Time for Tough Actions Against Burma’s Dictators
While in Burma I was under continual surveillance by military intelligence. They followed me around town and rummaged through my room. I had to engage in an uncomfortable game of cloak and dagger, the consequences of which could have meant serious harm to me. I had several machine guns thrust in my face. Later I was apprehended and searched. They confiscated my notes and tapes, and I was deported. I cannot return to the country as long as the military regime stays in power. Why? Because I dared to meet with the rightful, democratically elected leaders of the country, Aung San Suu Kyi and U Tin Oo, both of whom are in detention.
My government’s sanctions against Burma rates as one of the proudest achievements of recent US foreign policy. It is a rare example of the US putting freedom over business interests. The law imposing sanctions against new American business in Burma was first signed by Mr. Clinton in April 1997. Mr. Clinton noted that he signed the law to penalize Rangoon's military junta for "a state of large-scale repression". Since that time, many people have argued that these sanctions do little to thwart the military regime, and instead hurt the Burmese people and provide an advantage to other nations that are willing to do business with the junta. These arguments are fundamentally flawed and unsupported by fact.
There has been some debate in the international press about the democratic opposition’s support for sanctions. I clarified the issue during my meeting with Aung San Suu Kyi. She told me unequivocally that she supports sanctions as a means of punishing the unjust rule of the military.
In July of 2003, with a new crackdown on the democratic opposition, the US Senate passed a law authorizing new and tougher sanctions by a vote of 97 to 1. The US House passed the bill 415 to 2. Such overwhelming bipartisan support is extraordinary in Washington. Mr. Bush signed the law, extending previous sanctions and prohibiting imports of Burmese products into the US. "By denying these rulers the hard currency they use to fund their repression, we are providing strong incentives for democratic change and human rights in Burma," he said.
The European Union in 2004 responded to the new crackdown against the democracy movement by adding marginally stricter sanctions against Burma. Yet the EU resisted calls from human rights groups to force companies to stop doing business with the repressive regime. France has continued to prevent the EU from enacting effective sanctions. It has done so for economic reasons. French oil giant TOTAL Oil is the fourth largest oil company in the world and one of the biggest foreign investors in Burma. It is in a joint venture with Burma’s dictatorship in the Yadana gas project in southern Burma.
The gas project earns the repressive regime hundreds of millions of dollars every year, which has enabled the junta to carry out ethnic cleansing of a million people, use rape as a weapon of war against women and children, recruit more child soldiers than any other country in the world, and purchase more weapons to perpetuate its power through force.
As Aung San Suu Kyi has noted, “TOTAL is the biggest supporter of the military regime in Burma.” She poignantly described direct foreign investment in Burma this way: “To observe businessmen who come to Burma with the intention of enriching themselves is somewhat like watching passers-by in an orchard roughly stripping off blossoms for their fragile beauty, blind to the ugliness of despoiled branches, oblivious of the fact that by their action they are imperilling future fruitfulness and committing an injustice against the rightful owners of the trees.”
There is, as stated above, a view that sanctions have failed. In fact, neither the EU nor Burma’s neighbors nor the United Nations have joined the US in imposing effective sanctions against the brutal regime. Not even the United Kingdom has joined the US effort. Consequently, over the past 15 years there has been massive foreign investment in Burma and a policy of pandering and appeasement by Burma’s neighbors. What has this engagement and foreign investment brought to Burma? It has not enriched the lives of most ordinary citizens in Burma. Poverty has increased and health spending has fallen. (See my next blog.) And the military junta hasn’t moved any closer to instituting democratic reforms. Aung San Suu Kyi remains the only Nobel Peace laureate who isn’t free.
What can be done? First of all, consumers around the world can boycott any company, and not invest in any company’s stock or any mutual fund that invests in any company’s stock, that does business in Burma. People can check the “dirty list” maintained by the Burma Campaign UK to see a complete list. Here’s a start: Don’t buy anything from Unocal. Send them an email telling them you are boycotting them. (The dirty list contains contact information.) Chevron is now attempting to purchase Unocal, so tell Chevron they’ll be boycotted too if they buy Unocal and remain in Burma. Don’t use DHL (they have a subsidiary that is in a joint venture with the Burmese military regime.) Reward the US Postal Service with your business instead. Don’t buy any Daewoo, Suzuki, or Rolls-Royce products. Don’t buy Lonely Planet guides or use Utopia Tours. Don’t do business with Lloyd’s of London. Don’t stay at Nikko Hotels or fly Japan Airlines. Tell them all why you won’t do business with them.
The EU should adopt the recommendations of the Burma Campaign UK, namely to strengthen sanctions in order to (1) prevent all European companies and citizens from investing in Burma; (2) ban the import of goods and services from enterprises owned by the military, military personnel and their associates; (3) ban the import of strategically important goods from sectors of the economy under state monopoly, such as gems and timber; (4) ban international financial transfers and transactions either by a citizen or an entity of an EU state or from the EU.
The UN Security Council should enact an immediate arms embargo, investment ban and a ban on Burmese exports of strategically important goods, including gas, oil, gems and timber until there is significant and sustained progress toward democracy and political prisoners are released from detention. Tell the Security Council delegations to support this agenda.
Finally, the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) should kick Burma out if it does not free Aung San Suu Kyi and make substantial progress toward democracy by the beginning of 2006. ASEAN member states should face boycotts if they don't.
It is high time for the brutal regime in Burma to end. The world can make that happen if it joins the US in its just effort to bring freedom to the Burmese people.
My government’s sanctions against Burma rates as one of the proudest achievements of recent US foreign policy. It is a rare example of the US putting freedom over business interests. The law imposing sanctions against new American business in Burma was first signed by Mr. Clinton in April 1997. Mr. Clinton noted that he signed the law to penalize Rangoon's military junta for "a state of large-scale repression". Since that time, many people have argued that these sanctions do little to thwart the military regime, and instead hurt the Burmese people and provide an advantage to other nations that are willing to do business with the junta. These arguments are fundamentally flawed and unsupported by fact.
There has been some debate in the international press about the democratic opposition’s support for sanctions. I clarified the issue during my meeting with Aung San Suu Kyi. She told me unequivocally that she supports sanctions as a means of punishing the unjust rule of the military.
In July of 2003, with a new crackdown on the democratic opposition, the US Senate passed a law authorizing new and tougher sanctions by a vote of 97 to 1. The US House passed the bill 415 to 2. Such overwhelming bipartisan support is extraordinary in Washington. Mr. Bush signed the law, extending previous sanctions and prohibiting imports of Burmese products into the US. "By denying these rulers the hard currency they use to fund their repression, we are providing strong incentives for democratic change and human rights in Burma," he said.
The European Union in 2004 responded to the new crackdown against the democracy movement by adding marginally stricter sanctions against Burma. Yet the EU resisted calls from human rights groups to force companies to stop doing business with the repressive regime. France has continued to prevent the EU from enacting effective sanctions. It has done so for economic reasons. French oil giant TOTAL Oil is the fourth largest oil company in the world and one of the biggest foreign investors in Burma. It is in a joint venture with Burma’s dictatorship in the Yadana gas project in southern Burma.
The gas project earns the repressive regime hundreds of millions of dollars every year, which has enabled the junta to carry out ethnic cleansing of a million people, use rape as a weapon of war against women and children, recruit more child soldiers than any other country in the world, and purchase more weapons to perpetuate its power through force.
As Aung San Suu Kyi has noted, “TOTAL is the biggest supporter of the military regime in Burma.” She poignantly described direct foreign investment in Burma this way: “To observe businessmen who come to Burma with the intention of enriching themselves is somewhat like watching passers-by in an orchard roughly stripping off blossoms for their fragile beauty, blind to the ugliness of despoiled branches, oblivious of the fact that by their action they are imperilling future fruitfulness and committing an injustice against the rightful owners of the trees.”
There is, as stated above, a view that sanctions have failed. In fact, neither the EU nor Burma’s neighbors nor the United Nations have joined the US in imposing effective sanctions against the brutal regime. Not even the United Kingdom has joined the US effort. Consequently, over the past 15 years there has been massive foreign investment in Burma and a policy of pandering and appeasement by Burma’s neighbors. What has this engagement and foreign investment brought to Burma? It has not enriched the lives of most ordinary citizens in Burma. Poverty has increased and health spending has fallen. (See my next blog.) And the military junta hasn’t moved any closer to instituting democratic reforms. Aung San Suu Kyi remains the only Nobel Peace laureate who isn’t free.
What can be done? First of all, consumers around the world can boycott any company, and not invest in any company’s stock or any mutual fund that invests in any company’s stock, that does business in Burma. People can check the “dirty list” maintained by the Burma Campaign UK to see a complete list. Here’s a start: Don’t buy anything from Unocal. Send them an email telling them you are boycotting them. (The dirty list contains contact information.) Chevron is now attempting to purchase Unocal, so tell Chevron they’ll be boycotted too if they buy Unocal and remain in Burma. Don’t use DHL (they have a subsidiary that is in a joint venture with the Burmese military regime.) Reward the US Postal Service with your business instead. Don’t buy any Daewoo, Suzuki, or Rolls-Royce products. Don’t buy Lonely Planet guides or use Utopia Tours. Don’t do business with Lloyd’s of London. Don’t stay at Nikko Hotels or fly Japan Airlines. Tell them all why you won’t do business with them.
The EU should adopt the recommendations of the Burma Campaign UK, namely to strengthen sanctions in order to (1) prevent all European companies and citizens from investing in Burma; (2) ban the import of goods and services from enterprises owned by the military, military personnel and their associates; (3) ban the import of strategically important goods from sectors of the economy under state monopoly, such as gems and timber; (4) ban international financial transfers and transactions either by a citizen or an entity of an EU state or from the EU.
The UN Security Council should enact an immediate arms embargo, investment ban and a ban on Burmese exports of strategically important goods, including gas, oil, gems and timber until there is significant and sustained progress toward democracy and political prisoners are released from detention. Tell the Security Council delegations to support this agenda.
Finally, the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) should kick Burma out if it does not free Aung San Suu Kyi and make substantial progress toward democracy by the beginning of 2006. ASEAN member states should face boycotts if they don't.
It is high time for the brutal regime in Burma to end. The world can make that happen if it joins the US in its just effort to bring freedom to the Burmese people.
posted by scott a hunt at
1:55 AM
0 Comments
