Burma Sanctions Debate

[dohrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 12:16:55 -0700 (PDT)

Institute for Public Accuracy
(202) 347-0020  *  http://www.accuracy.org
915 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045
___________________________________________________

NEWS RELEASE                                                   
Thursday, August 6, 1998

                        DEBATE BREAKS OUT ON EFFORTS 
                    TO PRESSURE BURMA ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS

 	WASHINGTON--In the largest such effort since the anti-apartheid movement
of the 1980s, the state of Massachusetts and some 20 cities and localities
are effectively refusing to buy from companies that do business in Burma,
where a military junta seized power and human rights abuses persist. Now,
salvos are being fired about the legitimacy of such measures by local
governments.

  	Today, hours after the Cato Institute put out a news release arguing
that state and local selective-purchasing laws on Burma are
unconstitutional, the think tank drew a barrage of criticism for confusing
the issue rather than clarifying it. Among those available for comment: 

SIMON BILLENNESS
Senior analyst at the investment firm of Franklin Research & Development and
coordinator of the Massachusetts Burma Roundtable, a coalition in support of
the Burmese pro-democracy movement, Billenness said: "The Cato Institute
professes to support the free market, yet it is arguing that the federal
government should prevent Massachusetts from participating in the free
market as the state sees fit. This clearly shows how the Cato Institute
backs corporate interests rather than the free market." Billenness also took
issue with Cato's contention that such purchasing laws "collide head-on"
with a federal law that bans new investment in Burma. Said Billenness:
"Local laws actually supplement sanctions at the federal level." 

REP. BYRON RUSHING
Chief sponsor of Burma and South Africa selective-purchasing legislation in
Massachusetts, state Rep. Rushing said: "Essentially what Cato has done is
to rehash the position the National Foreign Trade Council has been taking in
their suit against Massachusetts. They seem to be concerned about the
experience with South Africa and the anti-apartheid movement. They don't
want to deal with democratic grassroots movements around human rights
issues. The Burma law was modeled on legislation on South Africa.... It
would be unconstitutional for us to make it illegal for companies to do
business with Burma, but our legislation is about state purchasing. We have
the same rights as anyone has in deciding what to buy and from whom."

DENNIS BERNSTEIN
A journalist who has written widely on Burma for The Nation and other
outlets, Bernstein said: "While Cato deals in questionable constitutional
issues, democracy activists in Burma are surely being raped, tortured and
murdered in a systematic manner. Many have died in Burma trying to implement
some of those concepts Cato now purports to care so much about.  I do hope
Cato's sources on Burma's narco-dictatorship go beyond the drumbeat of phony
PR now being produced by high-priced Washington PR firms."

For more information, contact Sam Husseini at 
the Institute for Public Accuracy, (202) 347-0020 or (202) 332-5055.

Relevant web site: http://www.freeburma.org/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Husseini			Tel: 202-347-0020 
Institute for Public Accuracy	Fax: 347-0290
http://www.accuracy.org
E-mail subject line "subscribe" to ipa@xxxxxxxxxxxx to sign on to our list.
If you are a journalist, please include your name and outlet in the message.