 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
recent correspondence surrounding the January 31 demonstration |
|
To Sir John Browne 17th January 2001 We oppose bpamoco's investment in petrochina (and links with Sinopec ) because it provides support for china's invasion and occupation of Tibet. We deplore bpamoco's failure to condemn petrochina's Sebei-Lanzhou pipeline. We deplore bpamoco's failure to disinvest from petrochina. We regard bpamoco's suggestion that the investment of $560 million dollars is not connected to the $530 million dollar Sebei-Lanzhou pipeline as creative accounting. Further we support the Tibetan Government in Exile's statement of opposition to the & beilanzhou pipeline (and other bp/evron/agip supported initiatives to explore for oil and gas on the Tibetan plateau).In particular we support its statement that the projects will 1) deplete natural resources with little or no
benefit to the Tibetan people. Further we note that in its rush and greed to share in the theft of Tibet's resources bpamoco did not have the courtesy to approach the Tibetan Government In Exile and consequently we trust your investment brings bpamoco nothing but the dishonour it deserves. On behalf of Tibet Vigil, Tibet Vigil working for you to protect the Tibetan environment from you. copy to :various |
|
23 January 2001 David Rice, Director Policy Unit, Government & Public
Affairs Dear David Rice and David Meighan Following the meeting with you both in October 2000, attended by Alison Reynolds of Free Tibet Campaign and myself of Tibet Vigil, we at Tibet Vigil are appalled to see that BP has taken no heed of the concerns we expressed nor indeed those of the Tibetan Government in Exile and is continuing to support China's harsh occupation of Tibet by means of its investment in Petrochina. In our continuing campaign against this investment and the proposed investment in Sinopec, Tibet Vigil will again be holding a demonstration outside BP's London headquarters on 31st January from 12.30 to 1.30pm. At the start of the meeting in October you went to great lengths to stress that BP is listening to what we have to say, but from real listening comes action and the continuing disregard of the grave consequences your investments have on Tibet suggests that you have heard nothing. Neither have you listened to BP's own ethical guidelines, which I would like to remind you of: "We will pursue our business with integrity, respecting the different cultures and the dignity and rights of individuals in all the countries in which we operate." The Tibetan Government in Exile's Statement of Opposition, which was handed to you prior to the meeting, clearly outlines the ways in which the Sebei-Lanzhou pipeline is harmful to Tibetans and shows definitively how this project contravenes the above guidelines: " This project will be harmful because it will: Although you insisted during our meeting in October that BP has not given its support to the Sebei-Lanzhou pipeline and has no investments in Tibet, BP's continued investment in PetroChina makes this a fallacy. Only by completely withdrawing your investment in PetroChina can you say that you are not supporting the pipeline. If as you pointed out to me, BP does not have the means or the power to halt this destructive project, then we urgently and most strongly urge you to withdraw all investments from PetroChina immediately. Failure to heed these major concerns and respond with integrity will be a message to the world that BP is a deviously hypocritical, environmentally destructive organisation, actively supporting the abuse of human rights, and aptly fitting the logo `Beyond Principles.' Yours sincerely Paula Hollings |
|
26 January 2001 Dear Ms Hollings, Thank you for your letter and e-mail of January 23rd, to myself and David Meighan. I think the best way I can respond is to enclose a reply our Managing Director for Policies and Technology, Dr. Chris Gibson-Smith, sent to John Ackerley. I would like to make the point that we do try to listen in such meetings. We clearly have different points of view but we would argue that does not stop us listening to yours, or hearing your concerns. Our belief is that we are making a positive contribution to the lives of millions, and the environment. And I emphasise that wherever we operate we stand by our Policies. Yours sincerely, David,. Rice |
|
Dr. Chris Gibson-Smith l 0 January 2001 Mr John Ackerly Dear Mr Ackerly Thank you for your letter to Sir John Browne about Tibet dated December 8, 2000. He has asked me to reply on his behalf. We appreciate the concerns you express about human rights and environmental issues. BP takes these matters very seriously. We therefore regret that our investment in PetroChina is causing concern to your coalition. Our commitment to sustainable development and an ethical approach to business is clear. In China and elsewhere senior executives, led by Sir John Browne, have spoken out in favour of human rights, responsible development and the rule of law These words have been backed by actions. Our joint ventures are helping to integrate China more deeply into the global economy in line with the county's membership of the World Trade Organisation. We are bringing natural gas to China, so enabling the country to reduce its dependence on coal. We have a range of projects underway to raise environmental awareness and to help improve living standards in China in line with the United Nations goal of alleviating global poverty. By taking these initiatives we believe we are addressing two human rights concerns of importance to your coalition - the right to development; and the right of the people of China and the world to a cleaner environment. In your letter you ask BP to use its influence with PetroChina to stop the construction of the Sebei-Lanzhou pipeline. You also urge us to divest our 2.2% shareholding in PetroChina if construction of the pipeline is not suspended by January 1 5th, 2001. Neither request is practical or desirable. Although BP's 2.2% stake allows us to influence joint ventures constructively we do not control or direct PetroChina. Moreover, we have not been involved in the Sebei-Lanzhou pipeline project, which in any case is close to completion. We believe that engagement and investment both advance the broader goals you mention in your letter, and that responsible business involvement will bring general benefit in the future. We have been working to ensure that PetroChina is fully aware of the concerns expressed by your coalition with the aim of building a new consensus through dialogue. If suitable opportunities occur, BP would welcome the chance to participate in social investment projects in the western parts of China, including Tibet. These might involve partnership with non-governmental organizations and could include environmental conservation schemes, renewable energy projects and training programmed We would welcome discussion about these ideas with you and your members. We recognise that we do not have all the answers to the challenges before us, but we remain committed to playing a constructive role in China and the region as a whole. Yours sincerely, Dr. C S Gibson-Smith |
|
29 January 2001 David Rice, Director Policy Unit Dear David Rice Thank you for your reply to my letter and for enclosing a copy of Chris Gibson-Smith's letter to John Ackerley. You emphasise that wherever BP operates you stand by your Policies, but on reading Chris Gibson-Smith's letter there is an absolutely crucial point you have missed, which shows you clearly are not standing by your Policies in Tibet. China invaded Tibet 50 years ago and has illegally occupied it ever since. This means that investment in any Chinese company which is operating in Tibet is directly supporting the occupation there. Your policies may well be helping China to integrate more deeply into the global economy, and also, you may well be helping to establish the right to development in China, but this completely washes over the fact that by investing in PetroChina, you are actively helping China to integrate Tibet more deeply into itself and thereby denying Tibetans the right to development and self-determination. Chris Gibson-Smith says that BP's commitment to an ethical approach is clear, and that this is backed up by your actions, such as "we are bringing natural gas to China, so enabling the country to reduce its dependence on coal." But in the case of the Sebei-Lanzhou pipeline, gas is of course being brought in from, or rather raided from, Tibet. This is hardly evidence of an ethical approach. I am glad that by saying "We are bringing natural gas" you finally admit that by investing in PetroChina you are supporting the Sebei-Lanzhou pipeline. Yours sincerely Paula Hollings |
|
TIBET VIGIL 23 April 2001 David Rice, Director Policy Unit, Government & Public
Affairs
Dear David Rice and David Meighan Tibet Vigil will be holding a further demonstration outside BP's head office on Wednesday 25th April from 12.30 to 3.00pm to protest against BP's continued investment in PetroChina. Following Peter Sutherland's comments at the Annual General Meeting last Thursday, which saw the special resolution to pull out of PetroChina overturned, there is an even more urgent need to reiterate an crucial point I made to you in my letter dated 29th January, a point evaded by both Peter Sutherland and John Browne. That is, Tibet has been illegally occupied by China for the last 50 years and that any attempts to aid development of China in Chinese occupied Tibet, against the will of the Tibetan government-in-exile, is denying Tibetans their right to self-development and is deepening China's iron fist rule over Tibet. By investing in PetroChina, even if you have not given active support to the construction of the Sebei-Lanzhou pipeline, BP is directly supporting China's illegal and extremely harsh occupation of Tibet. This makes BP complicit in an illegal and hostile act. Thus for Peter Sutherland to say that BP has no relationship to Tibet is unquestionably untrue. Just as it is equally untrue for him to maintain that PetroChina has no investments in the Sudan, when their parent company, CNPC, is heavily involved in the atrocities being carried out there. When you look beyond this denial of the true situation, BP's rosy portrayal of the goodly aims of its investment in PetroChina crumbles into the dirt it is riddled with. This is a fundamental point and ignoring it will be at BP's peril, but far more so at the peril of Tibet, which will endure further untold suffering Yours sincerely Paula Hollings |
|
To/Sir John Browne This is to inform you that Tibet Vigil will again be demonstrating
outside your headquarters on Wednesday April 25th from 12.30-3.00pm
to protest at your continuing collaboration with Petrochina in
the theft of resources from the China occupied nation of Tibet.
As the Tibetan Government In Exile statement of Sept 29th says,
this will "Consolidate the Chinese control and occupation
of Tibet, as well as increase the Chinese Government's reasons
for maintaining it" |
|
24th April 2001 Dear Mr Gould Thank you for sharing your interests and concerns on BP's
investments in China. BP's investment is for the development
of the domestic Chinese market. It builds on our 25 years experience
in China, and demonstrates the efforts of the Chinese government
to open its economy to market based principles. We believe our
activities in China offer the opportunity to establish western
business practices with our partner, PetroChina, and address
serious environmental problems by bringing cleaner energy to
Chinese markets, thus improving the quality of life for Chinese
citizens. There will always be limits to our influence. Our equity purchase represents only 2% of PetroChina. By comparison, foreign direct investment in China amounts to $40 billion a year and China has foreign reserves of $160 billion. Overall investment direction by China and its state owned enterprises, be they overseas or domestic, will remain the decision of the Chinese government. One could argue that any investment in China frees up resources that can be used by the Chinese in other places around the world - places like the Sudan. This is the dilemma which foreign investors face time and again. It is our experience that as active investors in China we will be a greater force for beneficial change than if we boycott such a large and influential country. This is a policy decision - to invest in China - which we have not taken lightly and in which we are determined to be successful. BP deplores the human suffering in Sudan. We support the efforts of the international community to bring about lasting peace. Further, we welcome the efforts of governments, NGO's and international financial institutions, such as the IMF, to encourage fiscal transparency and respect for human rights in Sudan. We are in regular contact with the governments of the Untied States, Untied Kingdom and China, as well as with NGO's and other groups concerned with the unfolding events in Sudan. BP has no operations nor investment in Sudan. Despite this, a number of NGO's and other groups have raised concerns that BP, through its investment in PetroChina, has established a direct link to CNPC's activities in Sudan. We firmly believe that this is not the case. As one of China's largest foreign investors, BP will continue to be a constructive voice within China and a force for progress. Without involvement there can be no influence. Thanks again for your interest. Yours sincerely John Gore |
|
June 7th 2001 Dear John Gore Thank you for your letter of April 24th received June 5th. You manage to write your letter without mentioning Tibet. Presumably you are too ashamed to mention your exploitation of Tibet through your investment in PetroChina. You say you are bringing cleaner energy to Chinese markets, but of course it's filthy energy, whose extraction aids the Chinese occupation of Tibet. Simon Gould |
|
28 April 2001 Dear John Gore I am responding to your letter to Simon Gould, organiser of Tibet Vigil, dated 24th April (received June 5th). After reading it one would be forgiven for thinking you had lost Simon Gould's letter and then forgot that he was presenting the case for Tibet, but no, surely not. Incredible then, that your lengthy letter has not one mention of Tibet in defence of your indefensible investment in PetroChina. It is amazing how lust for money and global power has effectively extinguished Tibet from the BP mind. With Tibet eradicated, you can maintain the fairy tale of BP's philanthropic interests in China, and so believe BP to be "a force for progress" within China. Well, in one sense that is what BP is, a force for progress - progress of China's aggressive policies towards Tibet. For when we dismantle BP's geographical illusion, we uncover a vast Himalayan country called Tibet, which has been abused under harsh occupation by China for 50 years. Over 1 million Tibetans have been slaughtered during China's advancement of "progress" in Tibet. While China continues its genocidal policies in Tibet, don't even think about trotting out the superior colonial view that BP's involvement in China's development will help improve the quality of life for citizens there. To keep insisting on this argument only proves further the real motivation for BP's continued investment in PetroChina - greed. You say BP's social, ethical, environmental, health and financial criteria will be employed in the joint venture. Well that is very good, because in order to do this there is only one possible option you can choose, and that is, to disinvest from PetroChina. Without involvement there would be no negative influence. Until Tibet is freed from the iron fist of China, no involvement by BP would be the most profoundly positive action. Yours sincerely Paula Hollings cc David Meighan |
| return to the BP files |