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

Mass. seeks to reinstate Burma law

<html>
<font size=4><b>Mass. seeks to reinstate Burma law <br>
</font><font size=2>Posted on 9/17/99, 09:12 AM CST.<br>
</b>Source:
</font><font size=2 color="#0000FF"><b><u>Boston</font></b></u><font size=2 color="#000000">.<br>
Posted by: <b>ShweInc NEWs<br>
</font></b><font size=3>Arguing that it has the right to choose its
trading partners, Massachusetts asked the US Supreme Court yesterday to
restore its law preventing the state from doing business with companies
that trade with Burma, also known as Myanmar. <br>
<br>
The US Circuit Court of Appeals in June upheld a lower court's ruling
striking down the statute. Although the Appeals Court found human rights
conditions in Burma are ''deplorable,'' it said the Massachusetts law
''interferes with the foreign affairs power of the federal government and
is thus unconstitutional.'' <br>
<br>
A Supreme Court ruling could affect dozens of states and local
governments with economic boycotts protesting perceived social or
political injustices in foreign lands. <br>
<br>
''It will settle the question of selective purchasing laws and it may
have substantial impact on other types of laws like divestment laws, or
resolutions concerning human rights issues,'' said Assistant Attorney
General Thomas Barnico. <br>
<br>
The initial lawsuit was brought by the National Foreign Trade Council,
which represents 580 major US corporations. The Massachusetts law
affected more than 30 member companies, but council officials refused to
name which ones for fear consumers will boycott them. <br>
<br>
The legal challenge has been called the first salvo in an international
battle to eliminate local sanction laws. <br>
<br>
The council's president, Frank Kittredge, said at the outset of the case
his goal was to get a decision that would stop state and local sanctions
around the country. <br>
<br>
Kittredge declined comment on the Supreme Court filing, saying he had not
yet seen the petition. <br>
<br>
''It's way too soon,'' he said. ''We need to look it over and study it
and decide what to do.'' <br>
<br>
The trade group has 30 days to respond to the state's filing, mailed
yesterday. It can argue against the high court hearing the case, or it
can agree the court should hear it. <br>
<br>
The state's supporters - which include other states, members of Congress,
human rights organizations and cities and towns - also have 30 days to
file briefs giving additional reasons the Supreme Court to hear the case.
<br>
<br>
Massachusetts, which purchases $2 billion in goods and services annually,
enacted its law because of human rights violations by Burmese military
dictators.<br>
<br>
</font>
<BR>
</html>