Industrial Accidents and Global Inequity: Bhopal and BP

Almost
26 years ago a poisonous cloud of methyl isocyanate poured forth from the Union
Carbide plant in Bhopal, India. On the night of 3rd December, 1984,
some 4,000 people lost their lives and a further 300,000 were injured.

The
people of Bhopal received no warning as the choking, toxic fumes descended upon
them out of the dark night. The plant's safety systems failed to work and no
alarm was given. Some of the victims died directly from the poisonous fumes
while others lay in the streets submerged beneath the tidal panic that rose up
to drag them under as they fled the invisible gases. A 2004 Amnesty report
calculated that the total death toll had by then risen to 22,000.

This
disaster has had a devastating legacy on Bhopal. In addition to the immediate
deaths and destruction of the environment, the surrounding soil and waters
remain contaminated by Union Carbide's chemical waste. This has given rise to genetic
deformities, cancer and congenital health problems, as well as many painful
premature fatalities.

Despite
the well-documented death, destruction and misery, caused by the Union Carbide `accident',
the people of Bhopal still await adequate compensation over a quarter of a
century later. Those primarily responsible have never been brought to account.
Although seven local company officials were recently found guilty of their role
in the Bhopal disaster, they received only two years' prison sentences in
prison and a US$2,100 fine each - approximately what one might expect for a car
accident in India. The far more culpable US executives have avoided legal
censure.

Indeed,
the US executives have never been seriously pursued. When Warren Anderson, then
the Union Carbide CEO, visited India after the Bhopal disaster, he was spirited
out of the country lest `overzealous' officials might try and detain him.
Anderson has since been protected by the US political and business community to
avoid any intrusive questioning as to his actual role in the Bhopal catastrophe.
Today, in his early 90s, Anderson, is free to enjoy his retirement in Florida.
One hopes the BP Horizon Deepwater disaster has not incommoded him too greatly in
his twilight years.

Coming
some quarter of a century after the Bhopal disaster, the BP Deepwater Horizon environmental
disaster is the latest in a long line of industrial accidents which have become
all too regular a feature of the industrial landscape. The BP gush - `leak' is a ridiculous
understatement for the 53,000 barrels of oil that were pouring out into the
Gulf of Mexico just before it was capped - resulted in 11 direct fatalities and
17 injuries. It also caused untold damage to the marine and wildlife habitat as
well as the local fishing and tourist industries.

Similarities
and Differences

Both
Union Carbide and BP received adequate warning of the risk of a disaster. Over
10 years before Bhopal, a Union Carbide report signed by Warren Anderson
himself highlighted the unproven nature of Bhopal's technology. A 1982 safety
review by Union Carbide's own experts emphasised the serious risk of
substantial leaks of "toxic materials" at Bhopal. BP received adequate
warning of impending problems, as numerous internal investigations alerted
senior BP managers that the safety and environmental rules at Deepwater Horizon
were being regularly flouted.

In
the wake of both disasters, BP and Union Carbide downplayed the consequences.
BP's Chief Executive, Tony Hayward, pacified anxious US East Coast public,
claiming the oil leak would be relatively inconsequential. After the Bhopal
leak, Union Carbide's public relations people asserted that methyl isocyanate
was not poisonous but merely resembled a strong tear gas.

However,
there has been one major difference in these two cases. BP has generally
experienced a far rougher ride than Union Carbide. The same political-business
community in the US that has protected Anderson from a potential Indian trial
or litigation has been all too willing to line up to declaim the role of BP and
particularly Hayward in allowing the Deepwater Horizon industrial accident to
happen. There has been a ready supply of public figures willing to take pot
shots at BP and Hayward. Obama has been at the forefront of the mob, openly
declaring his longing to find a BP ass that he could kick as well as his
intention to keep his "boot on BP's throat."

While
the indignation of the US public, led by its political and business
cheerleaders can be well understood, one can only wonder what the reaction
would have been if the Indian government and business leaders had reacted
similarly to Bhopal. Let us not forget that for every human life lost at
Deepwater Horizon, 2,000 Indians at least died as a result of Bhopal.

While
Sainath's observation that "Barack
Obama's 'hard words' on BP are mostly pre-November poll-rants" undoubtedly
contain more than a kernel of truth, there is still a clear difference in the
manner in which both companies have been treated. Union Carbide, particularly
in the North (Northern Hemisphere) has never been subjected to the same public
opprobrium and fury as BP.

As
the best-selling Indian author Chetan Bhagat has cogently argued:

"It
looks like Indian children's lives are cheaper than [those of] fish. Obama
should bang his fist on the table. If he can do that for fish, how about our
kids? Or are they only Indians?"

Union
Carbide's current owners, Dow Chemicals, maintain that the 1989 settlement of
US$470 million paid to the Indian government settled the Bhopal compensation
issue. This claim is open to dispute. The award was based on a discredited
under-estimation of 3,000 fatalities at Bhopal. Given the current estimated
574,367 victims since the Bhopal disaster, including dead and injured, the
average compensation amount would come in at just over US$800 per person. This
sum would also have to help cover the cost of cleaning up the lands and waters
around Bhopal. Moreover, the Indian government negotiated and accepted this
settlement without involving the people of Bhopal.

On
the other hand, BP was forced by the Obama administration to establish a US$20
billion compensation fund. However, it should be noted that the BP escrow fund,
as currently proposed, is to be taken from BP's oil and gas revenues in the
Gulf, therefore making the US government at the very least a BP's oil
production in the region. This arrangement will almost certainly create a
conflict of interest and therefore inhibit the US government's ability to strictly
regulate BP.

What
Can Be Done?

The
Bhopal and BP disasters contain a number of lessons for people everywhere,
particularly those working to promote global justice. Corporate wrongdoers
should be held fully accountable, both in terms of financial responsibility and
for the actions of their executives.

In
this respect, the efforts on the part of the Indian government to attract foreign
investment in its growing nuclear energy market, by passing a bill to limit the
maximum liability of nuclear plant operators at US$111 million, is a serious
concern. As Prashant Bhushan, a Supreme Court Lawyer, explains it would appear
that Bhopal has taught us nothing. Here we are 25 years later, and the "drive
to attract foreign investment [overwhelms] all other considerations."

In
effect, nothing less than a transparent and easily enforceable framework of
international sanctions and penalties will suffice to ensure that corporations
are made accountable in the future, irrespective of their provenance or the
location of `industrial accidents'.