[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
[theburmanetnews] BurmaNet News: Ma
Reply-To: theburmanetnews-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [theburmanetnews] BurmaNet News: March 22, 2000
________________ THE BURMANET NEWS _________________
An on-line newspaper covering Burma
_________________ www.burmanet.org _________________
March 22, 2000
Issue # 1492
_______________________________________________________
NOTED IN PASSING:
The European Union might soon decide to reinforce its
common position towards Burma (Myanmar). Belgium will
advocate the linking of tougher sanctions with a dialogue
between EU and Asean.
L. Michel, Belgian foreign minister (See BIRMA GROEP:
BELGIAN POSITION TOWARDS BURMA)
_______________________________________________________
[The hardware upgrade at the server hosting BurmaNet's website
has turned into an outage. The web version of BurmaNet will
not be available until the host site is restored, which
should be within the next day or two.]
*Inside Burma
KRHG: TRANSLATIONS OF 300 WRITTEN ORDERS FROM REGIME UNITS
DEMANDING FORCED LABOR AVAILABLE ON WEB
KNU: SITUATION REPORT ON VILLAGES IN YADANA PIPELINE AREA
*International
LEGAL TIMES: BURMA SANCTIONS SCRUTINIZED
NPR: NINA TOTENBERG PREVIEWS BURMA SUPREME COURT ARGUMENTS
AP: JUSTICES QUESTION STATE SANCTIONS
REUTERS: BURMA CASE ARGUMENT
BURMANET: HEARING MAY DECIDE WHETHER UNOCAL CASE GOES TO TRIAL
SPDC: INSIGHTS INTO FUTURE DIRECTION OF MYANMAR FOREIGN POLICY
BIRMA GROEP: BELGIAN POSITION TOWARDS BURMA
SPDC: INSIGHTS INTO FUTURE DIRECTION OF MYANMAR FOREIGN POLICY
AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CO.: MYANMAR MAY RESTORE THAI FISHING LICENSES-MINISTER
USA TODAY: SOME LOCALITIES WANT TO DECIDE THEIR OWN FOREIGN POLICY
*Opinion/Editorials
*Other
REPORT ON TEACHING ETHNIC LANGUAGE IN BURMA
PD BURMA: CALENDAR OF BURMA RELATED EVENTS
___________________ INSIDE BURMA ______________________
KRHG: TRANSLATIONS OF 300 WRITTEN ORDERS FROM REGIME UNITS
DEMANDING FORCED LABOR AVAILABLE ON WEB
Karen Human Rights Group
March, 2000
A new KHRG Report is now available on the KHRG website at:
http://metalab.unc.edu/freeburma/humanrights/khrg/archive
The report, "SPDC and DKBA Orders to Villages: Set 2000-A"
(report #2000-01), contains the direct translations of close
to 300 order documents sent by SPDC military units and authorities
to villages in Papun, Toungoo, Dooplaya and Pa'an districts
of Karen State from late 1998 through December 1999, as well
as some DKBA orders and a propaganda letter issued by the
'Karen Peace Army'. It includes many orders demanding forced
labour which were issued after the SPDC claims to have 'banned'
forced labour in May 1999, as well as demands for intelligence,
food, building materials and extortion money, restrictions on
the movement and activities of villagers, and various other
types of orders
_______________________________________________________
KNU: SITUATION REPORT ON VILLAGES IN YADANA PIPELINE AREA
KNU Mergui-Tavoy District Information Department
March 23, 2000
03/00
Situation of villages in Yadana natural gas pipeline area under
gas pipeline's security troops.
Situation in Talineya village tract
9.3.2000
Talineya village tract is in Yebyu Township, Tavoy district in Tenasserim
division. This village tract makes up with five villages namely Dauklauk
village (50 households approx:), Pedaukgon village (approx: 60 households),
Myaukpugon village (approx: 40 households), Talineya village (approx: 50
households) and Kalonehta village (approx: 200 households) respectively.
In January 2000, Light Infantry Battalion 407's battalion commander Lt.
Col. Htun Way demanded four baskets of paddy rice from every household
within Talineya village tract without paying government set price. As
villagers in Talineya village tract live on shifting plantation and
some gardens, some people did not have sufficient rice for the year.
People who do not have enough rice have to buy rice from other village
tract with local price (750-800 Kyat/basket) and sent to LIB 407
headquarters without failure because they were threaten to be taken
action by the battalion commander.
That commander also demanded 500 beetle-nuts from every household
in that tract for his battalion fund in the same January. Each
beetle-nut price is 4-5 kyats locally. Those who do not have
gardens or beetle-nut plantations have to buy from those who
have beetle-nut plantations and send to battalion headquarters.
He did the same as on paddy rice and pay no money for the
beetle-nuts.
According to the field information LIB 407 commander did the same to
other nearby village tracts under his responsible area, demanding
paddy rice and beetle-nut without paying anything.
People in that area have to pay for military porter fees every
month, which cost 1000 kyats per month. Those who unable to
pay, have to serve as frontline porter. Though the authorities
said, they will pay 25000 kyats to those who serve as frontline
porter, actually those who have to server as frontline porters
got only 10000 kyats. The paid money was from the fund the SPDC
authorities collect 1000 kyat/month/family.
As the dry season arrived, people from these village tracts were
forced to work as plantation clearing workers in LIB 406 and
407's rubber plantations and cashew-nut plantations. This year
more than those regular works LIB 407 ordered Talineya tract
villagers to clear a new 100 acres for rice plantation. Those
who fail to go must paid 300 kyats for substitution.
Order without material
In the middle of February 2000, Yebyu Township SPDC office
ordered Kanbauk administration to implement paved road within
Kanbauk village. Kanbauk administration ordered all the resident
within Kanbauk to provide road construction material (boulders
& chippings) 100 cubic feet for every 3 households within the
fixed date 29.2.2000 to where they were ordered to send. Some
families have no time to collect and send those materials.
Such people have to pay for 3500 kyats jointly with other 2
similar families to fulfill their quota. Kanbauk administration
has requested TOTAL Company to supply the road construction
with "Tar or bitumen". Yebyu township administration provided
only order to Kanbauk to implement paved road but no fund no
materials for the construction. It will need labour and
machineries if necessary materials were ready for road
construction. Therefore, people in Kanbauk are worrying
that they may have to serve as road construction labour
and machineries.
People in Kanbauk have to pay for security and development
fund every month. Every night at every town quarters 3 persons,
have to stand sentry for fire protection in terms. Those who
fail in their term have to pay 300 kyat for substitution. 150
kyats for development fund must be paid every month for every
family.
Thought they have to serve as sentry in every town quarters
they could not stand against the military patrols from IB 273
who take security duty for Yadana natural gas pipeline. The
troop gave reasons for their task and entered into the town
quarters and stole domestic animals, cloths on drying lines
and households utensils very often.
SPDC's civilian based business
Oo Aung Khin s a cattle trader from Pyatha village in Nabulel
village tract (Yebyu townsyhip, Tavoy district in Tenasserim
division). On 27.2.2000, he unfortunately met a military column
lead by Major Aung Naing from Light Infantry Battalion 406 on
between Sintha and Dauklauk village near Ye-Tavoy railways
while he was heading for trading post on Thai-Burma border
with 55 cattle.
Aung Naing called him and told that he (Aung Naing) has
authority to capture or release him any time, but if Oo
Aung Khin offers 20 cows and 10 bullocks for LIB 406
animal husbandry project, he (Aung Naing) will release
him with the rest of the animals. Hoping to be released
with the rest of his cattle Oo Aung Khin had to offer
30 cattle to the military officer. According to the
market price 20 cows cost 450,000 kyat and 10 oxen
cost 600,000 kyat respectively. That was why after
he sold out the rest 25 cattle he lost about one
million kyats
LIB 406 battalion headquarters located 25 miles in
the north of Tavoy and set up animal husbandry ranch
for battalion fund raising business. Since they are
started this business they wandered in their responsible
area and confiscated cattle from the villagers in
wicked ways. In that way, recently the number of
their animal rose rapidly up to 300 and still
increasing amazingly.
___________________ INTERNATIONAL _____________________
LEGAL TIMES: BURMA SANCTIONS SCRUTINIZED
By Tony Mauro
Wednesday, March 22, 2000
Several Supreme Court justices seemed sympathetic Wednesday toward a Massachusetts anti-Burma law
that the state defends as a constitutional way to voice its objections to human rights abuses abroad.
But by the end of the hour of arguments, it appeared that Solicitor General Seth Waxman had turned
the Court back toward his view that the state law is a "considerable source of irritation" that conflicts
with national foreign policy and should be struck down.
"Can we have 50 states passing resolutions denouncing different countries?" Justice Anthony
Kennedy asked at one point. His answer seemed to be no. But Justice Stephen Breyer said
the state law, which penalizes companies that do business with Burma when the state contracts
to purchase goods and services, has an "obviously worthwhile objective." Justice Sandra Day
O'Connor also noted that many states enacted laws against investment in South Africa in the
1980s without objection from the federal government.
The case, Natsios v. National Foreign Trade Council, is a clash between two principles that
appeal to the Court's conservative majority: strengthening the hand of states on one hand,
and underscoring the national imperative to speak with one voice to foreign governments
on the other.
Assistant Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas Barnico ably appealed to the Court's
soft spot for states' rights, even arguing that the framers of the Constitution "knew [state]
boycotts well and held them dear."
When Justice David Souter asked why a simple resolution passed by the state legislature
condemning Burma would not suffice, Barnico said, "I'm not sure that would clear our
conscience." Having dealings with the oppressive Burmese military regime, Barnico
said, is "so contrary to our Constitution."
Barnico also headed off trouble when he acknowledged that Congress could
prohibit laws such as the one passed in Massachusetts if it didn't want states
getting involved in foreign policy. But in instances where Congress has not
explicitly pre-empted state action, he argued that states are free to shape their
purchasing policies as they please. "Congress has the pre-eminent voice" in
foreign policy matters, Barnico said, but that does not preclude states from
speaking out.
Justice O'Connor said that Congress has spoken on the subject of Burma,
passing a law in 1996 that restricts new investments in that nation. But Barnico
argued that the federal law "says nothing about state and local laws," even though
it knew it could prohibit them. He repeatedly cited congressional support for similar
state laws that proliferated in the 1980s to protest apartheid in South Africa.
Justice Antonin Scalia was Barnico's best friend during the arguments, offering
helpful asides and asking his opponent tougher questions. Timothy Dyk of the D.C.
office of Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue argued for the trade council, asserting that
states may not enact laws like the one in Massachusetts if they have the purpose
of affecting the domestic politics of other nations. Dyk noted that Massachusetts
has $2 billion in purchasing power, but said that it should not be allowed to use
its financial clout to be an actor on the international stage.
"The Constitution was designed to give foreign policy to the national sovereign,"
Dyk said.
Dyk ran into some trouble when he suggested under questioning that states might
run afoul of the Constitution even if they only passed resolutions condemning
policies in Burma without economic sanctions. That did not sit well with justices
who seemed to favor letting states at least voice their views on foreign policy
matters.
Waxman was more forceful in his criticism of the state law, asserting that it had
created an embarrassing "spectacle" because it conflicted what he described
as a "middle path" policy the Clinton administration had adopted toward Burma,
now known as Myanmar.
"If this is indeed a big deal, Congress could pass a law," Scalia said.
Justice O'Connor interjected, "Congress did pass a law."
Waxman agreed, but said Congress should not have to pass a law every time it
wants to pre-empt state action on foreign policy matters. Sometimes diplomacy
is best conducted quietly, Waxman said, and forcing a noisy congressional debate
on every nation that some locality objects to would create a "wholly unnecessary
irritant."
Waxman's "one voice" argument may have carried the day. But from the oral
arguments, it seemed that several justices at least would like to vote in support
of the Massachusetts law.
_______________________________________________________
AP: JUSTICES QUESTION STATE SANCTIONS
March 22, 2000
WASHINGTON (AP) _ More than a decade after the South Africa
boycotts, some Supreme Court justices questioned Wednesday whether
individual U.S. states can refuse to buy from companies doing
business in countries known for human rights abuses.
A foreign trade group and the Clinton administration argued that
Massachusetts unlawfully meddled in U.S. foreign policy by limiting
state purchases from companies that do business in Myanmar, also
known as Burma.
Some justices appeared to agree.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked, ``For Massachusetts to go it
on its own when the United States is saying we want to get together
with our world neighbors'' on a Myanmar policy, ``isn't there a
clash?''
Justice Stephen G. Breyer wondered if states also could enact
purchasing policies intended to influence the actions of other
states. That could result in ``a kind of nightmare'' or ``chaos,''
he said.
The lawyer for Massachusetts, Thomas A. Barnico, told the
justices that states have the right to withhold ``tax funds from
the indirect support of brutal regimes abroad.'' The Constitution's
framers ``knew boycotts well'' and did not bar states from taking
such actions, he said.
The case is another test of the balance of power between states
and the federal government with justices discussing some of the
same issues that have come before them in previous hearings this
year.
Lawyer Timothy B. Dyk, arguing for the National Foreign Trade
Council, said the 1996 Massachusetts law unlawfully interferes in
U.S. foreign policy.
Congress passed more limited sanctions against Myanmar later in
1996, and that bars states from trying on their own to influence
that country's government, Dyk said.
However, Barnico contended Congress' 1996 Myanmar sanctions did
not bar states from taking their own actions.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor noted that a number of states
boycotted companies doing business in South Africa during the 1980s
during the apartheid era.
``These were widespread practices by states then, were they
not?'' she said. ``The very purpose of it was to change something
going on in the South African government.''
Dyk contended those boycotts were unlawful.
Solicitor General Seth Waxman, supporting the foreign trade
group, said Congress actually authorized the South Africa boycott.
But he added that because Congress has adopted its own policy on
Myanmar, Massachusetts' policy amounts to interference.
Justice Antonin Scalia suggested that Massachusetts' law could
be considered a neutral measure that says, ``we don't buy from
anybody that violates human rights.''
Members of the Free Burma Coalition rallied outside the Supreme
Court building during the hour-long argument.
``This is the modern-day equivalent of the Boston Tea Party,''
coalition lawyer Tom Higdon said. ``We are saying we care about
human rights and we will not have corporations or the (European
Union) dictate to us what products to buy and who can buy them.''
More than a dozen city governments also have enacted some type
of trade restrictions regarding Myanmar. Some have adopted similar
limits relating to China, Cuba and Northern Ireland.
The military has ruled Myanmar, one of the world's poorest
countries, since 1962. In 1988, the military gunned down thousands
of protesters during a crackdown on a pro-democracy uprising.
***
BurmaNet adds:
To read the briefs in the Supreme Court case, go to:
http://washingtonpost.findlaw.com/docket/mardocket.html#99-474
_______________________________________________________
NPR: NINA TOTENBERG PREVIEWS BURMA SUPREME COURT ARGUMENTS
March 22, 2000
To listen to this piece in RealAudio, go to:
http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/me/20000322.me.10.rmm
NPR's Nina Totenberg previews today's arguments in a Supreme Court
case that tests whether state and local governments can refuse to buy
goods and services from companies that do business with countries
with bad human rights records. The case involves a Massachusetts
law that's directed against Burma, also known as Myanmar. One
side argues that the case is about state autonomy. The other counters
that the case is about the federal government's ability to speak on
foreign policy with one voice. (7:20)
_______________________________________________________
REUTERS: BURMA CASE ARGUMENT
WASHINGTON, March 22 (Reuters) - Debating foreign affairs,
human rights and state sovereignty issues, a number of U.S.
Supreme Court justices on Wednesday questioned whether
Massachusetts may limit purchases from companies that do
business with Myanmar.
During arguments, several justices appeared sceptical about
the constitutionality of the state law, which was adopted in
1996 because of widespread human rights abuses by the military
regime in the southeast Asian nation formerly called Burma.
A decision in the case, expected by the end of June, could
have far-reaching implications as a number of other states or
cities adopted similar measures in the 1980s and 1990s involving
Myanmar and other foreign nations.
The ``selective purchasing law'' directs state officials to
publish a list of companies doing business with Myanmar, and
restricts the ability of those firms to sell goods and services
to Massachusetts agencies.
The law effectively barred firms that do business with
Myanmar from doing any business with Massachusetts and its state
agencies by adding 10 percent to any bids received from such
companies.
POTENTIAL NIGHTMARE
Justice Stephen Breyer asked the lawyer representing
Massachusetts whether states also could enact purchasing
policies intended to influence the actions of other states. That
could result in a ``nightmare'' or ``chaos,'' Breyer said.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor questioned whether Massachusetts
could adopt a similar law against another U.S. state if it did
not like that state's policy on the death penalty.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked, ``For Massachusetts to go
it on its own when the United States is saying we want to get
together with world neighbours'' on a Myanmar policy, ``isn't
there a clash?''
She said the authors of the U.S. Constitution wanted the
U.S. government to ``speak with one voice'' on foreign affairs.
During the 1980s, many states and cities boycotted companies
that did business in South Africa because of racial apartheid in
that country.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist asked Massachusetts lawyer
Thomas Barnico when states previously took such positions
involving foreign governments.
When Barnico replied that it was in colonial America, before
the U.S. Constitution had been adopted, Rehnquist said, he did
think that ``was a very satisfactory basis for analysis.''
U.S. SETS TRADE POLICY
Justice David Souter said Massachusetts could condemn the
Myanmar regime, but that it would be up to the U.S. government
to go beyond an expression of views to regulating trade or a
boycott. ``Wouldn't that be a sensible way?'' he asked.
Barnico argued that states have the right to take such trade
actions aimed at ``brutal regimes abroad.''
Representing the Clinton administration, Solicitor General
Seth Waxman said the law should be struck down because it
interferes with the federal government's exclusive power to set
foreign policy and regulate foreign commerce.
He said a federal law providing for economic sanctions
against Myanmar was adopted three months after the state law,
and it specifically rejected the Massachusetts policy.
Justice Antonin Scalia seemed the most sympathetic toward
the law. He said that if Congress did not like the state law, it
could pass a law that explicitly stops ``states from running off
with foreign affairs powers.''
The law was challenged by the National Foreign Trade
Council, a group that represents U.S. businesses.
``This case is without question the most important foreign
affairs case to come before the Supreme Court in decades,''
Frank Kittredge, the president of the group, said.
_______________________________________________________
BURMANET: HEARING MAY DECIDE WHETHER UNOCAL CASE GOES TO TRIAL
March 23, 2000
A hearing will be held on April 4th at the Federal Court
in Los Angeles to decide Unocal's motion for summary
judgement in two lawsuits by Burmese villagers who
say they were subjected to forced labor and other
abuses because of the company's Yadana pipeline.
The summary judgement hearing is the end of the second
of the three main phases in a civil trial in the US
and tests whether there is enough of a factual dispute
between the litigants that reasonable people could
disagree. If reasonable people could disagree, the
case would be slated for a jury trial, which is the
third and final phase.
The first phase of the litigation, which tests
only whether the plaintiffs would have a legal
claim assuming all of their factual allegations
were true, was decided in favor of the Burmese
plaintiffs. By winning the first phase, the
plaintiffs were entitled to civil discovery and
the parties have spent the last year and a half
taking testimony from witnesses and exchanging
copies of documents related to the construction
of the pipeline.
Richard Paez, the Federal Judge hearing the case,
has been promoted to the Court of Appeals and will
likely turn the case over to another lower court
judge after deciding the summary judgement motion.
_______________________________________________________
BIRMA GROEP: BELGIAN POSITION TOWARDS BURMA
Belgian position towards Burma
In a recent question in parliament by Mrs. M. Gerkens
(Ecolo/Agalev - the Green government party) on the Belgian
position towards sanctions on Burma the foreign minister
L. Michel answers the following:
"...I am fully aware of the current situation in Burma
(Myanmar) where the human rights violations are terrible.
My political family has continuously supported Mrs. Aung
San Suu Kyi. Furthermore, the European liberals have had
the honour to grant her the Sakharov Price in 1990, one
year before she received the Nobel Peace Price.
Actions of our country have always been taken in cooperation
with our other European partners. We will continue this
policy as I feel a common position is much more efficient
than any single initiative. 15 EU countries are currently
redefining their position towards the regime in Rangon.
The European Union might soon decide to reinforce its
common position towards Burma (Myanmar). Belgium will
advocate the linking of tougher sanctions with a dialogue
between EU and Asean. This dialogue was interrupted about
three years ago because of the Burmese issue. Belgium
wants to clearly show that it makes a clear distinction
between Burma (Myanmar) and the other Asean partners."
Regards,
Michel Beankens - Kris Deckers
Birma Groep/Groupe Birmanie (KWIA)
_______________________________________________________
SPDC: INSIGHTS INTO FUTURE DIRECTION OF MYANMAR FOREIGN POLICY
NEWS & VIEWS FROM MYANMAR
WEEKLY BRIEF FROM MOFA. YANGON, MYANMAR
Vol.2 . 16 March 2000 . No.11
Insights into future direction of Myanmar Foreign Policy
The first round-table discussions on Myanmar Foreign Policy at
the first Meeting of heads of Mission of Myanmar Embassies, Permanent
Missions and Consulates-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was held
at the Wunzin Minyaza Hall of the Ministry on 15 March. Speaking on the
occasion, Minister for Foreign Affairs U Win Aung noted that the discussions
were the first ever the Ministry had arranged in its existence since its
inception on 17 March 1947. He also pointed out that it was timely to review
the foreign policy direction in the changing world situations when Myanmar
along with the others entered a new century, and he believed that the
discussions would bring about important insights into the future direction of
Myanmar Foreign Policy.
Papers submitted at the discussions included the emerging
international situation and implications for Myanmar; the future of regional
and inter- regional cooperation in Southeast Asia; enhanced engagement in
multilateral forums; the role of trade and economic development; human
resources development; and South-South cooperation and North-South dialogue.
_______________________________________________________
AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CO.: MYANMAR MAY RESTORE THAI FISHING LICENSES-MINISTER
ABC News, 20 March 2000
Myanmar may restore Thai fishing licences-minister
YANGON, March 20 (Reuters) - Thai Agriculture Minister Pongpol Adireksan
said on Monday Myanmar was considering restoring fishing rights for Thai
trawlers suspended since a siege at Yangon's Bangkok embassy last year.
Pongpol, heading a 20-member Thai delegation to neighbouring Myanmar, said
he had held talks on fishing and forestry with counterparts in Yangon.
"The Myanmar side has agreed in principle to restore the rights of Thai
trawlers," he said. "They are considering restoring the licences after
sorting out some technical matters."
The technical matters he referred to were apparently complaints from the
Myanmar side about abuses of fishing licences and overfishing by Thai
trawlers.
"They not only use very effective modern fishing gear, but also cheat us by
using one licence for more than a trawler," one Myanmar trawler owner told
Reuters.
Asked about the concerns, Pongpol said Thailand and Myanmar had agreed to
set up a monitoring system to check trawlers.
He also said the two sides agreed to continue trade in logs and sawn
timber, which has drawn criticism from environmental activists.
Myanmar authorities cancelled fishing licences for Thai trawlers in October
1999 after the Thai government allowed five anti-Yangon activists who
seized the Myanmar embassy in Bangkok for 24 hours free passage to a border
sanctuary.
The ban has cost the Thai fishing fleet tens of millions of dollars.
Pongpol said he was satisfied with his visit.
"I always see things from the bright side and I believe our visit will pave
the way for further cooperation. Myanmar is an important neighbour for
Thailand."
_______________________________________________________
USA TODAY: SOME LOCALITIES WANT TO DECIDE THEIR OWN FOREIGN POLICY
22.03.2000
Some localities want to decide own foreign policy
The Supreme Court will decide by July whether trade bans by states and
cities are constitutional
By Richard Willing
USA TODAY
AMHERST, Mass. -- No outsiders complained when this town's elders banned
nuclear power plants within its wooded borders.
When the health board outlawed smoking in bars and restaurants, no
protesters showed up to puff or picket.
And when the high school canceled this spring's production of ''West
Side Story'' -- insensitive to Puerto Ricans, it was said -- everyone
kept it cool, really cool. Parents and students met in small groups to
discuss diversity.
But when Amherst pulled its contracts from companies doing business with
Nigeria's military junta, a line was crossed. Threatening letters
arrived from a trade group representing 500 of the USA's largest
companies. The companies were suing the state of Massachusetts, which
had approved similar sanctions against Burma. Amherst, fearful that its
own laws were next, filed a brief supporting the state.
The case has reached the Supreme Court, which will decide by July
whether trade bans such as Amherst's and a similar restriction by the
state of Massachusetts violate the Constitution by using powers reserved
to the federal government. The key issue: Can a state or even a small
town have its own foreign policy?
The case's impact will be felt far beyond Massachusetts' borders, in
dozens of small towns, in large cities such as New York and Los Angeles
and in states from Vermont to California, where laws target alleged
human rights violators. Supporters call it ''community-based democracy
at its best.''
The court will hear arguments today. ''We discovered that big business
will pretty much leave you alone, if they think you are just out there
making statements,'' says Lois Barber, a longtime Amherst activist who
pressed for the ban on Nigerian contracts. ''When you start to cost them
money, suddenly you're speaking their language.''
Long history
The case, Natsios vs. National Foreign Trade Council, represents a
collision between the federal government's power to make foreign policy
and a history of local sanctions that goes back to the Boston Tea Party.
On one side are the massed guns of Western capitalism, all opposed to
the idea that a local government can pursue its own foreign policy: the
federal government, the 15 nations of the European Union, trade groups
representing more than 6,000 companies and a bipartisan group of three
dozen former foreign policy officials led by former president Gerald
Ford.
On the other, supporting local and state bans on trading with
disreputable regimes: 78 members of Congress, 16 governments, including
Amherst, 22 state attorneys general and 66 non-profit groups.
At stake are billions in trade losses if local laws and the
Massachusetts ban are upheld, the companies say.
The court's decision will be felt most acutely along the ''Birkenstock
belt.'' These are three dozen left-leaning towns from Cambridge, Mass.,
to Berkeley, Calif., that since 1992 have passed laws banning investment
in or trade with companies doing business in Nigeria, Burma, Cuba,
Switzerland and Tibet. But dozens of laws in much larger locales, such
as New York City, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, could also be affected.
Companies' cost
The trade council says upholding the sanctions could cost American
companies and eventually make it impossible for them to compete with
foreign rivals who face no such sanctions. The precedent, they say,
could result in towns and states curtailing trade with any country that
offends local voters. And the federal government says the Massachusetts
law and its local counterparts undercut its policies on rogue nations.
''There's a line out there between what states (and local governments)
can legitimately do and what belongs to the federal government. Now the
question is: Where is it?'' says Richard Bilder, international law
professor at the University of Wisconsin.
The case emerged from the 1996 Massachusetts law that added a 10%
surcharge to bids from companies doing business with Burma, also known
as Myanmar. The South Asian country is run by a military junta that,
according to the U.S. State Department, uses child labor in factories
and keeps the nation's elected leader under house arrest.
'Carbon copy'
''It was a carbon copy of what we'd done, with 'South Africa' scratched
out and 'Burma' written in,'' says Simon Billenness, a Boston-based
investment adviser who leads the New England Burma Roundtable. ''We
thought, 'No problem.' ''
He was wrong. The National Foreign Trade Council, a Washington,
D.C.-based group representing 500 American companies doing business
abroad, filed suit. The Massachusetts law jeopardized $2 billion a year
in contracts, but the precedent was even worse, council president Frank
Kittredge says.
''Our members -- Boeing, Caterpillar, GE -- were competing around the
world for business and getting run down by competitors,'' Kittredge
says. ''They'd tell a country: 'How do you know you won't get sanctioned
by some place in the U.S.? How would you get parts? How would you get
the (American) company to honor its contracts?' ''
The trade group had decided not to sue over South African sanctions, in
part, Kittredge says, because the sanctions had high visibility in
America. Burma was a different matter.
In 1998, a federal court in Boston found the Massachusetts ''Burma law''
violated the federal government's constitutional power to conduct
foreign policy. Last year, an appeals court agreed and added two more
reasons for striking down the Massachusetts law: It violates federal
power to regulate commerce, the court said, and a more recent federal
law that punishes Burma by blocking new investment supersedes it.
Within days of its lower court victory, the trade group sent letters to
about 30 local governments across the country, including Amherst, that
had adopted similar measures. The message: Drop your laws or meet in
court.
''It really took the wind out of us,'' says Lee Holt, an octogenarian
who with his wife, Margaret, has held an hourlong ''peace vigil'' on the
town green each Sunday for the past 20 years.
Amherst, a picturesque town of 35,000 about 90 miles west of Boston,
already had dropped companies that did business with Nigeria. A law
aimed at Burma was in the works.
The town, founded in 1759 has a tradition of protest dating to Shays'
Rebellion, an armed tax protest by Revolutionary War veterans in 1786.
In 1974, it became one of the first U.S. towns to drop stocks of
companies doing business in South Africa from its investments, in
protest of racial separation known as apartheid. At the Supreme Court,
the trade group and its allies are relying on arguments that won over
the lower court judges.
''The Constitution was designed to place exclusive control of foreign
affairs in the hands of the federal government,'' the business council
argues in its brief. ''The Burma law was designed to, and does, conduct
Massachusetts' 'own little version of foreign policy.' ''
Not so, counters Thomas Barnico, the state's assistant attorney general.
The local and state laws allow communities to apply a ''moral standard''
to their spending decisions.
The Supreme Court's past decisions cut both ways. In 1968, the court
struck down an Oregon law that prevented citizens of ''Iron Curtain''
countries from collecting inheritances from American relatives unless
they could show that communist governments would not confiscate the
money. But 20 years earlier, the court had upheld a similar California
statute.
Decision's scope
Scholars of the current case think today's Supreme Court is likely to
strike down some of the local laws.
The key is how far the court's decision reaches, says Vicki Jackson,
professor at Georgetown University Law Center. A broad decision, she
says, could affect ''Buy American'' laws and stock divestment as well as
state and local purchasing laws. But local laws may survive if the court
rules only that the federal Burma law takes precedence over the
Massachusetts measure.
Back in Amherst, other issues have captured residents' attention. A
proposed public parking structure is the subject of lively debate. The
Holts' young assistant has gone off to college, making it harder for
them to keep their Sunday vigils. And a group from nearby Greenfield is
trying to persuade the town to drop its name, which honors 18th century
Indian fighter Lord Jeffrey Amherst.
''Sometimes,'' says Hill Boss, a town board member, ''political
correctness can run amok.''
US STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WITH SANCTIONS ON BURMA
Investment
Burma: Los Angeles, 1998.
City and state contracts
Burma: Ann Arbor, Mich., 1996; Berkeley, Calif., 1995; Boulder, Colo.,
1996; Brookline, Mass., 1997; Cambridge, Mass., 1998; Carrboro, N.C.,
1996; Chapel Hill, N.C., 1997; Madison, Wis., 1996; state of
Massachusetts, 1996; Newton, Mass., 1997; Portland, Ore., 1998; Quincy,
Mass., 1997; San Francisco, 1995; Santa Monica, Calif., 1995;
Somerville, Mass., 1998; Takoma Park, Md., 1996; state of Vermont, 1999;
West Hollywood, Calif., 1997.
Investment and contracts
Burma: Alameda County, Calif., 1996; New York City, 1997; Oakland, 1996;
Palo Alto, Calif., 1997; Santa Cruz, Calif., 1997.
_______________________________________________________
_______________________ OTHER _________________________
REPORT ON TEACHING ETHNIC LANGUAGE IN BURMA
A copy of the initial report of the "Teaching of Ethnic Language and the
Role of Education in the Context of Mon Ethnic Nationality in Burma" can be
read on the web: http://www.students.ncl.ac.uk/thein.lwin/
I will be happy to get your comment.
Regards
TL
_______________________________________________________
PD BURMA: CALENDAR OF BURMA RELATED EVENTS
March 22nd : Rally for the Massachusetts Burma Law, Supreme Court Building, USA.
March 20th - 28th April : 56th session of the Commission on Human Rights, Geneva
March 25-26th : 4th ASEAN Finance Ministers Meeting, Bandar Seri Begawan
March 27th : Resistance Day in Burma
March 31 - April 3rd : Free Burma! A Conference on Freedom, Human Rights, and Activism, Washington DC.
Contact: Jeremy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
April 29-30th : Nordic Burma Studies Group, Göteborg
April 30th - May 6th : 103rd Inter-Parliamentary Conference, Amman
May 1-5th : World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination and Xenophobia
May 24th : Ne Win's birthday (1911)
May 27th : Anniversary of the 1990 election
May 30th- June 15th :88th Session of the International Labour Conference, Geneva
June 5-9th :Beijing +5 Review, UN, New York
June 6th :278th Session of the Governing Body, Geneva
June 18th : Fundraising benefit at the Royal Court Theatre, London
June 19th : Aung San Suu Kyi's birthday and Burmese Women's Day
June 24th : Burma Solidarity Meeting, Dublin
July 7th : Commemoration of bombing of student union and shooting in 1962
July 19th : Martyrs Day (Official)
July 24-25th : 33rd ASEAN Ministerial Meeting (AMM), Bangkok
July 27th : 7th ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), Bangkok
July 28-29th : 33rd ASEAN Post Ministerial Conferences (PMC), Bangkok
August 8th : 12th Anniversary of the 8-8-88 uprising
September 18th : Anniversary of SLORC Coup, 1988
September 24th : National League for Democracy formed 1988
October : 104th Inter-Parliamentary Conference, Jakarta
November 2-17th :279th Session of the Governing Body and its committees, Geneva
________________
The BurmaNet News is an Internet newspaper providing
comprehensive coverage of news and opinion on Burma
(Myanmar).
For a subscription to Burma's only free daily newspaper,
write to: strider@xxxxxxx
You can also contact BurmaNet by phone or fax:
Voice mail +1 (435) 304-9274
Fax +1 (810)454-4740
________________
\==END======================END=======================END==/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as 0.0%
Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/937/4/_/713843/_/953778634/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
theburmanetnews-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx