TRANSCRIPT: ALBRIGHT 4/22 ON U.S.

[moe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Subject: TRANSCRIPT:  ALBRIGHT 4/22 ON U.S. SANCTIONS AGAINST BURMA

INTELASIA@xxxxxxxxxxx
DATE:04/22/97
TITLE:22-04-97  TRANSCRIPT:  ALBRIGHT 4/22 ON U.S. SANCTIONS AGAINST BURMA

TEXT:
(U.S. imposes ban on new American investment in Burma)  (1430)

Washington -- The United States has decided to impose a ban on new
American investment in Burma because of the ruling State Law and Order
Restoration Council's (SLORC's) repression of democratic political
activity in Burma, according to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

"We have urged the military authorities in Burma to begin a serious
political dialogue with the National League for Democracy, led by Aung
San Suu Kyi, and with representatives of Burma's many ethnic
minorities. In addition to our own discussions, we have worked with
friends in Asia and Europe to make clear to Burma the potential
international benefits of a more democratic approach," Albright said
at a special briefing at the State Department April 22.

"Unfortunately, the military leaders in Rangoon have chosen not to
listen," she continued. "Instead, they have clamped down farther on
democratic political activity. They have severely restricted Aung San
Suu Kyi's ability to address her supporters publicly, closed political
party offices, arrested peaceful demonstrators, and harassed and
intimidated those espousing democratic principles."

According to Albright, the ban on new U.S. investment in Burma is the
latest in a series of sanctions the United States has imposed in
response to Burma's lack of political freedom and its failure to
cooperate with the United States in the war against drugs.

"In combination with the earlier actions we and other nations have
taken and shareholder concern around the world, we believe this step
will deal a further blow to investor confidence in Burma. It will send
a message to the military that it will not attract the investment it
clearly craves unless it begins a genuine dialogue with its own
people," she said.

"We remain ready to review these measures and our overall policy
towards Burma should events there warrant," she concluded. "We
continue to express our admiration and support for Burma's courageous
democratic leaders, and we urge nations around the world to join in
the call for a peaceful transition in Burma to government that
reflects, rather than rejects, the will of the people."

Following is the transcript of Albright's remarks, as prepared by the
State Department:

(begin transcript)

REMARKS BY SECRETARY OF STATE MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT
ON U.S. SANCTIONS AGAINST BURMA
APRIL 22, 1997

BURNS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the State
Department. Let me just tell you what we're going to be doing here
today. First, the Secretary of State will have a statement to make on
Burma. She will take two or three questions on that subject. If you'd
like to ask a question on that subject, please, I'll recognize you.
Please let me know.

Following that, the Secretary has a statement to make on Earth Day.
This is We first annual State Department report on the environmental
matters in foreign policy. After her statement on that, she'll
introduce Undersecretary of State Tim Wirth and Assistant Secretary of
State Eileen Claussen, They'll have brief statements and they'll be
glad to take your questions.

Following that, we'll have our normal State Department briefing; and
that should begin in about a half hour from now. Madame Secretary.

ALBRIGHT: Thank you very much, yes, good afternoon. I am announcing
today that President Clinton has decided to impose a ban on new
investment by Americans in Burma. This action is being taken under
provisions of law authored by Senator Dianne Feinstein and former
Senator and now Secretary of Defense William Cohen.

The decision is based on the President's judgment that the repression
by the military authorities of the democratic opposition in Burma has
deepened since enactment of the Cohen-Feinstein provisions this past
September 30th; and that a state of large-scale repression exists.

As the sponsors intended, we have used the prospect of new investment
sanctions as a tool to encourage change. Specifically, we have urged
the military authorities in Burma to begin a serious political
dialogue with the National League for Democracy, led by Aung San Suu
Kyi, and with representatives of Burma's many ethnic minorities. In
addition to our own discussions, we have worked with friends in Asia
and Europe to make clear to Burma the potential international benefits
of a more democratic approach.

Unfortunately, the military leaders in Rangoon have chosen not to
listen. Instead, they have clamped down farther on democratic
political activity. They have severely restricted Aung San Suu Kyi's
ability to address her supporters publicly, closed political party
offices, arrested peaceful demonstrators, and harassed and intimidated
those espousing democratic principles.

The military has also continued a range of other oppressive policies,
including violence against civilians and forcible conscription.
Regrettably the Burmese Government shows no signs of moderating its
insecure and, we believe, ultimately doomed authoritarian policies. It
remains embarked upon a course that can lead only to greater
isolation, reduced economic vibrancy and steadily increased pressure
for political change. This is a dangerous and disappointing direction.

The ban on new U.S. investment in Burma is the latest in a series of
sanctions the United States has imposed in response to the utter lack
of political freedom in that country, and because its government has
failed to cooperate in the war against drugs.

In combination with the earlier actions we and other nations have
taken and shareholder concern around the world, we believe this step
will deal a further blow to investor confidence in Burma. It will send
a message to the military that it will not attract the investment it
clearly craves unless it begins a genuine dialogue with its own
people.

We remain ready to review these measures and our overall policy
towards Burma should events there warrant. We continue to express our
admiration and support for Burma's courageous democratic leaders, and
we urge nations around the world to join in the call for a peaceful
transition in Burma to government that reflects, rather than rejects,
the will of the people.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, are you getting any support from other
nations in the region for these steps?

ALBRIGHT: We have, in fact, been in close touch with other nations on
this, and we have in the past. We are continuing to do that. They have
taken some steps of their own. We will be continuing to press them to
join us and persuading them that this is in the best interest of the
people of Burma and of the region.

Q: Madame Secretary, why isn't this hypocritical to impose tougher
sanctions on Burma, which is arguably less important to the United
States economically than China, at a time when your government, your
State Department has accused China of virtually eradicating political
dissent, and people like Wei Jing Shang are still in jail?

ALBRIGHT: The issue here is that we have consistent principles and
flexible tactics. We consistently speak out against human rights
violations, no matter where they are committed. We have just now in
Geneva on China. We will -- I did it when I was in China, so did the
Vice President, We will continue to speak out about human rights
violations, whether they are in China, Burma or Cuba.

We, however, have to have a flexible approach to how we deal with it,
depending upon what our national interests are, and we have to
understand where we have strategic relationships that require us to
take a different approach, I guess the easiest way to describe it is,
different strokes for different folks.

Q: Madame Secretary, this new sanctions action come in time when some
of the businessmen, companies, corporations in this country are
showing their criticisms of past sanctions diplomacy. How do you
rationalize this?

ALBRIGHT: Well, I think first of all, we see sanctions -- first of
all, let me say it is not an easy decision, ever, to impose sanctions.
We all understand the cost of them in a number of ways and the
difficulty of carrying them out. On the other hand it is a tool of
foreign policy that is useful. As I said in my statement, the threat
of sanctions is useful, the imposition is also useful.

I think specifically the investment climate itself in Burma, with
leadership of the SLORC, is not exactly welcoming to businesses of any
kind. I think the businesses themselves find out that operating within
an autocratic, authoritarian, arbitrary system is not one that is good
for business. So I think that from both counts, this is the correct
decision.