[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
THINKING GLOBALLY,PUNISHING LOCALLY
- Subject: THINKING GLOBALLY,PUNISHING LOCALLY
- From: moe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 22:54:00
Subject: THINKING GLOBALLY,PUNISHING LOCALLY:A SPECIAL REPORT ON LOCAL SANCTIONS WORKING TO PUNISH SLORC
Thinking Globally,
Punishing Locally
States, Cities Rush to Impose Their
Own Sanctions, Angering Companies
and Foreign Affairs Experts
By Paul Blustein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 16 1997; Page G01
The Washington Post
Here is a multiple choice question. Foreign policy
is made by: (A)
the federal government; (B) state governments; (C)
local
governments.
To people familiar with the Constitution, "A" might
seem the
obvious answer. But lately, "all of the above"
looks like the
correct response, in view of the rapid spread of
economic
sanctions imposed by state and local governments
against foreign
regimes they consider objectionable.
This week, the New York City Council approved a ban
on city
government purchases from any company doing business in
Burma because of human-rights abuses by the Burmese
military
government (which calls the country Myanmar). The
bill is
subject to Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's signature.
Meanwhile, the
City Council's powerful speaker, Peter Vallone (D),
also
introduced a bill aimed at China and 14 other
countries in which
Christians are allegedly persecuted for their
religious beliefs. That
bill would prohibit the city from awarding
contracts to companies
that do business in those nations and would shift
city funds out of
banks doing business with offending regimes.
The developments in New York marked a major
escalation in a
movement that has gone far beyond the "nuclear-free
zones"
passed years ago by Berkeley, Calif., Takoma Park,
Md., and
other relatively small jurisdictions.
Massachusetts and San Francisco have banned
official purchases
from companies doing business in Burma, and similar
bills are
pending in several state legislatures, including
those of California,
Texas and Connecticut.
The Massachusetts legislature is considering adding
Indonesia to
its list of countries that must be eschewed by
companies doing
business with the state. Rhode Island also is
weighing an
anti-Indonesia bill, and the Oakland, Calif., City
Council is
considering similar action against Nigeria.
Such laws are raising alarm among foreign affairs
experts and
business lobbyists, who fear a crazy quilt of local
legislation that
will undermine the coherence of U.S. foreign policy
and damage
U.S. economic interests. "This is the
democratization of foreign
policy run amok," fumed Richard N. Haass, director
of foreign
policy studies at the Brookings Institution.
The laws raise the specter of multinational
companies being
forced to make costly choices between giving up
lucrative
contracts with government agencies or forgoing
business in some
of the world's most promising markets. Some firms
have pulled
out of Burma in part because of local government
sanctions.
While Burma is too poor to matter much to most
multinationals,
penalties aimed at fast-growing and large economies
such as
China or Indonesia could hurt them badly.
Under Vallone's proposed bill, for example, if
PepsiCo Inc.
doesn't stop conducting business in China, New York
City would
stop buying soft drinks from the company for its school
cafeterias, Vallone said.
"The City of New York has the fourth-largest
[government]
budget in the country," Vallone said in a telephone
interview. "So
you're talking about a lot of money, and we're
going to use what
influence we have to try and correct an evil that
we see going on."
Vallone, who pointed out that similar local laws
were passed
during the last decade against the pro-apartheid
regime in South
Africa, said he was stirred to action by tales he
heard about
alleged persecution of Christians.
"Our preliminary indication is that the PLA -- the
[Chinese]
People's Liberation Army -- as recently as last
month was killing
thousands of people," he said. Asked what incident
he was
talking about, Vallone corrected himself, saying,
"In that case, it
was hundreds of people." Aides later conceded that
their boss
"misspoke," though they cited several articles and
congressional
resolutions asserting that from three to eight
Christian clergymen
and evangelicals had been killed by Chinese
authorities over the
past year. A Chinese Embassy spokesman called Vallone's
allegations "ridiculous" and said the nation's
constitution
guarantees freedom of religion.
All this poses a multijurisdictional nightmare for
business
lobbyists. They already had their hands full trying
to combat a
growing tendency by Congress and the Clinton
administration to
use trade sanctions as punishment against various
regimes.
"We were very concerned about the proliferation of
sanctions at
the federal level," said Howard Lewis, vice
president for trade at
the National Association of Manufacturers, who
argues that
unilaterally cutting off U.S. economic ties with
countries such as
Burma simply causes the target nation to switch its
trade to
French, German or Japanese companies. "The fact
that we're
now beginning to see an explosion of sanctions at
the state and
local levels clearly underlines that this thing has
just gone too far."
But supporters of sanctions assert that states and
cities have a
perfect right to dispense their money as they see
fit, and that they
have a moral duty to act when Washington hangs back.
"The real threat to effective foreign policy is not
the 50 states,"
said Simon Billenness, an analyst at Franklin
Research &
Development Corp., a Boston investment firm that
buys shares
only in companies it deems socially responsible.
"It's the Fortune
500."
Many state and local governments are imposing
sanctions -- or
are considering them -- against foreign regimes
they consider
objectionable. The sanctions usually involve
banning govern-ment
purchases from companies that do business in the
offending
country.
CALIFORNIA
Sanctions against Burma:
* Alameda County
* Berkeley
* Oakland
* San Francisco
* Santa Monica
* State of California (pending)
Sanctions against Nigeria:
* Oakland (pending)
COLORADO
Sanctions against Burma:
* Boulder
*State of Colorado (pending)
TEXAS
Sanctions against Burma
(pending)
MICHIGAN
Sanctions against Burma:
* Ann Arbor
WISCONSIN
Sanctions against Burma:
* Madison
NORTH CAROLINA
Sanctions against Burma:
* Carrboro
* Chapel Hill
* State of North Carolina (pending)
MASSACHUSETTS
Sanctions against Burma; Sanctions against
Indonesia (pending)
NEW YORK CITY
Sanctions pending against Burma and countries that
allegedly
persecute Christians (Including China, Indonesia,
Saudi Arabia,
Egypt, Pakistan )
RHODE ISLAND
Sanctions against Burma, Indonesia
(pending)
CONNECTICUT
Sanctions against Burma (pending)
SOURCE: State and Municipal Sanctions Report