FAXED LETTER TO HIS EXCELLENCY, KOFI ANNAN, SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS: 9 July 2004
8 July 2004
His Excellency Kofi Annan,
Secretary-General
United Nations Organisation
New York,
NY 10017
9 PAGES BY FAX ONLY TO: 001 212 963 4879
Your Excellency
MALICE IN BLUNDERLAND
I am writing to advise you of the plight of an extremely courageous Malaysian, Dr John Huong, a former Shell geologist of almost 30 years standing, who has dared to incur the wrath of the mighty Royal Dutch Shell Group.
Eight Shell companies within the Royal Dutch Shell Group, one based in the UK, one in Holland and six in the Far East have maliciously issued a Writ in the High Court of Malaya against Dr Huong. The group has also obtained a Restraining Order to prevent Dr Huong from exercising his basic rights to freedom of opinion and expression. The court papers served on him run to almost 50 pages in length. They cite among other comments made under Dr Huongs name a description of Shell management as being “deceitful bunglers”. I have to say that many Shell shareholders would consider this analysis to be entirely apt and correct.
For reasons which I will explain, I believe Shell’s malicious legal action on grounds of defamation will, like the Brent Spar debacle, turn out to be another PR blunder of epic proportions which will backfire on the Royal Dutch Shell Group.
The Court Order also compelled Dr Huong, at the risk of contempt of Court, to cease publication on the Internet of related extracts from the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That, your Excellency, must surely be a cause for concern. The Royal Dutch Shell Group self-evidently has no regard for the Declaration. I feel sure the Judge who granted the Order on an “Ex-parte” basis in Chambers knew nothing about the involvement of the relevant extracts.
This has all come about because Dr Huong has insisted on telling the truth about his experiences as a Shell geologist. He did this because he has a social conscience and a genuine regard for all of us, his fellow citizens, who share the planet with him and his family.
The comments attributed to Dr Huong, now prohibited by an Injunction, also raised the subject of Shell’s horrendous record of pollution and the environmental degradation in Nigeria.
While still in Shell’s employment, Dr Huong was outspoken when Shell engaged in activities which he considered directly at variance with Shell’s own code of ethics, the Statement of General Business Principles, which pledge honesty, openness and integrity in all of Shell dealings.
Because of his scruples Dr Huong has been victimised by Shell. He was discharged in dubious circumstances following a Shell “Domestic Inquiry” in which he had no legal representation and where his accusers were also in effect the Judge and jury. The hearing dragged on for what must be a record breaking 10 non-consecutive days of trauma and humiliation for Dr Huong. If Shell had been interested in a fair hearing, they would not have manipulated and suppressed witnesses as Dr Huong steadfastly claims. He apparently has credible evidence to support this claim. Shell’s “Domestic Inquiry” can fairly be characterised as a “kangaroo court”, defined as a trial in which the rights of the accused and precepts of justice are ignored, with the outcome conveniently decided beforehand.
Dr Huong was naturally upset and bitter at parting company with Shell on such a degrading and patently unfair basis after nearly 3 decades. He understandably felt that he had suffered a monumental injustice at the hands of Shell management.
Dr Huong wrote to Shell management to try to obtain redress but was rebuffed or simply ignored. He even sent a letter on a “without prejudice” basis suggesting a constructive dialogue to try to resolve matters amicably. This too was ignored even though he sent copies to Shell Group Chairman, Jeroem van der Veer and Group MD, Mr Malcolm Brinded. What a way to treat someone who had been employed by Shell for nearly 30 years. This contrasts with the $1.8 million dollar payoff to former Shell Group Chairman, Sir Philip Watts, after his recent forced departure.
I have noted from Shell’s correspondence that Shell lawyers discourteously ignored Dr Huongs request to address him by the professional qualification he earned by dedicated hard work and study - the “Dr” prefix to his name. That alone provides an indication of the degree of malice involved.
Shell took no action against Dr Huong until he spilled the beans about Shell’s unethical behaviour on my website Shell2004.com (the leading independent source of information and news focused on the Royal Dutch Shell Group). His “whistleblower” comments about Shell’s overstatement of reserves were sprinkled throughout the Dr Huong postings.
This may be the real reason behind Shell’s action in silencing him in such a spectacular and unprecedented fashion (bearing in mind the flood of US class action law suits and investigations by regulatory authorities in several Countries). In this connection, Dr Huongs testimony was being actively sought by a firm of New York Attorneys on behalf of the lead plaintiff in the largest law suit, the Pennsylvania State Pension Fund. This may also have been factored into Shell’s draconian move against Dr Huong.
As briefly mentioned previously, Dr Huong also made justified comments about the pollution caused by Shell’s activities - also directly in relation to the exploitation of the Nigerian people and Nigeria’s natural resources. I recognise that Shell has been faced with immense operational difficulties in Nigeria, but it self-evidently has not abided by its own ethical code which supposedly includes respect for people – presumably all people.
As I have recently stated in a paper presented at a convention in Lincoln Nebraska on 26 June 2004, how can it be right for the Ogoni people – a population of some 800,000 souls, to sit on top of oil reserves which for decades have been steadily drained by Shell (and other companies) while remaining poor and living in a polluted demoralising environment, while the disgraced former Group Chairman of Shell, Sir Philip Watts – a single individual, sits on top of a $18 million pension pot. It is more than indefensible. It is obscene.
I have not chosen to target Sir Philip at random. He, like his predecessor, Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, used high management positions in Shell’s Nigerian business to further their respective climbs to the pinnacle of power at Shell. They achieved their common objectives by collaborating with the then corrupt Nigerian regimes at the expense of the Nigerian population.
The following are extracts from an article published on 4 April 2004 by the UK newspaper, “The Mail on Sunday”.
FORMER Shell chairman Sir Philip Watts helped to organise and pay for a virtual private army in the oil rich deltas of Nigeria, according to legal documents seen by the Financial Mail on Sunday.
American lawyers representing 50,000 Ogoni people, including the family of executed activist Ken Saro-Wiwa, are due to question Watts in London this month as part of a class action started in the US in September 2002. The lawsuit claims that Shell 'engaged in militarised commerce in a conspiracy with the former military government of Nigeria.' Watts ran the oil giant's Nigerian SDPC subsidiary between 1991 and 1994.
The action alleges that the Ogonis suffered human rights abuses at the hands of the Nigerian government. Hundreds of people died and thousands more were evicted from their homes in a bloody campaign. Letters bearing Watts' signature have him ordering what are called 'spy police,' some to be equipped with semi-automatic weapons and wearing Shell insignia on their uniforms to identify them as 'supernumaries' under the oil company's banner.
To its credit, Shell recently admitted that its activities have indeed fed the violence and conflict in Nigeria.
Because of language difficulties I assisted Dr Huong in the drafting of his copy posted on the website so I got to know him fairly well. He is a deeply religious man, which perhaps accounts for his social conscience.
I must make it clear for the record that I have no authority or brief to speak for Dr Huong. I am doing so because I passionately believe that he should be supported in his struggle to stand by his moral convictions despite the overwhelming pressure being applied by a ruthless and ethically flawed multinational giant.
Shell has stated in the court papers its concern about damage caused to its reputation by the alleged defamatory comments of Dr Huong, including the comment that Shell is “Evil”. However I can conclusively prove that this and similar descriptions of Shell have been published on the Internet and elsewhere for years. I have myself been responsible for a considerable volume of strong but justified comments about Shell and I have the evidence. Comments made by me and other parties were already in the public domain. So why has Shell picked on Dr Huong?
One example: a leaflet distributed outside Shell’s London HQ buildings in 1999 entitled “RETURN OF THE ROBBER BARONS” (also posted on the Internet) described Shell as being “evil and immoral”. Shell did nothing because they knew I had proof to back up my comments, including the independently verified results of Shell UK retailer surveys (which I will shortly be reposting on the net).
The other important point to make is that Shell’s reputation has been torn to pieces in the media by the reserves debacle and by related headlines which have been disastrously bad for Shell’s image. Admissions made by Shell management have also adversely impacted on Shell’s reputation.
It is difficult to know how it would be possible to inflict any further damage. The Shell corporate image is already well and truly shattered.
Just consider the indictment list below: -
Class action lawsuits against Shell in respect of the reserves debacle; another in relation to Shell's admitted serious misconduct in Nigeria; at least one in relation to tainted Shell gasoline sold in several US states; a lawsuit recently reinstated by the US Federal Appeals Court accusing Shell Oil Co. of operating a price-fixing conspiracy with a supposed competitor. Then we have the pollution based law suits in Texas, relating to Shell’s operations in Port Arthur, in the Philippino capital Manila, and in Sao Paulo, Brazil, where Shell stands accused of contaminating drinking water and causing very serious health problems, including cancers, infertility and respiratory diseases. Today there has been news of a Federal investigation into possible anti-trust violations in the US and the threat of a further cut by Standard & Poor of Shell’s already reduced credit rating.
Although Dr Huong must be shocked at Shell’s mob-handed legal action, he has been fortunate in one regard. A respected UK national newspaper, The Sunday Observer fortuitously published on 4 July 2004 (just days after Shell issued its Defamation Writ) an article featuring a company reputation assessment carried out by Thomson Intermedia, which monitors every UK national newspaper on a daily basis. It produces a report indicating the top ten brands/companies with the highest reputation and at the other extreme the 10 “Worst”. No prizes for guessing Shell’s ranking; the Worst of the Worst. So Dr Huong has concrete evidence of a snapshot independent assessment of Shell’s reputation at the precise time the litigation commenced. “Appendix A” attached contains just a brief selection of the global news headlines which contributed to Shell being assessed as the “Worst of the Worst”.
Frankly it is utterly preposterous under the circumstances for Shell to pretend that it still has a high reputation. Shell must as some commentators have recently stated still be in denial about its dire situation. I have recently described Shell management antics in a published article as being on a par with the “Mad Hatters Tea Party”. I seem to have chosen the wrong fantasy tale. “Alice in Wonderland” now seems more appropriate because Shell management appears to be completely detached from reality or it would not have issued defamation proceedings at such an inopportune moment, when the companies’ reputation is at its lowest point in Shell’s entire history. Shell management has blundered once again because many like-minded people will, I believe, rally to Dr Huongs worthy cause.
Personally, I think it is evil under all of the circumstances that eight Shell companies within the Royal Dutch Shell Group have joined together to sue one honest, decent man, thereby inflicting further stress and pain on top of his unfair dismissal. Shell must surely have realised that the charge of evil intent might be levelled at them, yet they still took draconian action.
Bearing all of the above in mind, it does not make any sense for Shell to sue Dr Huong for libel, so logic suggests that there must be another reason; to silence him from disclosing what he knows about matters which are highly sensitive to Royal Dutch Shell – perhaps in relating to the current investigation by the Securities & Exchange Commission and the US Justice Department. In other words, the litigation may just be a cover for Shell’s real purpose – to shut him up at all costs. That of course would be a major infringement of Dr Huongs freedom of expression and opinion.
Former Shell employee Sir Philip Watts was paid $1.8 million allegedly to buy his silence under the pretext of Shell managements “respect for Shell employees”, while Dr Huong, another former Shell employee of many decades, was sacked in dubious circumstances and treated with contempt. This happened because he insisted on working within Shell’s much vaunted code of ethics. It is ironic that if Shell management had itself abided by the code, its reputation would not have been damaged to such a devastating extent that it will take years to recover.
Such is the strength of his social conscience and his interest in free speech that Dr Huong posted extracts from the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights onto his section of my website, which has subsequently been removed as per the Court Order. The extracts shown as “Appendix B” attached, consisted of Articles 1, 5, 12, 19 and 23 dealing with freedom of opinion and expression, the acknowledgement that all human beings are endowed with a conscience and are also entitled to just and favourable conditions of work. Shell was obviously not over-impressed with the above articles otherwise they would not have gone to such extreme lengths to silence a courageous man. They could easily have separated out sections where censorship was entirely inappropriate.
Since Dr Huong has not been receiving his normal income for over a year he is, as our American friends might put it, financially challenged. So Shell’s massive advantage over him with its unlimited financial resources and an army of lawyers must be making life unbearable for him and his family. This is not a case of David and Goliath. That was a much more evenly matched contest. Dr Huong is up against EIGHT Goliaths, all apparently intent on his utter financial destruction.
He desperately needs moral (and financial support). It is with that objective in mind that I have taken the liberty of contacting you. I hope that you may perhaps be able to persuade Shell at a high level that it was entirely inappropriate for the extracts from the UN Universal Declaration of Rights to be included in the Restraining Order. If we can at least get that decision reversed, it would at least be a small moral victory. If Shell will not ask the Judge to modify the order than perhaps the UN may be prepared to take appropriate action.
I intend to seek moral support and/or testimony for Dr Huong from many potentially interested parties and luminaries including the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights; the National Union of Ogoni Students International; Friends of the Earth, Ralph Nader, Greenpeace, The Body Shop, Bishop Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela.
If you have any other suggestions, please let me know. Alternatively I am sure Dr Huong would be overjoyed to hear from you. Your moral support alone would work wonders. His email address is: drjhuong@yahoo.co.uk
THE SOLICITORS ACTING FOR THE ROYAL DUTCH SHELL GROUP ARE, T H LIEW & PARTNERS, KUALA LUMPUR, TEL: 00 60 03 21474624
Yours truly, Alfred Donovan
APPENDIX A
SELECTION OF SHELL2004.com NEWS HEADLINES ABOUT SHELL
10 Jan 04: The Times: How Shell Blew a Hole in a 100-year reputation
10 Jan 04: The Independent: Reserves shock wipes £8bn from value of oil giant Shell
19 Feb 04: Los Angeles Times: SEC Launches Formal Probe of Shell Oil
20 April 04: Minneapolis Star Tribune: Dutch/Shell Group exec was 'sick and tired' of lying
20 April 04: The Independent: Lies, cover-ups, fat cats and an oil giant in crisis
6 June 04: Mail on Sunday: Chairman Jeroen van der Veer in frame over Shell scandal – could lead to 20 years in jail
11 June 04: CNN.com: Shell admits blame in Nigeria: "Royal Dutch/Shell has taken responsibility for contributing to the fighting and corruption in oil-rich Nigeria".
25 June 04: London Evening Standard: Shamed “Shell chairman Sir Philip Watts has secured a pay-off worth more than £1m in cash plus stock options potentially worth £6m more”
25 June 04: London Evening Standard: Shell 'has lied for 10 years'
26 June 04: ChannelNewsAsia: Shell hit by new lawsuit in US over reserves scandal: “fresh lawsuit names 27 directors and officers of Royal Dutch/Shell, and also their accounting and audit firms, PricewaterhouseCoopers International and KPMG International”
4 July 04: The Observer: Bad publicity - not goodbye, but good buy: “Shell illustrates how a steady barrage of negative publicity can bring a company to its knees”: “The company's reputation is now in tatters”
5 July 04: New Zealand Herald: Shell takes profit hit: “profits being exaggerated”: "inappropriate accounting”: “profits being embellished”
APPENDIX B
DR HUONGS POSTED EXTRACTS FROM UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.”
Click here for ShellNews.net HOME PAGE