Let's Not be Too Hasty

For anyone who saw President Obama's speech on Tuesday evening, I'm sure the thing that stuck out most prominently for them was his declaration of ensuring that BP (formerly known to the world by their full name British Petroleum) would compensate the victims of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. While I'm no fan of BP, I think the good thing is that at least they are intending to comply with the President's request and announced on Wednesday that they would be establishing a fund (worth around $20 billion) from which they would recompense the victims of the oil spill. This money was not only for the residents located along the Gulf coast (thus most directly affected) but the businesses and homeowners in the area who were subsequently affected. Whether or not anyone actually receives payment remains to be seen but I figure if BP doesn't, they are going to be in much greater trouble than they already are.

But one of the big things that has raise tension both here and in Britain is in the fact that President Obama referred to BP by their full un-abbreviated name during a press conference thus (in the eyes of some) implying that the President (and in turn the entire country) was holding Britain (vice BP) responsible. There have been attempts by both sides to ensure that the assumption doesn't hold true and that good will (or relative good will) that has existed between our two countries doesn't suddenly disappear. But when all is said and done, there are still segments of the populations who suddenly seem to jump at the opportunity to bash the British for their supposed 'failing' and thus these same people want the United Kingdom held responsible for the deadliest environmental disaster in history. But to these folks I'd ask them not to get ahead of themselves and to recall Bhopal.

I'm sure many of you readers are wondering what 'Bhopal' is; well it's actually a place. In India in 1984, the city of Bhopal was home to a chemical plant owned by Union Carbide (which is now owned by Dow Chemicals and is an American company) . On the night of December 2, 1984, 27 tons of poisonous gas leaked from a storage tank and killed nearly 3,000 people. As if this wasn't bad enough, problems continue to plauge the region even after 26 years. Though some people appeared to have been unaffected at the time of the gas leak, subsequent generations were plagued with ailments such as cancer and other deadly birth defects. At the time, leaders in Union Carbide were held accountable but they quickly posted bail and soon after left the country.

Though investigations and litigation was made against Union Carbide, the ultimate end result was that while a promise of compensation to victims (present and future), not everyone has received the payout that they were entitled to. Even the Americans who ran the plant have managed to get out of the country and have been living the good life back here in America. Plus those running the plant (namely Warren Anderson) seemed content to blame the workers at the plant and claiming that "the third world nation (India)" wasn't ready to deal with that type of industry. If they were the case then wouldn't it be Union Carbide's responsibility to ensure that proper safety precautions were taken? And since they weren't isn't it only right that the victims demand justice for those responsible? So then I say that if people here wish to hold Britain responsible for BP's failings, so too can India hold the United States (since Union Carbide is American) for the failings of Union Carbide? Just some food for thought.