Position of the NCGUB on Economic Sanctions

Many governments have used sanctions on Burma to modify the regime's deplorable behavior in the areas of human rights and democratization.

These sanctions all share one clear objective: to place the military regime on notice that it cannot continue to ignore the aspirations of the people, and that they must seek a peaceful solution through dialogue to resolve the political deadlock in Burma.

 The sanctions reinforce both the legitimacy and possibility of such dialogue in Burma, and they provide effective tools to advance the dialogue process.

Pressure

The goal of these sanctions is NOT severe economic destabilization aimed at toppling the government. They serve as a pressure mechanism to persuade the regime to recognize the crisis in the country and the need for a peaceful resolution of the crisis.

They serve as part of the overall international strategy to facilitate a tripartite dialogue in Burma.

Sanctions make international persuasion more effective by:

·        Serving as a clear signal of disapproval against the foot-dragging attitudes of the SPDC and its continuing failure to improve human right situations in Burma.

·        Supplementing many non-binding international resolutions, condemnations and opinions such as ILO and UNGA resolutions, by generating a material impact on the regime.

·        Acting as moral boosters for those who are struggling for democracy inside Burma. They demonstrate to leaders inside Burma that the democracy movement is not alone in its fight for freedom and human rights.

·        Serving as a strong deterrent in preventing large-scale human rights violations and in protecting some vulnerable groups in Burma.

·        Most importantly, depriving resources to the regime which is currently allocating more budget to defense and the internal security apparatus.

Sanctions have also deprived the regime of an important source of foreign exchange earnings. Since the US imposed a ban on new investments in 1997, no new foreign-funded projects have been approved.

However, the impact of sanctions on the population is minimal because foreign investments in Burma concentrate on natural resource extraction, which has very little trickle-down effects in terms of creating employment and small business opportunities within the overall economy.

Flexible lever

Under the severely restrictive political circumstances, the leaders of the democratic movement can use sanctions as leverage in negotiations.

On the other hand, the SPDC can naturally react to sanctions policy strongly, and they could bargain for the early removal of the sanction regime before it begins the dialogue.

In responding to this SPDC bargaining position, the international community can offer incentives for joint problem-solving initiatives, such as humanitarian co-operation on HIV/Aids campaigns, without prematurely withdrawing effective sanction leverage.

If the SPDC responds positively to these incentives, the international community should consider relaxing disincentive components of its policy.

Such a framework can tie the disparate strands of international policies to interrelated core goals and set priorities so the emphasis on dialogue is sustained.

The role of the international community in bringing change to Burma is important.

The role is a multi-faceted one with full use of available policy tools - humanitarian assistance; joint problem-solving incentives; new commitments; diplomatic boycotts; sanctions; the threat of sanctions; or any combination of the above - and it may require fine adjustment on the weights of those elements.

The ultimate test of effectiveness of this approach lies in how well the international players can co-ordinate to obtain the best policy mix to bring the SPDC to the dialogue table.

Foreign Investments, Human Rights Violations and Environmental Degradation:

All foreign investments help financing the regime, which spent more than 40% of national budget to expand and modernize the army. Needless to say how the military regime has been brutalizing its own people. There are piles of reports by UN Human Rights Special Rapporteurs and credible international human rights organizations. We believe that foreign investment under the military rule is more beneficial to the regime and more harm to the people of Burma. Therefore, those who are investing in Burma today are indirectly responsible for the human rights violations committed by the Burmese Army and its obstruction to democratic change in Burma.

There are evidences that some foreign investments connected directly with human rights violations and environmental degradations. Obvious example is the gas pipeline project implemented by Unocal/Total, which caused forced relocations, forced labor, confiscation of lands and increased deployment of armed forces in area of Mon, Karen and Tavoyan people. Detail information can be seen in the report “Total Denial Continues” published by Earth Rights International in May, 2000. Given the lack of Environmental rules and regulations and disregard of multinational companies on environmental standard in natural resources exploitation, environmental impacts such like deforestation, soil erosion, big floods, intoxication of sea, rivers, streams and underground water have been caused by mining, timber Extractions and oil explorations. Please see, “Grave Diggers; A Report on Mining in Burma” by Roger Moody. The NCGUB supports the efforts of victims and civil society organizations to seek justice though legal process e.g Law Suit against Unocal and Total-Fina.

Concern about the role foreign investment plays in perpetuating the brutal regime is also widespread in the private sector. In December 2001 European investment funds managing over £400bn in assets issued a groundbreaking statement of concern about companies investing in Burma. 

 
Over the last five years a large number of foreign companies have withdrawn from the country. The reasons cited for doing so include: difficulties in working with the regime, consumer boycotts, damage to company reputation and incompatibility with corporate values. These companies now include amongst others: Texaco, Adidas, Premier Oil, Triumph International, Levi Strauss, PepsiCo, Erickson, Heineken, Carlsberg, British Home Stores, Burton, River Island, Apple, Reebok and Compaq.

Companies remaining in Burma often attempt to justify their involvement by claiming that pulling out would harm ordinary Burmese people. Aung San Suu Kyi disputes this. Two days after her release from house arrest in May 2002, Aung San Suu Kyi stated “I don’t think we have found evidence that sanctions have harmed the Burmese people, because they have been clearly limited and many of those who have suffered under sanctions have belonged to the business community. Naturally some ordinary employees have been exposed, but we have not yet found proof that large numbers of Burmese have suffered as a result of sanctions. Sanctions have a role to play because they are a strong political message. But also because they are an economic message.”

END

8 August, 2002

2,546 Hits