Why the French are so keen to stay in Burma despite unrest

Total has been operating in Burma despite widespread condemnation since 1992. It runs, alongside America's Chevron, the vast Yadana field, producing some 630 million cubic feet of gas a year.

Chevron inherited the project when it bought another business, Unocal. But Total has been there from the outset. Total and Unocal ploughed more than £148 million into getting the project up and running. They now pay the Burmese government hundreds of millions of dollars a year in taxes and revenues.

Nobody knows exactly what the military leaders of the junta spend it on, but human rights organisation The Burma Campaign UK is clear. As a spokesman says: "When the world saw the violence against the monks and the people of Burma, it should realise this: Total helped pay for those guns and bullets."

The average British response when told that the French are the biggest operators in Burma is a shrug that says "typical". The clichéd caricature is that, wherever there are horrible regimes, the French are always there, cutting deals. We should not jump so quickly to conclusions. Our own dear Shell has a far from unblemished record in Nigeria.

But Total does crop up time and again where other big companies dare not venture. Its current claims to oil in the Southern Sudan, where it is battling with Britain's White Nile over ownership, stem from deals made with the oppressive Islamist government in Khartoum in the 1980s.

In Western Sahara, annexed by neighbouring Morocco, Total struck deals with the Moroccan authorities to explore for oil offshore. Despite the UN saying in 2002 such deals conducted with the Moroccan government were illegal, Total continued exploring until 2004, when it withdrew for business, not moral or political reasons.

Controversy currently rages about a huge project in Iran, where Total is leading a consortium to develop the huge offshore South Pars gas field despite international concerns about Tehran's nuclear programme.

Total's argument is simple. Spokesman Jean-François Lassalle says: "Why are we in difficult countries like Burma, Western Sahara, Sudan? Because it is our objective to find oil or gas. Oil and gas are not only found in countries with democratic regimes run on the European model.

"Who is to decide whether these regimes are unsavoury or acceptable? We are not a political entity, we are not the UN, or a government. We are a company. It is not for us to qualify which regime is acceptable, nor is it for the NGOs either. It is for the UN, the EU or France. If they force us, we immediately comply."

The pressure groups say this is no defence. Multinational companies are often so powerful that they have a huge influence on their own governments, and therefore on bodies like the UN or EU.

The Burma Campaign claims Total's influence over the French government has prevented any meaningful sanctions against the Junta from the EU - a charge Total denies. In fairness, French President Nicolas Sarkozy this week sent a clear message that he does not want to see further investment by French companies in Burma, but such a rule on "further investment" would not catch Total, as its operations there are years beyond the investment stage. However, France is drawing up sanctions that could be filed against the junta and has insisted Total will not be exempt.

So what about Total's awful reputation? Does it not care? Well, no. Even though Burma supplies only 0.6% of Total's revenues, it will not countenance pulling out voluntarily.

Lassalle says: "Of course, that would be the easiest way. We could just sell up and get rid of the whole reputational problem. But what signal would it give to the rest of the oil profession? It would mean that all you have to do is shout at Total and they will move away."

Intransigent, proud and impossibly French. Light years away from BP and Shell's desperate attempts to look friendly ( remember "Beyond Petroleum"?). One thing is for sure, unless the UN or EU take some serious action, Total is in Burma to stay.