Bhopal disaster: justice delayed, justice denied

Discussion Open Forum
21

Of course it’s linked to globalization. The disaster was caused by a factory in India that was owned and operated by a subsidiary of a massive US company. While there is no universally accepted definition of globalization, that clearly fits the bill. Regardless of where the products were destined to be sold, you’ve got a US company manufacturing overseas where labor is cheap, law enforcement is lax, and they can generate profits to funnel back home to the US.

Understand, I’m not at all “opposed to globalization.” That would be absurd. My father’s from Germany, I’m from the US, my wife and daughter are from Taiwan, I’ve enjoyed traveling all over Europe and Asia, enjoy food from all over the world, am sitting here drinking coffee from Central America, communicate regularly with people from around the world for business and pleasure, and so forth. That’s all globalization too.

But globalization does have its darker aspects, primarily businesses from wealthy, developed nations setting up shop in poor, undeveloped nations so they can take advantage of cheaper labor and lax regulations to make greater profits, while often contaminating the foreign lands or imposing abusive working conditions on the laborers (such as child labor, dangerous working conditions, etc). Yes I enjoy my iPod and other cheap products they make for me, but I recognize that the workers and other citizens of those nations are often exploited unfairly for the benefit of overseas consumers and for the profits of those overseas companies. I don’t see how one could deny that.

22

[quote=“Mother Theresa”]
Of course it’s linked to globalization. The disaster was caused by a factory in India that was owned and operated by a subsidiary of a massive US company. While there is no universally accepted definition of globalization, that clearly fits the bill. Regardless of where the products were destined to be sold, you’ve got a US company manufacturing overseas where labor is cheap, law enforcement is lax, and they can generate profits to funnel back home to the US.

[color=#0000BF]Well you are still off. This was a Joint Venture where yes, some of the profit was realised by the US company but a portion was also retained by the local partners. So what? I’m also not sure that it’s operation was solely Union Carbide’s responsibility. Yes Globalization is a very broad concept you narrowed its meaning trying to draw a parallel between Foxconn and Bhopal which is absurd. Bhopal wasn’t a case of American Jobs uprooted and sent to India as per the modern connotation of Globalization. Also the concept of the Greedy American Corporation exploiting the locals and sending the profits home is flawed. What about the Indian farmer that now has a more cost effective means of fertilizing his crops? What about the resulting increase in crop yield?
What is your alternative? Should Indians, Chinese, and Mexicans stick to farming? What would conditions be in these countries with zero foreign investment? There was starvation in China before they opened their economy to us evil Westerners. Frankly I’m against what has been going on with regards to the shift of manufacturing to China but, for different reasons. If you owned a company that manufactured goods can you honestly tell me you would keep your factory in the US or if you did own a factory in China you would pay your workers the same as what a US worker makes? If you did you’d go broke.[/color]

Understand, I’m not at all “opposed to globalization.” That would be absurd. My father’s from Germany, I’m from the US, my wife and daughter are from Taiwan, I’ve enjoyed traveling all over Europe and Asia, enjoy food from all over the world, am sitting here drinking coffee from Central America, communicate regularly with people from around the world for business and pleasure, and so forth. That’s all globalization too.

But globalization does have its darker aspects, primarily businesses from wealthy, developed nations setting up shop in poor, undeveloped nations so they can take advantage of cheaper labor and lax regulations to make greater profits, while often contaminating the foreign lands or imposing abusive working conditions on the laborers (such as child labor, dangerous working conditions, etc). Yes I enjoy my iPod and other cheap products they make for me, but I recognize that the workers and other citizens of those nations are often exploited unfairly for the benefit of overseas consumers and for the profits of those overseas companies. I don’t see how one could deny that.[/quote]

Nope it is undeniable that there are darker aspects such as the ones you sight. Of course there are darker aspects to almost any human enterprise. However, first I’ll take the extreme view which is that the corporation is simply doing what it is supposed to in such cases. Which is looking out for the interest of its owners/shareholder and it is up to the local government to protect it’s citizens. Now this is really just a theoretical view in practice it is not as common with US corporations as you seem to believe. In fact, the largest driver for change when these conditions are brought to light come from the West rather than the local government! In practise US corporate governance is a deterrent to this kind of behaviour. It will be interesting to visit a Chinese owned copper mine in Africa in the next 10 years or so.

23

Sorry for the botched quoting above. For some reason replying on this forum for me is a complete night mare. When I get to the bottom of the screen the cursor jumps around erratically and I can’t manipulate the text.

[color=#008040]Mod note: Quotation fixed. [/color]

24

Globalization is just a buzz word that doesn’t mean anything. It’s just an ill-defined scare tactic.

25

globalization, globalization, globalization. :raspberry:

Of course it has meaning, though I already admitted it doesn’t have one universally accepted definition. But it relates the increased interrelationship of peoples and countries and economies from around the world, increased global communications, sales, imports, travels, conflicts, exchanges, dependency, etc., including increased global business, with companies sourcing supplies from all over the world, doing manufacturing all over the world, selling goods all over the world, etc.

And it’s not just a scare word. It’s also the reality, though it dates back to Napolean and Alexander the Great and the China Silk Road and old sailing vessels gathering spices from foreign lands, etc. So it’s nothing new, but the pace of globalization has dramatically escalated in recent years.

And, I admitted that I’m not opposed to globalization. That would be foolish. I enjoy things from all over the world.

But it would be foolish to deny that globalization of corporate practices often has an adverse impact (in addition to the benefits they bestow) on the poor countries from which rich corporations from rich countries come to exploit the resources and laborers. Globalization certainly isn’t all bad; but nor is it all good.

26

Is this legal? All you have to do to dump all responsibility is sell the company, you pocket the money, and the new owner doesn’t inherit any liabilities?

I’ve always been completely outraged by this case and the lack of justice involved. :fume: Something’s very wrong with the system.[/quote]

It’s not quite like that. In 1999, a settlement was reached with the Indian Government under which Union Carbide agreed to pay US$470 million (the insurance sum, plus interest) in a full and final settlement of its civil and criminal liability. When Dow acquired UCC they did so after the full settlement and so there were no liabilities to inherit.

It’s difficult to deny that Union Carbide was guilty of a lot, but I feel that attacking them really is deflecting criticism from the real culprits here - and that is a long succession of Indian governments and many of the beaurocrats involved in the dispensation of justice.

They should be lambasted for never addressing their dismal legal system. Sixteen years is a long time for any case but supposedly the average wait there for any legal dispute is about five years.

They should be criticised for never holding Union Carbide fully to account and letting them off the hook with a mild penalty of only $470million… which was basically the limit of their insurance cover.

The highest level of criticism should be directed at them for never having set up a fair system of distributiong the compensation they received from UCC to the victims. Almost all that US$470million has been swallowed up and has disappeared in the government system and hardly any has gone to the victims of the disaster. Remember that no matter how much UCC had paid as a penalty, whether it had been the $470million or several billion, it is still just as likely that the money would have never reached the victims.

27

[quote=“Gman”]First off in no way was I defending Union Carbide or excusing them for this incident. What I am disputing is some trying to link this event to globalization or the idea that this plant was placed there to protect whites at the expense of ‘little brown men’. That plant was estabilished somtime in the 70’s (I’ll leave it to the ‘instant experts’ to Google or Wiki the exact dates). No doubt the lax regalatory evnvironment was an incentive, but that is the responsibility of the Indian government. While many like to point fingers at corporations for being financially motivated for locating in such juristictions, few think about the responsibility of the local governments for creating the lax regulatory environment motivated by the jobs resulting from these companies locating there. This was at the same time that many U.S. manufacturers were also moving their production to Mexico due the cheaper labour and lack of environmental regulations. It’s funny how when these things happen everybody looks to government as the solution rather than as a responsible party. How many officials from the responsible Indian Government department have been put on trial?

Once again, this was not a case of a chemical being produced off shore to protect Americans. Many dangerous chemicals have been and still are produced in the US. Just go visit Lake Charles LA. if you don’t believe me. Of course since you rely on Google or Wiki so much, just go do a search on ‘Super Fund Sites’.[/quote]

Hey, man, Google is my friend! :laughing:

My apologies, Gman. I was a little apprehensive that you or someone else might think I was implying something about your position in the matter by my “philanthropy” remark, but I didn’t take corrective measures to ensure that no one inferred that. That is, you didn’t say anything in defense of Union Carbide, and I should have made sure that no one could infer from my post that you had. For that, again, I apologize, Gman.

And yeah, the Ingrid Eckerman book that I quoted earlier spreads the blame some, doesn’t just put everything on Union Carbide.

But Gman, this business about how we gots to be a expert to talk about a matter of public interest, why, that pretty much means most folk wouldn’t be allowed to talk about matters of public interest cause they so complicated and sophisticated, and often obscure. You know, we’d just have to “let the experts handle” just about everything, and not ask any questions, since we don’t know what we’re talking about.

No offense, but something about that, I don’t know, just doesn’t sound too cool. I think it’s better to live with the sloppiness and chaos and even wrongness of us non-experts trying to get into the act, even if the experts chastise us for not minding our own business.

Yeah, I experience that too, on, I think, Internet Explorer 7 or thereabouts. I’m at an Internet cafe now, using an outdated browser, and the reply function is working OK. So there might be a problem with the more recent Internet Explorer browsers (of course, if you’re using some other browser, then my explanation don’t explain nothing).

28

If that was intended derogatorily, as though having the tools at hand these days to do some basic research is a bad thing, then that’s fairly anti-intellectual of you. I was alive and kicking when the mess happened - may have done a research paper on it - though I can’t remember the details, and you don’t have to be a so-called “expert” to do basic research and come up with reasonable conclusions. A good example of this is the stuff bob’s been digging up on the oil in the gulf - I don’t agree with all his conclusions, but he sure has dug up a lot of good info.

It is absolutely right to put a big piece of the blame on the government, for lack of enforcement, and not just for collusion, but for trying to cover this stuff up and hide the truth. But when I at least am talking about “globalization”, I am referring to the Western world government and corporations exploiting those weaker, third-world laws and economies, to the detriment of people in those countries and in the West. Absolutely the Indian government bears a lot of the blame here, but we are talking about Union Carbide getting away with murder, or at least criminal negligence, at the behest of its corporate leadership, to bring down cost/increase profit, by exploiting the laxness and corruption and weak laws of India. For this I see no excuse. And though it wasn’t called “globalization” at the time, that’s precisely what this was a part of. If an Indian company had done this entirely on its own, then the Western exploitation mentality would not of course be to blame.

29

As easy as it would be to blame the US parent company, I think the Indian judicial system failed its citizens. Yet again. First off, the tragedy happened and we let people go unpunished and there was a lot of money given to ‘victims’ even life long pensions. I say ‘victims’ coz in Bhopal, people who were even unaffected, were wealthy, and basically untouched by the tragedy, stood in queue, paid a bribe here or there and got their life long pensions (albeit measley sums) and a block of compensatory cash. Most of the poor real victims, were just left unaided and unattended …sad. So the Judicial system even failed in dispensing aid, (you needed certification and authorization and proof of being affected and lawyers were involved).

Taking a step back, we Indians and the judicial system should’ve known better. We were not new to being exploited by richer western powers for their own profits. We should’ve been wary and not let the industry go unregulated. This was plain greed and still continues to be.

I was 6 at the time and will never forget this image. Ever. Don’t think anyone could.

30

My rather snide remark about reference google and wiki is more aimed at those who take the information they find there at face value or as the last word on a given subject. It wasn’t aimed at anyone in particular but just as a general comment. Information is a tool and like any tool it can be misused. The availibility of vast quantities of information in today’s world doesn’t free one from the responsibility of critical thinking.

Twotongues, when you say this " I am referring to the Western world government and corporations exploiting those weaker, third-world laws and economies, to the detriment of people in those countries".

This goes to the core of my argument. I do not believe this was the case. I don’t believe U.C. located a pesticide plant in India to exploit cheap labour ect. That plant was placed there to serve a local market. I seriously doubt manufacturing this product in the US and shipping it to India in the 1980s was feasable. Done properly, this would have been a case of Western investment improving the standard of living in India. Also remember that India was not an open economy back then.

I am confident that I could make a case that Western charities have been more detrimental to living conditions in the 3rd world than Western corporations have. But, I’ll save that for a different time or thread… perhaps.

31

[quote=“Gman”]Twotongues, when you say this " I am referring to the Western world government and corporations exploiting those weaker, third-world laws and economies, to the detriment of people in those countries".

This goes to the core of my argument. I do not believe this was the case. I don’t believe U.C. located a pesticide plant in India to exploit cheap labour ect. That plant was placed there to serve a local market. I seriously doubt manufacturing this product in the US and shipping it to India in the 1980s was feasable. Done properly, this would have been a case of Western investment improving the standard of living in India. Also remember that India was not an open economy back then. [/quote]
I see where you’re coming from man, but my best guess would be that the reason they got into the market in the first place was because of the cheap labor, poor environmental regulation and enforcement - overall exploitation possibilities. It sounds civilized to say they did it “to serve a local market”, and at a high level that’s true, but the reason a big corporation goes in for this stuff is not to “serve the people” but to make profit, and in this case, they knew they could make a profit by exploiting the crappy local rules.

Is that “globalization”? Maybe, maybe not, I tend to think so, but then I’m against this race to the bottom and exploitation crap, so obviously I’m biased.

32

[quote=“TwoTongues”][quote=“Gman”]Twotongues, when you say this " I am referring to the Western world government and corporations exploiting those weaker, third-world laws and economies, to the detriment of people in those countries".

This goes to the core of my argument. I do not believe this was the case. I don’t believe U.C. located a pesticide plant in India to exploit cheap labour ect. That plant was placed there to serve a local market. I seriously doubt manufacturing this product in the US and shipping it to India in the 1980s was feasable. Done properly, this would have been a case of Western investment improving the standard of living in India. Also remember that India was not an open economy back then. [/quote]
I see where you’re coming from man, but my best guess would be that the reason they got into the market in the first place was because of the cheap labor, poor environmental regulation and enforcement - overall exploitation possibilities. It sounds civilized to say they did it “to serve a local market”, and at a high level that’s true, but the reason a big corporation goes in for this stuff is not to “serve the people” but to make profit, and in this case, they knew they could make a profit by exploiting the crappy local rules.

Is that “globalization”? Maybe, maybe not, I tend to think so, but then I’m against this race to the bottom and exploitation crap, so obviously I’m biased.[/quote]

I don’t think your are right about Bhopal at all:

  1. India’s economy was not open to the degree it is today
  2. Of course they went in it to make a profit, that’s what the’re supposed to do! The fact that they had a local market to serve was the reason for the plant being located there. None of their production was displaced US production. I did not mean that the company was doing this as a service to the Indian people when I said they were serving a local market. Sheesh

This is much different than todays mechcanisim where a US company locates their manufacturing in China and sells their products back to the US market.

33

From the Eckerman book I cited above, it looks to me as if Union Carbide bit off more than it could chew, started losing money, and started doing things on the cheap, which gave rise to safety issues:

[quote]The UCC man in Mumbai realised that annual sales would not exceed 2,000 tonnes. He tried in vain to persuade the management committee in New York to plan a smaller plant.[/quote] p. 24

[quote]The production of pesticides at the UCIL plant in Bhopal was not a great success. Repeated droughts combined with the effectiveness of the pesticides being unsatisfactory, led to a decline in pesticide sales. In 1982, sales equalled less than half the production capacity–in 1984, less than a fifth.

As wages constituted the primary expense, they [i.e., the directors of Union Carbide India Limited] started to dismiss first coolies, and later, skilled workers and technicians.[/quote] p. 25

[quote]. . . for reasons of economy, Bhopal’s “beautiful plant” would not be provided with all the safety equipment and security systems the engineers in South Charleston [West Virginia] had envisaged. The precise reasons for these economies remain obscure. [/quote] p. 27

34

OK here goes nothing. When you stated that it was to “serve a market”, that is, to me, an economic euphemism for “making a profit by providing a service in a new or unfilled market”. It makes it sound like a “service” is being done for “the people”, even though that is not the intent of the phrase (though people do get served). In other words, it makes it sound like there is an economic theory with societal benefits being discussed, just by using the word “serve”. And that’s what I meant when I remarked that stating “served a market” is really hiding through words what the real goal here was - making a profit. I did not mean to imply that you specifically were trying to be all morally good about it by using that phrase, I am saying that use of that phrase has somewhat deceptive connotations - I should have been clearer about that, but I’m too long winded as it is.

Main point being, just because there is a market and an opportunity doesn’t mean they have to take it, especially if making a profit means exploitation. So to say “to serve a market” is not itself (to me) a good justification for going in there and doing it, whether it’s a loftier “serving the people” goal or a profiting “providing a service” goal.

Mechanism differs, objectives are the same, and both involve exploitation of the local legal and economic situation to generate profits for back home.

35

I thought it had something to do with human nature:

36

OK here goes nothing. When you stated that it was to “serve a market”, that is, to me, an economic euphemism for “making a profit by providing a service in a new or unfilled market”. It makes it sound like a “service” is being done for “the people”, even though that is not the intent of the phrase (though people do get served). In other words, it makes it sound like there is an economic theory with societal benefits being discussed, just by using the word “serve”. And that’s what I meant when I remarked that stating “served a market” is really hiding through words what the real goal here was - making a profit. I did not mean to imply that you specifically were trying to be all morally good about it by using that phrase, I am saying that use of that phrase has somewhat deceptive connotations - I should have been clearer about that, but I’m too long winded as it is.

Main point being, just because there is a market and an opportunity doesn’t mean they have to take it, especially if making a profit means exploitation. So to say “to serve a market” is not itself (to me) a good justification for going in there and doing it, whether it’s a loftier “serving the people” goal or a profiting “providing a service” goal.

Mechanism differs, objectives are the same, and both involve exploitation of the local legal and economic situation to generate profits for back home.[/quote]

So what do you think should be done in countries like China? Should they be left alone with zero outside investment? I guess your ideal model for a society is North Korea where wealth is distributed to the people by the benevolent hand of government? You think corporations exploit people? They pale in comparison to exploitation of people by governments.

37

I thought it had something to do with human nature:

Isn’t that more or less the ‘local factor’ I was referring to? I agree with your Adam Smith quote. What I was arguing against was the idiotic implication that this effect was due to the view that we in the West view the ‘little brown men’ as somewhat expendable.

38

Ha! Way to pick a straw man! As I’m fairly certain you know I’m no believer in NKor, I’ll just assume you were letting off steam with that silly conjecture.

One suggestion might be something like the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, but for labor and the environment. The FCPA restricts behavior that is illegal in the US (eg bribery) from being practiced abroad by US corporations, regardless of how permissive or common that behavior is overseas. This does sometimes put US companies at a disadvantage to say the Japanese and the French, who, well, let’s say, sometimes have less of a problem with it (the French and Germans used to put foreign bribes on their public balance sheet! The Germans have stopped supposedly…)

This doesn’t mean necessarily you have to enforce full US standards for cleanliness and the environment, nor do you have to pay full US wages and benefits, but they should be required to pay something approaching a “minimum wage” for that country and location, for example. And safety standards and regulation following should be enforced not only by the local government but by the corporation. One way to do this is to have occasional inspections, investigations for whistleblowers, and the ability to sue the company is US courts should they intentionally fail to meet the standards. The costs of the wage determinations, inspections, and investigations etc should be borne by fees/taxes on those corporations, who will still make out like bandits because they will still pay far far lower in labor and construction and maintenance and supply costs (and if they don’t for a particular industry, then maybe it shouldn’t be done there anyway).

You know damn well corporations exploit people. The fact that governments also do doesn’t mitigate the fact that corporations do, and at least the US is semi-democratic, so whatever the government does, it could be changed by enough will of the people - that is, if the corporations got the hell out of the business of buying the US government! I don’t have control over the Chinese government and its exploitation, but I do have something to say about the US, and I am in part responsible for what the US govt does or doesn’t do if I don’t speak up and vote to change it.

And this is “idiotic” why again, oh wise seer? When the corporate bosses make the decision to go in and do this stuff, they are probably not thinking specifically “well they’re just a bunch of brown heathen, F em”, but that type of thinking is implied in their actions. So OK maybe “brown” is wrong, they do it in China, but viewing the “foreigner” and “poor” as expendable is better. And yeah, brown makes it easier for a lot of white men.