to obey that declaration. If you do none of these things
then you are in deep trouble but what we have going at the moment
is an interplay movement of growing NGO-business-World Bank involvement
where we are using our different skills and sources to create
something which will have more impact than any of us have had
in the past. That is the progress and the programme that we are
engaged on and that is why I am here with my colleague, because
it is a worldwide movement.
Chairman
531. What would BP do exactly if there were
conclusive evidence that some of the military who were supposedly
defending BP installations out in Colombia were in fact involved
in the massacre of civilians? What would you do? What do you do
when you get complaints of that nature? Do you investigate the
truth of them and what action do you take to stop this?
(Dr Gibson-Smith) We are publicly committed to
the Declaration of Human Rights. We make public declarations and
accusations when human rights abuses take place. In Colombia they
are perpetrated by the army, by the paramilitaries and by the
guerrillas. Whenever they occur in relation to towns and communities
where we are we call for judicial inquiry, we call for investigation,
we support such investigation. We work with Amnesty in order to
have these things publicly declared. If you can have a force for
transparency and insistence on legal process you begin to impact
what is going on, and that is the state we are at now.
Ms King
532. First of all, can I say how much I
welcome what the organisation is doing. I have been working with
the Prince's Trust on several areas now and I appreciate that.
What I am more concerned about obviously is that we seem to be
looking at here in this case with BP the movement of military
personnel into the private sector, a sort of a nightmare version
of the third way perhaps. What I wondered actually is if you could
tell me how much does consumer outrage bother you? When Shell
did what they did to Ken Sarowiwa, I decided on that day never,
ever, ever, to buy anything from Shell ever again or set foot
in one of their garages and I never have. This weekend obviously
I was considering the same thing with BP because, for whatever
reason, your company is now linked to those who had an involvement
with massacres of women and children. What can you say to me as
an ordinary person, never mind an MP, not to boycott BP for the
rest of my life?
(Dr Gibson-Smith) Well, first it is a pity that
it is distracting us from the main part of the show here. Consumer
concern is a great issue for us and it is a central part of my
brief. In the first instance we must be sure there is no foundation
for it and in relation to our own activities there is no foundation
for it. The Guardian article is a significant misrepresentation
of what is going on and we have shared our version of things with
the Chairman; we will happily share our version with you.
533. If I can follow through three lines
of thought: you have a stake with Ocensa and they have bought
and supplied military equipment of whatever description for the
Colombian army brigade and that brigade has been implicated in
a series of human rights abuses. Would you not therefore say you
have to admit a link between BP and——
(Dr Gibson-Smith) Sorry, but the British Army
is implicated in human rights abuses in Northern Ireland and we
do not therefore implicate the whole society or the people in
Northern Ireland.
534. So from your knowledge you think those
human rights abuses are either not serious or not intrinsic to
the work of that 14th brigade?
(Dr Gibson-Smith) No, I did not say that. Some
Colombian army brigades have been implicated in human rights abuses[12]
and there does appear to be substantial evidence they are engaged
in human rights abuses. I have no intention to excuse or explain
that but I will observe they are working under extraordinary circumstances
and they are ill-trained. From our point of view the interesting
thing is, as we have come to understand the situation and the
depth of it, is what can we do to improve that, and the overwhelming
thrust of everything we do is to ensure, first, the deep integrity
of our own people and anybody who works for us, and then the process
of systematically beginning to influence a sovereign government
and their arm of military.
535. How does you ensuring the deep integrity
of your people tally with your having sacked your security chief
because you thought his integrity was at fault and now having
him work for you again?
(Dr Gibson-Smith) There are two aspects. We either
decided his integrity was at fault, ie he had a deep and malign
intent here, or we decided his judgment was at fault. We had a
deep investigation of it and we decided his judgment was at fault.
We ourselves are categoric that we would never engage in such
actions and would not allow anybody who works for us to. It is
public—the World Bank has scrubbed it down, the independent
Fiscalia in Colombia has scrubbed it down, Amnesty advises us
on our rules, we adopt without exception Amnesty's recommendations
on rules of conflict. If you do not see us as a fundamental force
for contribution and progress, then we do have a problem, but
I would assert that in fact if you stacked us with the NGO movement,
stacked us with the World Bank, stacked us with the UN, our deepest
interests are in a well-balanced, well-organised society. We have
found no instance where conflict or corruption in any sense promotes
the well-being of business.
Mr Canavan
536. You imply a close co-operation with
Amnesty International but in fact in the Guardian article
on Saturday an Amnesty spokesperson was very critical of BP and
Ocensa and the relationship with the army brigade.
(Dr Gibson-Smith) I think if you read it carefully,
they were not critical of BP, they were in fact calling for a
continual increase in the standards, would welcome any actions
which have to do with increasing standards, and would condemn
any relationship, but if you read it carefully there is no direct
link made and they very carefully said so.
Ms King
537. Susan Lee described BP's and DSL's
screening procedures for security staff as being inadequate, and
after monitoring their Colombian operation for two years she said
it was difficult to imagine the legitimate reasons for sending
security staff on psychological warfare training.
(Dr Gibson-Smith) We never have done, so it is
just another piece of——The article is beautifully
spun.
(Mr Davies) Chairman, may I address the general
point behind that about the way consumers do or do not fit in
here? I think we are all aware that many business practices would
not be changing were it not for activist consumers, and I think
most forward-thinking companies, including BP—and I am not
speaking on their behalf, I just happen to know this generally—see
the consumers' role in setting standards, expectations, as critically
important. I would just observe that I know of virtually no example
in the world where businesses have responded to growing societal
pressures in the absence of any kind of pressures, including consumers.
However, I think the critical issue is—and given that we
work with a large number of companies we have the debate on a
day-to-day basis—should we be working with this company,
should we be working with that company, because of ethics, labour
standards, all sorts of things. Number one, we know of no company
we have ever worked with which is perfect. The standard for us
is, are they seriously committed to continuous improvement. And
we look at how consumers are working with retailers, whether they
are or are not supporting those natural resource companies which
have a brand name. Also there is the whole issue of pension funds,
and they are immensely influential. I think the critical test
in a more informed world with much better communications is, can
consumers use their power for change? That, if I may say so, means
we ought to be somewhat open-minded until we see companies are
or are not committed to improvement. I think where companies have
completely resilient managers, where companies are not publicly
quoted, where they have no transparency, unfortunately very often
consumers cannot even get at these companies in the first place.
So it tends to be the better, more transparent companies, which
put their head above the line and say, "Look, we are going
to try and stand up for something", and are on the front
line here. I think the critical test is continuous improvement
rather than "Do they make mistakes?" If I could add
one more small point—and this is from someone who is not
in the business world but an observer into the business world—very,
very few great corporations have ever in the past been willing
to admit mistakes. It was always the corporate code of solidarity,
managers do not admit mistakes to employees, you are advised by
your legal counsel never to admit mistakes. That has changed very
dramatically, not just in BP but in other companies. The whole
culture is one where admission and learning from the past have
changed and I have been amazed by that in the last two or three
years; I never thought it would ever happen. It is a humanising
factor for companies and I think, if I may say so, it is one we
ought to be encouraging while still being vigilant about whether
we are getting a PR gloss or whether there is a meaningful improvement.
538. We do have to encourage that and it
has been most noticeable in the IMF and the World Bank, for instance,
and I think that is fantastic, but I am just worried about whether
at the end of the day BP is contributing to the lack of stability
and actual terrorisation of the local community or not.
(Dr Gibson-Smith) It is a question which was asked
of the previous speaker and it is one that deeply concerned us.
In some senses—and the general phrase is "the honey
pot effect"—because we provide the single-largest source
of export earnings for the Colombian Government, we provide them
with the wherewithal to be more effective in their counter-guerilla
activities, so the guerillas declared us a war target, they then
attacked and blew up the pipeline, so in that sense our presence
provoked the guerillas to do things which then in turn provoked
the paramilitaries and the military to respond. One is looking
at a society which is clawing its way forward, which has maintained
its democracy, and attempting to support the positive balance
of that society, to allow it to grow, to allow it to lay in institutions
of law and social community and local politics, all of which are
desperately absent. So we have community programmes wherever we
go, and we will lay in support for education, clean water, hospitals,
we will aid and support NGOs in delivering local political education,
infrastructure education, and we work closely with the government
itself, but we have great concerns about the flow of revenues—of
which, say Nigeria (where we are not) is a prime example—and
what happens to that flow of revenues. Neither the international
community nor the business community has solved that problem,
and I have not solved it yet, but it is one we are deeply concerned
about. So all the way from the local community right to the national
level, the issues from a business point of view are just the same
as the ones you were discussing before. From our point of view,
in co-operation here and with the World Bank, how can we get business
to start participating in the process of social change, because
I think we have been politicised and to deny that is just unreal.
Mr Rowe
539. I would like to ask two linked questions,
if I may. The first one is given your benign intentions, whose
standards do you follow? Do you, for example, take the government
of the country in which you are operating, Colombia in this example,
and provide them with the programme that they want or do you in
fact import your view of best practice and say: "Take it
or leave it"? The second element in this is that there must
always be a temptation for any company—and I am not singling
out BP, any of the companies in your Forum for example—to,
as it were, put their weight behind the regime that they think
will best honour their opportunities for doing what they do and
sometimes that must trap them into supporting a manifest rogue
when the alternative, which is not yet in power, might actually
be much better and those are two important dilemmas.
(Dr Gibson-Smith) Shall I start an answer and
then let Robert give a more general one. We have a set of published
policies for the group worldwide which define how we behave, our
standards of relationship which are based on mutual benefit, our
standards of ethics, and it is my job to govern those standards
worldwide and to ensure our people are trained to those standards.
When we go into a newly developed country very often we find we
help the country write the laws. Now we usually do that with oversight
and with independent witnesses. Very often we do it through the
British Government. So we take the standards of North Sea Operating
Agreements and legal framework and we will take it and offer it
to Vietnam that is a very common practice, or we will take the
environmental standards of the United Kingdom and see how those
transpose to Colombia and help the Columbian Government write
their own laws again. That could get out of hand but it does not.
They have independent third party controls and witnesses. You
come back in the end to our overwhelming experience that well
ordered societies are the places where it is, virtually without
exception, best to do business in. Short term opportunities, which
are essentially illegal or transgress your own standards, almost
never bring you long term profit.
11 Note by witness: We are in fact working with
Human Rights Watch in this area, not Amnesty. Back
12
Note by Witness: According to the Human Rights Watch Report
War Without Quarter the proportion is 75 per cent. Back
|
