[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

Multinationals Attack Burma Sanctio



Subject: Multinationals Attack Burma Sanctions

Washington Burma Report, Vol. 1, Number 3

[Special issue: the corporate and foreign attack on selective purchasing laws]

March 20, 1997

Heads Up!  Multinationals and foreign governments attacking Massachusetts
Burma law; state and local U.S. sovereignty.

In this update:

1. Explanation of how multinationals and foreign governments are
going after state and local sovereignty by attacking selective purchasing laws.
2. What you can do.
3. Journal of Commerce Article on Massachusetts Burma law.
4. Washington Post article on business campaign against sanctions.
5. About the Washington Burma Report


SUMMARY;

U.S. State and local sovereignty is under attack by multinational
corporations and foreign governments that don't want local communities
standing up for human rights, democracy, worker rights or the environment.
If we as Americans lose this fight, we will be forced to do business with
corporations or foreig government no matter what kind of abuses they engage
in, including child labor, forced labor, gross environmental degradation an
propping up dictatorial regimes.


MESSAGE:

A number of multinational corporations and foreign governments are working
together to attack the use of sanctions by the federal,state and local
governments to protect human rights, worker rights and the environment.

The corporate side of the effort is being spearheaded by the U.S. ASEAN
Business Council, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the
National Foreign Trade Council. They are putting a lot of money and pressure
into a lobbying effort aimed at getting all levels of the U.S. government
from using
sanctions for any purpose.

NAM and some of the corporations are coordinating their efforts with the
European Union and the Japanese government to bring complaints before the
World Trade Organization in a a joint effort to kill American laws they
don't like.

The anti-sanctions effort is being focussed on laws like the Massachusetts
Selective Purchasing measure that targets Burma. The stakes, however, are
much higher. These groups represent some of the largest American
corporations but the ones seriously pushing this are Unocal and few other
corporations that do business with dictatorial regimes in Burma, Indonesia
and China.

Multinationals, foreign corporations and foreign corporations are attacking
the use of sanctions because they want to be free to do business anywhere
with anyone. They are using th WTO as a way to attack the Massachusetts
Burma law because if they win on this, they will have a precedent to go
after state and loca environmental, anti-child labor and other local laws
they don't like.

If we lose this fight, people will no longer be able to fight child labor,
forced labor, environmental degradation and other abuses through their state
and local governments.

Doug Steele (steele@xxxxxxxx)
**************************************************

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

WRITE YOUR US SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES!

* Ask your US senators and representatives to write President Clinton,
urging him to implement economic sanctions on Burma. (A sample letter
is below.)

* Remember that letters, either mailed or faxed, will have much more impact
than phone calls, emails or postcards.

* Follow up your letter by calling your senator or representative's office
and asking to speak to his/her foreign policy aide. Call toll-free
usin (800) 972-3524 or (800) 962-3524. 

* Encourage your friends, family and co-workers to write similar letters
an make similar phone calls.

========================================
2. Sample Letter to Your Senator

U.S. Senator ____________
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C.  20510

Dear Senator __________, 

As your constituent from __________, I am writing to contact you about
an urgent foreign policy issue that I feel strongly about. This
issue is the deteriorating political situation in Burma, where the Burmese
democracy movement led by Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi is under greater
pressur than ever before. Amnesty International recently announced that 1996
was the worst year in a decade for human rights in Burma, Suu Kyi remains under
de facto house arrest by the military junta, SLORC, and thousands of political
prisoners languish in the jails. 

[Feel free to add a paragraph here describing yourself, your long history
in the local community and your interest in Burma.]

I believe that the conditions of the Cohen-Feinstein Amendment passed into
law last year, which would ban new investment in Burma by U.S.
companies,have been met. Accordingly, I strongly urge you to support the
immediate
implementation of this Amendment by President Clinton. Aung
San Suu Kyi an the National League for Democracy Party (NLD) that she leads
have repeatedly and publicly called for such sanctions to be imposed by the
U.S. and the international community.

Unlike other countries in the region ruled by dictatorial regimes, Burma
held a free and fair election in 1990 in which the NLD won 392 out of 485
Parliamentary seats and then were prevented by the SLORC from taking
power.   That electoral legitimacy makes the situation in Burma
unique and particularly compelling. Since the NLD is composed of the
legitimate leaders of Burma, I believe that we should their call should be
heeded by America, the world's most influential democracy.

As you may know, the matter of implementing Cohen-Feinstein is under
consideration by top levels in the Administration. Time is of the essence to
weigh in on this issue. I strongly urge you to write to the President
and the Secretary of State to urge them to follow the letter of this US law,
and immediately implement the Cohen-Feinstein sanctions against Burma.

In the past two weeks, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and the
Washington Post has all publicly called on the Clinton Administration to
implement Cohen- Feinstein. Please support this call of the grass-roots,
and write to the President now!

As your constitutent, I look forward to hearing from you on this matter
very soon.

Sincerely yours,

**************************************************
 Copyright 1997 Journal of Commerce, Inc.    
                              Journal of Commerce
                            March 13, 1997, Thursday
SECTION: WORLD TRADE; Pg. 5A
HEADLINE: Weld letter a new wrinkle in EU-Massachusetts spat
BYLINE: BY MICHAEL S. LELYVELD
DATELINE: BOSTON
   An international dispute about Massachusetts sanctions against Myanmar and
Indonesia has sent U.S. trade officials rummaging through the archives to dust
off a written pledge made by Gov. William Weld.

   In a growing conflict with the rambunctious state, the European Union has
objected to a Massachusetts government ban on procurement from companies doing
business in Myanmar (formerly known as Burma), and similar Indonesian curbs that
are planned to protest repression in East Timor.

   The EU said last month that it may take a complaint to the World Trade
Organization.

   The dispute underscores the complex jurisdictional issues that result when
states and even municipalities take a broader interest in global labor and trade
issues.  

   The Europeans have argued that Massachusetts' restrictions violate a 1994
agreement with the Clinton administration that was supposed to keep government
purchasing open to all bidders on both sides of the Atlantic.

   The Europeans say Washington agreed to ""cover'' Massachusetts and 38 other
states when it signed the pact.

   That claim prompted the State Department to wag its finger and remind
Massachusetts of its obligations. But two weeks ago, State Rep. Antonio Cabral,
a New Bedford Democrat and co-sponsor of the Indonesia measure, said there was
never any written commitment from Massachusetts to abide by the agreement.

   Now, the U.S. Trade Representative's office has dug up a Dec. 3, 1993, letter
from Mr. Weld to then-USTR chief Mickey Kantor, stating that the Weld
administration has reviewed terms of the agreement and ""has no present
intention'' of going against it.

   That was two years before Mr. Weld agreed to support the Myanmar sanctions,
which he signed into law last June.

   ""If you wanted to call it a change of mind, you could do that,'' said Weld
spokesman Jose Juves, who stressed that Massachusetts has been in the forefront
of human rights campaigns since it pioneered state procurement sanctions
onSouth Africa in the 1980s.

   LOTS OF WIGGLE ROOM

   Mr. Weld's no-present-intention pledge also appears to give him oodles of
wiggle room, in keeping with his background as a former Justice Department
lawyer and an attorney at Hale & Dorr.

   It is, however, probably not quite so helpful for the GOP governor's current
quest to become Mr. Clinton's next ambassador to Britain, an EU member that has
been enraged by U.S. sanctions policies. The Myanmar curbs also recently drew
fire from the Bank of Japan.

   Among the many loopholes in Mr. Weld's promise is the little problem of the
Massachusetts Legislature, which is not under the governor's constitutional
control.

   ""The letter didn't speak for the legislative branch or the judicial branch
of the government,'' said state Sen. Marc Pacheco, a Plymouth Democrat, who is
co-sponsoring the Indonesia bill.

   Mr. Weld has yet to take a position on the measure, which is opposed by
numerous business and trade groups. But even if he were to change his mind again
about honoring the EU pact, the Indonesia bill could still become law over his
veto by a two-thirds vote.

   The whole imbroglio has raised questions about the negotiating process that
led to the agreement, which has since been embodied in the WTO.

   MORE STATE INITIATIVES?

   ""We certainly felt we had gotten some assurances in writing,'' said an EU
official. The promises from U.S. ""subfederal'' entities were seen as essential
because the EU can bind its 15 members, while the United States might have to
take its authority over the 50 states to court.

   In fact, the USTR received commitments from only 39 states and seven of the
24 largest U.S. cities. Now, because of rights-conscious states like
Massachusetts, it appears that none may be worth the paper they're written on.

   Myanmar sanctions efforts are also under way in Connecticut and California.
At some point, the spread of state initiatives is bound to make it harder for
Washington to conclude future pacts.

   On Monday, the problem of Indonesia's treatment of the East Timorese is
expected to surface in Congress with the introduction of bipartisan legislation
sponsored by Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I.

   The measure is designed to send a message to Jakarta by cutting off the small
amount of remaining U.S. military aid to Indonesia, about $600,000, a Kennedy
staffer said.

   Rights advocates say that some 200,000 citizens of East Timor have died as a
result of Indonesia's occupation of the former Portuguese colony in 1975.
GRAPHIC: Photo - A bid by Massachusetts to curtail state trade with Myanmar and
Indonesia over human rights violations has drawn fire from the European Union,
but a 1993 letter just released shows that the state stopped short of signing on
to a WTO procurement code. Above, women assemble shoes for a few dollars a day
at a factory making Reebok footwear in Tangerang, Indonesia. (KRT Photo)

**************************************************
Burma Campaign Has Business Fighting Trend Toward Sanctions
By Paul Blustein
Washington Post Staff Writer

As a place to do business, there are few countries lousier than Burma. The
average Burmese earns less than $300 a year, and the military regime keeps
its heavy bureaucratic hand on an economy so poor its entire output is
roughly equal to that of Eastman Kodak Co.

But despite Burma's lack of appeal as an overseas market, the U.S. corporate
community is up in arms over a potent drive to sever U.S.-Burma economic ties
on human rights grounds.

Burma's junta (which calls the country Myanmar) is the latest of several
regimes to be targeted for U.S. economic sanctions - Cuba, Iran and Libya
were hit last year -- and corporate lobbyists are fuming that such penalties
are getting out of hand.

Restricting U.S. trade and investment with Burma, they fear, will make it
much more difficult to stop similar measures from being imposed on other
countries with human rights problems -- and much greater economic
significance as markets for U.S. goods.

 "It's not just Burma; people are talking now about sanctions on Indonesia,"
said Howard Lewis, vice president for trade and technology at the National
Association of Manufacturers. "They're talking about Nigeria, Pakistan,
Turkey. So companies view this not just as a matter of Burma, but a
continuation of a really unfortunate trend that has mushroomed over the last
couple of years."

In a report to be issued by the NAM today, the business community is
launching a campaign aimed at convincing Congress, the Clinton administration
and the public that the United States is wielding sanctions far too often
against objectionable regimes such as Burma's and that the main victims are
usually U.S. companies and workers.

The campaign is being led by the National Foreign Trade Council, an industry
group that has retained two top lobbyists with ties to both major parties:
former Reagan administration trade representative Clayton Yeutter and former
Carter administration official Anne Wexler.

The report lists 35 countries that have, in one way or another, been hit by
U.S. sanctions over the past four years, reversing a previous approach of
"relative restraint" in the use of such measures. Although the report
acknowledges that embargoes can work when many countries join in isolating a
rogue nation -- the multilateral sanctions against South Africa's apartheid
regime being a prime example -- it argues that Washington is increasingly
resorting to futile gestures by acting unilaterally.

Burma is shaping up as a particularly troubling test case for the corporate
community. The nation's ruling clique, the State Law and Order Restoration
Council (SLORC), is among the most widely reviled in the world; it refused to
accept the democratic opposition's overwhelming victory in a 1990 election
and continues to crush dissent. The Nobel Prize-winning opposition leader,
Aung San Suu Kyi, recently called on other nations to block investment in her
country.

Senior administration officials met last month to consider invoking an
investment ban on Burma under a law passed last year.  Meanwhile, a number of
local U.S. jurisdictions, including Massachusetts and San Francisco, have
enacted legislation to penalize multinational companies doing business in
Burma by making them ineligible for state and city contracts.

The laws are starting to exert an effect; Apple Computer Inc., for example,
withdrew from Burma last October in order to maintain its business supplying
Massachusetts with educational computers. PepsiCo Inc. announced in January
that it would pull all of its business out of Burma in recognition of
toughened U.S. policy toward the country and in deference to the wishes of
many shareholders and customers.

All this is disturbing for business -- and awkward for the administration --
because it raises serious questions of double standards: Can Burma be
sanctioned for human rights violations without the same being done to richer
countries?

Especially ticklish is the issue of China, because President Clinton bases
much of his case for "engagement" there on the contention that the best way
to promote democracy is through economic growth and the development of a
middle class.

The administration, one U.S. official said, may have to resort to the
argument that applying sanctions to Burma makes sense because, unlike China,
"it doesn't have the world's fastest-growing economy, doesn't have a billion
people, and doesn't have a military that can destabilize the whole Pacific
Rim." Drawing a distinction between Burma and Indonesia -- a country with a
thriving economy and the world's fourth-largest population, though not as big
or important as China's -- will be even trickier, administration officials
admit.

The corporate community was upset last year when Congress enacted laws
penalizing foreign companies doing business in Cuba, Iran and Libya because
the actions raised the prospect that other governments would retaliate. But
those laws were aimed at countries that were perceived as having taken some
hostile action toward the United States. Now, the threat of sanctions is
spreading to all sorts of regimes viewed as odious for one reason or another.

 Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy (D-R.I.) has introduced a bill that would restrict
investment in Indonesia as punishment for the Jakarta regime's repression in
East Timor. Other lawmakers are pressing the State Department to invoke
sanctions against Turkey for expanding its economic ties with Iran.

In Massachusetts, the legislature is considering a bill that would bar the
state from dealing with companies that do business in Indonesia; state
officials already maintain a long list of U.S. and foreign firms that are
barred because of their Burma ties. In neighboring Connecticut and in New
York City, anti-Burma bills are under consideration.

Human rights advocates assert that U.S. sanctions against Burma, even if not
followed by other countries, would at least encourage other countries into
taking a harder line with the
Rangoon regime.

And Burma can be singled out for punishment without affecting the argument
about China, contended Mike Jendrzejczyk, the Washington director of Human
Rights Watch/Asia.

"In China, at least there's some possibility that over the long term, if
economic engagement is accompanied by sustained political pressure, then
economic reform could lead to political reform,"  Jendrzejczyk said. "In
Burma, I don't think you can make that case with any credibility. You have a
military government that controls the economy and uses economic investment to
keep itself in power."

 But Unocal Corp., a Los Angeles-based oil company that is one of the few
U.S. firms with a sizable stake in Burma, argues that a dangerous precedent
may be set. Officials of the company deride suggestions that a prohibition on
U.S. business dealings would help the cause of human rights there; they point
out that the United States accounts for just 3 percent of Burma's trade and 8
percent of its foreign investments.

Imposing sanctions on Burma, said Jack Rafuse, manager of Unocal's Washington
office, would be no more effective than "stamping your foot and turning your
back."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

5. About the Washington Burma Report

The Washington Burma Report is a non-profit, non- partisan update on action
on Burma issues at the federal U.S. Government level in Washington, D.C.
WBR is committed to an agenda that supports the Burma democracy movement,
led by Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy.  

Written by activists for activists, WBR will appear as needed, and will
focus on recent actions, strategy, and what grassroots activists can do to
make their voices heard in Washington on these issues.   Additional
information and links to Congress, federal agencies (like the State
Department) and, in the future, past issues can be found at:
http://www.clark.net/pub/burmaus/   Feedback on this issue can be sent to the
editors at Reaproy@xxxxxxx or steele@xxxxxxxx
=================