[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
Full EU Investment Sanctions!!!
1999 YEAR OF FULL EURO SANCTIONS
Everywhere we see in France "L'arrive d'Euro ". The Euro has arrived.
The Euro for business. What about Burma ? What about the Euro for
Business Sanctions. Will 1999 be the year of Full Euro Sanctions? Events
up to now point in that direction. EuroBurmaNet is committed to full
support of that european political initiative and we urge support NOT to
wait until the next century. Europeans must stop dragging their feet on
this vital resolution on Burma.EBN
$$$$$
Meeting of the Council of the Socialist International United
Nations Geneva, 23-24 November 1998
RESOLUTION ON BURMA (extrait)
Calls on the international community, and Japan in particular, not to
provide any form of financial that directly or indirectly benefits the
regime in Burma;
Calls on the European Union to impose tough trade and investment
sanctions on the regime until there is genuine progress in restoring
democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights in Burma;
Calls on TOTAL of France, UNOCAL of the United States, PREMIER of the
United Kingdom, and MITSUBISHI and NIPPON OIL of Japan to withdraw or
suspend their pipeline operations in Burma and to make amends for the
forced labor and human rights abuses caused by their projects against
the
ethnic peoples of Burma;
EU VOTES ON SANCTIONS AND JOINT ASEAN MEETING
The European Union (EU) voted on October 26 to extend existing sanctions
imposed on the Burma military since 1996, instead of enacting more
severe restrictions
recently debated by the foreign ministers of the fifteen-nation
organization meeting in Luxembourg,.
These restrictions include bans on transit visas for military
authorities and entry visas for tourism officials, as well as the
suspension
of non-humanitarian aid. The EU ministers vowed to "rigorously apply"
the
travel ban to SPDC members and their families.
They include the expulsion of military personnel attached to
Myanmar diplomatic missions in the EU, an arms embargo, a ban on
entry visas to the country's leaders and the suspension of
non-humanitarian aid and of high-level government visits.
The ministers also widened the visa ban by including transit visas
under the ban and extending it to cover Myanmar tourism officials, an
EU statement said.
It said the 15-nation EU would rigorously apply the visa ban
to members of the ruling State Peace and Development Council
and members of the military, as well as their families.
The ministers supported the view of Myanmar opposition
leader and Nobel Peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi that "in the present
situation,it is inappropriate for tourists to visit Burma (Myanmar),"
the statement said.
The ministers did not however adopt a ban on new investment
or bar EU companies from providing services to Myanmar's ruling
council-- measures that had been discussed.
After considering the "deteriorating internal situation" in
Myanmar,ministers remained "deeply concerned at the lack of a
positive response from the Burmese authorities to the repeated calls
for them to take steps towards the promotion of democracy and human
rights, and of national reconciliation," the statement said.
However, under a cooperation agreement the EU conceded to the " Myanmar
"
granting the regime authorities permission to attend a meeting with
observer status
at the 13th ASEAN-EU JCC, suspended for a year. But the ministers said
Myanmar's
participation in futuresuch meetings would depend on an improvement in
the human rights
situation.
"In the present situation, it is inappropirate for
tourists to visit Burma," an EU statement said.
New investment was discussed but not banned after objections
from France. (Financial Times (UK), William Barnes, October 28 1998)
Résolution sur la violation des droits de l'homme en Birmanie votée le
16 juillet 98 (extrait)
Le Parlement européen vu ses résolutions précédentes sur la Birmanie,
E. préoccupé par l'attitude des autorités birmanes
forçant leur peuple à
travailler à des chantiers, comme ceux pour la
construction des
gazoducs, et à transporter munitions et
ravitaillement pour l'armée
birmane, qui n'hésite pas à éliminer ceux qui sont
trop fatigués,
7. demande à la Commission et au Conseil de mettre
en oeuvre à
l'encontre de la Birmanie des sanctions économiques
totales et
d'interdire tout investissement tant que le régime
de Rangoon n'aura pas
mis un terme aux graves violations des droits de
l'hornme;
8. demande au Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies
d'appliquer des
sanctions économiques globales à l'encontre de la
Birmanie;
12. invite les compagnies étrangères qui ont
investi en Birmanie, comme
Total et Premier Oil, à geler sans délai leurs
investissements;
13. insiste pour que les réunions de la commission
mixte UE-ANASE aient
lieu sans la participation de la Birmanie
Re: Resolution of the European Parliament on human rights violations in
17 September 1998 (extrait)
The European Parliament,
-having regard to its previous resolutions on Burma,
F. whereas on 19 August the International Labour Organistion released
its
report on forced labour, based upon a year-long inquiry, in which it
stated
that the practices is "widespread and systematic" with "total disregard
for
the human dignity, safety and health and basic needs of the people",
G. noting that European multinational oil companies now provide almost a
third of the total legal foreign investment committed in Burma and an
even
higher proportion of funds disbursed,
I. welcoming the recent decision by some European companies to halt all
further activities in Burma, and hoping that their example will be
followed
by other companies,
3. Believes that, in the interest of a foreign policy founded upon the
principles of human rights and democracy, the scope of the WTO to take
these principles into account should be enlarged rather than restricted
and
calls upon the European Union to use its weight as the biggest trading
power of the world to this end;
4. Criticises in this context the Commission decision to insist on a
conflict resolution panel within WTO over the law of the US State of
Massachusetts, which set a pricing penalty on purchases of goods by
state
authorities from companies that do business with Burma,
7. Reaffirms its opinion that foreign direct investment in Burma makes
an
important financial contribution to the SPDC, while failing to provide
even
indirect benefits to the Burmese people;
8. Calls on the EU not to contribute to the controversial UNDCP project
in
Burma;
9. Calls on the Council to ensure that the current CFSP common position
on
Burma is strictly enforced, in particular with regard to the ban on
entry
visas and further strongly calls on the EU Member States to refrain from
giving transit visas to SPDC and military personnel;
10. Calls on the Council to respond to Aung San Suu Kyi's request for EU
economic sanctions against the SPDC by ending all links between the
European Union and Burma based on trade, tourism and investment in
Burma
by European companies; as a first step, call on the Council to expand
the
measures taken in the common position be ending trade promotion and
expanding the ban on entry visas;
11. Supports the Council's decision not to accept the participation of
Burma in EU-ASEAN meetings and ASEM until there are significant
improvements in human rights and democracy in Burma;
12. Calls on the Council to use its discussions with the ASEAN and Japan
and China to pressure the SPDC to enter into dialogue with the
democratic
opposition and ethnic minorities;
13. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the
Commission,
the Council, the NLD, the SPDC, ASEAN and the WTO.
Labour Group Slams EU Over WTO Action on Myanmar
Sept 21, 1999 Reuters
GENEVA --Major labour bodies on Monday
accused the European Union of giving comfort to Myanmar's
military leadership by taking the United States to a trade court over
action against foreign firms trading with the Asian state.
In a statement faxed to Geneva, the Brussels-based
International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and the
European
Trade Union Confederation said they were astounded at the EU's
action involving the former Burma.
"The European Union will now risk appearing to be condoning
the current repression of human rights in Burma in order to
promote the interests of European multinational companies," the
statement said.
EU withdrawal of tariff privileges
formerly granted to Burma under the EU's Generalised System of
Preferences (GSP), and suspension of non-humanitarian aid and
development programs (Appendix 1,source US Engage/NFTC)
The European Union has publicly condemned the current Burmese
regime, the State Peace and Development Council as well as its
predecessor, the State Law and Order Restoration Council,
formally expressing concern at the continuing violation of human
rights in Burma and the absence of progress towards
democratization. The EU has taken a number of diplomatic steps,
including the suspension of all high-level governmental contacts
with the current Burmese regime, withdrawal of tariff privileges
formerly granted to Burma under the EU's Generalised System of
Preferences (GSP), and suspension of non-humanitarian aid and
development programs. See Regulation (EC) 552/97 of 24 March 1997
temporarily, withdrawing access to generalised tariff preferences
from the Union of Myanmar, 1997 OJ (L85) 8 - Appendix 6 - and
Common Position of 28 October 1996 on Burma/Myanmar, 1996 O.J.
(L287) 1. Appendix 7.
The EU also is providing significant humanitarian assistance and
financial support to promote democracy in Burma. In the last
three years, the EU has provided over $20 million through the
U.N. High Commission for Refugees and non-governmental
organizations to support ethnic minorities living in Burma as
well as refugees in neighboring countries.
Beyond its own actions, the EU has sought to coordinate policies
on Burma internationally, in order to make the actions of all
concerned countries more effective. These efforts have included
extensive consultations with the Government of the United States
aimed at coordinating efforts with respect to Burma, including a
recent
February 10, 1997
His Excellency
Jacques Santer
President
European Union
200 Rue Deli
B1049, Brussels, Belgium
Dear Mr. President:
I am the chief sponsor of the Burma Selective Purchase Law which
was adopted by the government of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts last year. I am deeply disturbed to learn about the
recent comments by the European Commission regarding this law.
Massachusetts now denies most state contracts to companies doing
business in Myanmar for one reason-to pressure that country's
illegal government to end its violations of the most basic
democratic rights of its citizens.
I support good relations between Europe and the United States,
and I believe a strong relationship is critical to the future of
our nation. However, it is not appropriate for the European Union
to involve itself in the internal affairs of Massachusetts when
those affairs do not violate the Declaration of Human Rights or
the fundamental democratic rights of our citizens. The union
should not attempt to intimidate the Massachusetts state
government into changing the standards it has established for
doing business, nor should it attempt to place a chilling effect
on other United States legislatures which are this year
considering similar legislation. Therefore, I strongly urge the
European Community to end its opposition to this law and not to
proceed to any challenge of it under the World Trade Organization
dispute settlement procedure.
I appreciate you immediate attention to this matter. Please reply
to me directly or through the United States Department of State.
Yours truly,
Byron Rushing
cc: Ambassador Hugo Paemen
EUROPEAN UNION
DELEGATION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION
The European Commission presents its compliments to the
Department of State with reference to the Act Regulating State
Contracts with companies doing business with or in Burma
(Myanmar) enacted on 25 June 1996 by the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts (1996 Mass. ALS 130. 1996 Mass. Adv. Legis. Serv.
130: 1996 Mass. H.B. 2833)
This legislation forbids Massachusetts state agencies, state
authorities, the House of Representatives or the State Senate to
sign new contracts or renewals of existing contracts with
companies doing business with or in Burma.
The European Community is of the opinion that the above mentioned
legislation is a breach of the rules for procurement procedures
as stipulated in the Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA).
Firstly, it violates Article VIII(b) of the GPA given that it
imposes conditions on a tendering company which are not essential
to ensure the firm's capability to fulfil the contract. Secondly,
it intringes Article X(3) of the GPA, because it imposes
qualification criteria based on political, rather than economic
considerations. Thirdly, it is in contradiction to Article XIlI (
4 ) of the GPA to the extent that the statute allows the award of
contracts to be based on political instead of economic
considerations.
When concluding the GPA, the US accepted to cover the state of
Massachusetts under its offer of sub-federal agencies in order to
balance the EC's offer to the US. By limiting access of European
suppliers to the procurement of Massachusetts state agencies,
state authorities, the House of Representatives or the State
Senate, the USA is reducing its GPA offer.
Furthermore, it appears that several other sub-federal
authorities have adopted or are adopting legislation or
ordinances with a similar effect. The state of Massacnhusetts is
also considering similar measures with regard to another country
besides Burma. We underline that these types of sub-federal
actions reduce the L'S offer under the GPA or affect the way
special or exclusive rights are attributed.
The European Community requests the US government to transmit its
concern to the State of Massachusetts. The European Community
also wishes to know what action, if any, the US Government
intends to take in response to the Massachusetts measure.
Futhermore, the European Community fully reserves is rights under
the WTO dispute settlement procedure.
The European Commission avails itself of this opportunity to
renew to the Department of State the assurances of its highest
consideration.
Washington. DC
January 22, 1997
Department of State
Washington. DC 20520
30
March, 1998
The Honourable Byron Rushing
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
House of Representatives
State House
Boston, MA 02133-1054
Dear Mr. Rushing,
Following a discussion of Burma at the EU-US Senior Level Group
meeting and a letter I received from Prime-Minister in exile Dr.
Seim Win, I thought it would be helpful if I wrote to you again
in order to set out the EU's position. In particular, I would
like to provide you with a full overview of measures the EU has
taken in the last two years with the aim of restoring democracy
and human rights in Burma. Let me underline that we share your
concern as regards the present unsatisfactory situation in Burma
and that I hope that the combined weight of the EU and the US
will lead to the necessary changes. In this context I would like
to thank you for your ideas on ways to promote democracy in Burma
which you put forward at the meeting you had with European
officials in February.
The EU has an unshakeable commitment to protecting and promoting
human rights globally and uses strong pressure to influence
events in Burma. It has undertaken the following steps:
* Following a European Commission investigation into human
rights violations in 1996, the EU adopted a Common Position
on Burma on 28 October 1996 under which all military
personnel in the EU Member States were expelled. The Common
Position, which took effect on 29 October, also put an
embargo on arms, ammunitions and military equipment. With
the exception of humanitarian aid (see below), all other
assistance programs were suspended.
* On 24 March 1997, the EU suspended EU tariff preferences for
Burma because of the ruling SLORC's failure to make progress
towards advancing democracy and human rights. The EU'S
decision is in the form of a binding Regulation and suspends
Burma's access to the EU's Generalised System of Preferences
(GSP) for its exports of industrial (e.g. textiles) and
agricultural (e.g. tropical hardwood) goods. According to
the terms of the regulation the withdrawal of GSP, which
affects potentially many tens of millions of dollars of
industrial goods, will remain suspended until such time as
democracy and respect for human rights are restored in
Burma.
* On 20 October 1997, the EU renewed its sanctions against
Burma as set out in the 1996 Common Position on Burma. The
1997 version of the Common Position reaffirms measures taken
previously and introduces additional measures: including a
ban on entry visas for members of the SLORC and their
families; a ban on entry visas for members of the
military/security forces involved in policies that impede
Burma's transition to democracy; and a suspension of
high-level bilateral governmental visits to Burma.
* The EU obtained from thirteen countries associated to the EU
(Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary,
Iceland, Latvia, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and
Slovenia) agreement to ensure that their respective national
policies conform to the Common Position.
* On 12 November 1997, the EU proceeded to an indefinite
postponement of the annual EU-ASEAN Joint Co-operation
Council as a result of a dispute over Burma's attendance at
the meeting. The Joint Co-operation Council is the
institution set up for implementing the provisions of the
EC-ASEAN Cooperation Agreement. This demonstrates that
despite the great importance which the EU attaches to its
relationship with ASEAN, it felt that its concerns over the
deplorable human rights situation in Burma should be clearly
communicated to its ASEAN partners. The Commission had
already made clear its disapproval of ASEAN's plans to
accept Burma as a member, for example during a high-level
EU-ASEAN meeting of foreign ministers in Singapore in
February, 1997.
* The EU was instrumental in securing a United Nations General
Assembly resolution approved on 12 December, 1997,
expressing grave concern about the human rights situation in
Burma. More widely, the EU uses every opportunity to express
publicly its disapproval of the SLORC regime, through joint
political statements, Council and European Parliament
resolutions or otherwise. For example, Manuel Marin,
Vice-President of the European Commission, strongly
condemned the SLORC regime at the Plenary Session of the
European Parliament on 13 January 1998.
* The EU is contributing significantly to help the Burmese
refugee population. It has provided more than $20 million in
the last three years through UNHCR or Non-Governmental
Organisations for the support of ethnic minorities living in
Burma as well as for refugees in the neighbouring countries
of Thailand and Bangladesh. For example, the EU contributed
approximately $ 9 million for a programme assisting Rohingya
refugees in Bangladesh and for repatriation assistance and
small-scale re-integration projects for returnees in Rakhine
State. The interventions resulted in improved education and
health services, increased quantity and quality of water
sources and sanitation facilities and improved
transportation networks linking villages and markets. The EU
has also funded a technical co-ordination office in
Chittagong for refugee programmes in Bangladesh.
* Furthermore, the European Commission is directly involved in
providing relief to the local population, particularly under
its own humanitarian assistance programme (ECHO). This year,
it will spent nearly $ 1 million to provide food and
shelter.
* The EU is also contributing significantly to raising
awareness about human rights abuses in Burma and is
providing technical and financial support to facilitate the
transition to a democratic and freely elected government.
For example, we have recently decided to provide more than $
1 million for a Europe-Burma liaison office in Brussels in
order to foster co-operation with the opposition.
* In addition, European Commission Vice-President Manuel Marin
has recently agreed in principle to increase further the
support for the Burmese democracy movement, in particular
with regard to the ongoing study on transition to democracy
in Burma. We are presently awaiting proposals from the
democracy movement as to what form further assistance could
take. We are also exploring the setting-up of a scholarship
fund for Burmese students and academics with a view to
forming future leaders and facilitating transition. The
Commission has regular contacts with the opposition to
support it in its cause.
In conclusion, I believe that the EU's record is testimony to its
strong resolve in achieving a return to democracy and the full
respect of human rights in Burma. I would be very glad if this
letter would contribute to resolving the outstanding legal
differences between the EU and the US on issues related to Burma
and would thereby open the way for an increased cooperation to
the benefit of the Burmese people.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any further
help to you.
Hugo Paemen
Head of Delegation
RESTRICTED BURMA PURCHASE LIST
U.S. COMPANIES
COMPANIES HEADQUARTERED IN MASSACHUSETTS
none
COMPANIES WITH SUBSIDIARIES, AFFILIATES, BRANCHES, ETC. IN
MASSACHUSETTS
Carlson Holdings Inc.
Chase Manhattan Corp. (New)
Johnson & Johnson Inc.
Textron Inc.
COMPANIES NOT ESTABLISHED IN MASSACHUSETTS
Abercrombie and Kent JCB (International)
(A&K) Intl Inc. Credit Card
American Vision KMD Computer LTD.
Professional McDermott International
Angelina Hardwood sales (s)
Arvin Industries Inc. Northwest Airlines
(s) Ocean Cruise Line Inc.
Atlantic Richfield Co. Pacific Architects &
(s) Engineers
Caterpillar (s) Pan American Enterprises
China Resources Procter and Gamble Co.
Development Inc. (s)
Consolidated Stores Salmor Import Export
Corp. Corp.
Dean Hardwoods Inc. Servcorp
DHL Airways Showcase Entertainment
East Asia Gold Corp. Inc.
Federal Express Corp. Silver Sea Cruise
(s) Smith International Inc.
First General Services (s)
Gaeltaryn Ltd. Teak imports
Halliburton Co. (s) International
HFS Inc. (s) Texaco (s)
Indo-China Express Inc Unocal Corp. (s)
Inland Water Transport United Parcel Service
Interdigital United Technologies
Communications Corp. Corp.
Interpublic Group of Zin International
Cos. (s) Zippo Manufacturing
NON-U.S. COMPANIES
COMPANIES HEADQUARTERED IN MASSACHUSETTS
none
COMPANIES WITH SUBSIDIARIES, AFFILIATES, BRANCHES, ETC. IN
MASSACHUSETTS
Alcatel Aisthom SA
Bell Metal Industries
BMW (Bayerische
Motorwerke)
BOC Group PLC Mita Industrial Co. Ltd.
British Airways Mitsubishi Construction
Burmah Castrol PLC Mitsubishi Corp.
Comfort Group Mitsubishi Electric
Chemical Co. of Mitsubishi Heavy
Malaysia Bhd. (CCM) Industries
Daiwa Institute of Mitsubishi Materials
Reasearch Mitsubishi Motors Corp.
Daiwa Securities Co. Nikko Shoji Co.
Ltd. Nova Corp.
Deutsche Lufthansa AG PSA Peugeot Citroen SA
Eagle (Myanmar) Co. Sanwa Bank
Ltd Seiko Corp.
Eagle Company Ltd? Shangri-La Hotels Ltd.
Gemco International Sharp Corp.
B.V. Shell Transport & Trading
Globe Industries GmbH Co. Plc.
HSBC Holdings PLC Schlumberger Ltd. (s)
Hyundai Corp. Siemens AG
Japan Air Lines Singapore Airlines Ltd.
Kajima Corp. Sony Corp.
KLM Royal Dutch Sumitomo Corp.
Airlines Telefonaktiebolaget
Konica Co. LMEricsson
Landmarks Bhd. Toshiba Corp.
Mackie International Toyota Motor Corp.
Group PLC Nova Corp.
M.O. Air System Inc. United Engineers Ltd.
(M.O. Tourist) Yusen Air & Sea Service
Marubeni Corp.
Matsushita Electric
Industrial Co. Ltd
Mazda Motor Corp.
COMPANIES NOT ESTABLISHED IN MASSACHUSETTS
A & S International Co, Ltd. Allied Container Services
A.P.G. Technologies Pte. Ltd. Altius Houtagenturen B.V.
ABB Asea Brown Bove, Ltd. Amara International Singapore
ABN Amro Bank Ltd. Amer Group Ltd.
Acer Inc. Andre Hesse & Co. GmbH
Adman Club Co. Ltd. Antares Trading GmbH
AEA International Arnold Otto Meyer
Aeolus (Dong Feng) Trucks & Asia Associates Bangkok Ltd.
Buses Atlantic Outline Myanmar Co.
Ajinomoto Co. Inc. Ltd.
All Nippon Airways Co. Ltd. B.A.T. Industries PLC
Bagan Hotel Co. Ltd. Empire Oil Co. (Pacific) Ltd.
Baiyoke Kandawgyi Hotel Co. EPG Travel Co. Ltd
Ban Hock Hin Engineering Co. Europ Continents
Pte. Ltd. Evian
Bangkok Bank of Commerce Exe Design Co. Ltd.
Bangkok Container Lines Exe Sakura Co. Ltd.
Bank of Ayudhya Export Import Bank of Korea
Bank of Commerce Malaysia Export Import Bank of Thailand
Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi Ltd. Fidelio Software Co. Ltd.
Banque Francaise Du Commerce First Automotive works (FAW)
Exterieur First Dynasty Mines Ltd.
Banque Indosuez Fraser & Neave Ltd.
Banque Nationale de Paris Fritz Anders GmbH & Co.
Berjaya Industrial Bhd. Fuji Bank Ltd.
Berliner Bank Fuji Photo Film Co. Ltd.
Beta Funds Fujita Corp.
Bionorica GmbH Fulbrim (s) Pte. Ltd.
Bollinger Furniere Gainwell Medimart
Bousteadco Singapore Ltd. Golden Shell Co. Ltd.
Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Guinness PLC
Ltd. Hakuhodo Inc.
C&P Holdings Pte. Ltd. Hanako
C. Melchers GmbH & Co. Hazama Corp.
CBM Corp. Health Corp. of Singapore (HCS)
Central Floating Hotel Ltd. H