Dear Friends: The Independent UK this morning (13 02 2012) reveals that investigative journalist Nina Lakhani is still in the pursuit of the perpetrators of the Bhopal tragedy: The full report below:
-bhuban LORD COE: The revelations undermine Dow’s assurance to the Locog chairman it is a distinct entity to UCC The Olympics sponsors Dow Chemical Company secretly traded through a web of intermediaries to avoid a legal ban on selling products in India after the Bhopal gas disaster which killed up to 25,000 people. Legal documents obtained by The Independent show that Dow continued to permit the unlawful practice started by Union Carbide Corporation (UCC), the company ultimately responsible for the disaster, after it bought the "tainted" company in 2001. The multimillion-dollar sales, made possible by a web of independent intermediary companies, breached a 1992 ruling by an Indian court. The court order, which prohibited the sale of UCC products without court approval, was issued to compel Union Carbide-authorised officials to return to India to face criminal charges for culpable homicide relating to the 1984 gas explosion. The disclosures appear to undermine Dow's assurances to Lord Coe, chairman of the London 2012 Organising Committee (Locog), that the chemical giant and UCC are distinct entities which operate independently, which would mean Dow has no legal obligation to compensate Bhopal's gas victims or deal with the ongoing environmental disaster. Only last week George Hamilton, vice-president for Dow Olympic Operations, told Reuters news agency that UCC had "exited India" in 1994. "We had no association with Bhopal." The court documents reveal how in 2001 Dow became central to all aspects of the trading arrangement, including setting of prices for the chemicals, cables and wires sold to India, which were ultimately to enter the country as products unconnected to Union Carbide. The documents emerged in a US court case brought by the intermediary companies against Dow and Union Carbide for violations of anti-trust laws and breach of contract. The Connecticut court ruled in 2005 that the US had jurisdiction over the Asian affiliates of Dow and UCC, set up to "maintain access to the Indian market", after considering internal documents including emails and invoices. The case was later settled out of court. Campaigners want the Indian government to use these documents to hold Dow liable in a compensation battle for the gas victims and their families. The case, which challenges the $470m out-of-court settlement agreed by UCC, its Indian subsidiary UCIL and the Indian government in 1989, will shortly be heard by the Supreme Court. Dow and Locog claim the 1989 settlement was "full and final" and that Dow has no liability or responsibility for Bhopal. There are ongoing civil and criminal cases in the US and India. Dow, an International Olympic Committee partner, was awarded the stadium wrap contract last August. The controversial deal led to protests from MPs, Olympians and survivor groups who claim Dow is an unsuitable sponsor. Last month the "ethics tsar" Meredith Alexander resigned from the 2012 sustainability watchdog over the deal. She said last night: "Dow's statement that Union Carbide 'exited India' in 1994 is a direct contradiction to evidence in the American court. Dow claims to have no liability for compensating Bhopal's victims, but they are clearly in control when it comes to maximising UCC profits. It seems Dow wants to have its cake and eat it." The 2005 jurisdiction judgment states: "In 1987 it [UCC] appointed the plaintiff Mega Visa Marketing Solutions Ltd as a non-exclusive director to maintain UCC's access to the Indian marketplace... In addition it formed the other defendant[s] UC Asia Pacific and UC Customer Services to assist product sales in India." It continues: "On 6 February 2001, UC merged with a subsidiary of Dow and became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Dow. At around this time, Dow also created the defendant, Dow Chemical Pacific (Singapore) Private Ltd ... to effectuate sales of UC products to the plaintiffs and to further UC and Dow's relationship with the plaintiffs." The internal emails show clear knowledge by Dow that UCC remained unable to trade in India directly. In April 2001, an email between Dow managers stated: "There was a big lawsuit with UCC in India in the past. UCC considered the case is closed but India's officials and companies didn't think so. Presuming the product ships directly from USA to India, my suggestion is to sell the product under Dow legal entity with Dow label." Dow said last night the documents were taken out of context: "None of the alleged business transactions cited as violating the 1992 court order involved products or technologies that are covered by the court order which only applied to UCC properties in India. It did not apply to UCC products or technologies acquired overseas and brought into India by other separate companies." _______________________________________________ assam mailing list [email protected] http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
