Knee awaits your responses and comments at [email protected].
By Christine Riordan and Julia
Zolinsky
Recently, the Daily Bruin Editorial Board made a false
assumption that in promoting economic sanctions against Burma, the
pro-democracy movement would not have the foresight to consider the
consequences (“UC
sanction of Burma will hurt the innocent,” Viewpoint,
Viewpoint, Jan. 16).
The misinformed editorial was not based on the unique historical
and political legacy of Burma but questioned the legitimacy of
sanctions from a generalized point of view. The real question: Who
decides what is best for Burma? Is it the corporate partners of the
illegal military regime? Is it the editorial board of the Daily
Bruin? Or, as we would argue, is it the democratically elected
leadership of Burma? For anyone who claims to support democracy and
human rights, the answer is clear.
In response to international pressure in 1990, Burma’s
State Peace and Development Council held an election. The military
regime believed it had a firm grip on the people of Burma. However,
in an extraordinary act of courage, the people gave the National
League of Democracy, led by Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, an
overwhelming victory
The results of that election have never been recognized by the
regime. Instead, it has imprisoned, tortured and murdered many of
those who won the elections. Suu Kyi was imprisoned and has
remained under house arrest for most of the nearly 12 years since
the election. The people of Burma have spoken loudly and clearly in
support of democracy, the NLD and Suu Kyi.
They should be heard. What do they say?
When asked in 1996, as The Bruin’s editorial suggests,
whether sanctions and boycotts would hurt people in Burma, Suu Kyi
insisted:
“Until we have a system that guarantees rule of law and
basic democratic institutions, no amount of aid or investment will
benefit our people. Profits from business enterprises will merely
go toward enriching a small, already very privileged elite.
Companies such as UNOCAL, Pepsi, ARCO and Texaco only serve to
prolong the agony of my country by encouraging the present military
regime to persist in its intransigence.”
It is worth noting that three of the four companies she
mentioned, Pepsi, ARCO and Texaco, have all since withdrawn from
Burma. The regents hold stock in the remaining company, UNOCAL, as
well as the French oil company TotalFinaElf. UNOCAL and Total are
both part of two pipeline consortiums, the Yadana and Yetagun, and
are notorious for being the worst perpetrators of human rights
abuses and environmental degradation. The consortiums bring in an
estimated $400 million annually to the SPDC. The Regents’
divestiture would send a strong message promoting democracy and
social justice.
The Bruin states, “As with other attempts at using
economic sanctions as a strategy to create change in domestic
policy, it’s usually the people, not the government, who foot
the bill.” However, the National Coalition Government of
Burma, composed of elected NLD members in exile, reiterated Suu
Kyi’s statements in a letter to the Los Angeles City Council:
“Aung San Suu Kyi has stated that investment in Burma has
largely benefited a small elite in Burma. Consequently, Aung San
Suu Kyi has further stated that economic sanctions would have very
little effect, if at all on the general public.”
There you have it ““ direct from the democratically elected
leaders of Burma. Please, don’t invest in Burma. It could not
be more clear.
There are a few other points raised by the Bruin that merit
rebuttal. The Bruin argues that the UC Regents divesting from
Burma, on their own, will not bring democracy to Burma. Instead,
they argue that it will take a true “international
effort.” Unfortunately, it seems they overlooked the fact
that the Regents, by choosing to divest, would be adding their
important voice to a growing chorus opposed to investment in Burma.
They would be joining the United States federal government, the
European Union, the United Nations, and the International Labor
Organization.
When one looks at the wide breadth of support the democracy
movement in Burma has received, it brings to mind another example
of a concerted, international effort to support democracy and human
rights ““ the campaign to end apartheid in South Africa. In
the 1980s when many institutions were considering similar moves
against the apartheid government in South Africa, some raised
concerns similar to those raised by the Bruin. Luckily, most chose
to listen to Archbishop Tutu and Nelson Mandela, helping to topple
the apartheid government in South Africa. Now, Archbishop Tutu
calls Burma “the South Africa of the 1990s,” and has
encouraged, among others, the Los Angeles City Council to carry out
similar divestiture actions in Burma as they did in South Africa in
the past.
The Bruin points out that some sanctions have not been effective
and have hurt common people in the countries targeted. This is
clearly true. However, it does no good to ask, “Should we use
sanctions?” A more appropriate question is, “Should we
use sanctions in this case?”
The not-exactly-radical Wall Street Journal Editorial Board
wrote, “We have argued for commerce and investment where it
strengthens civil societies vis-a-vis dictators. But these deals,
by putting money directly into (SPDC’s) pocket, only make a
richer prize out of political power. The prospect of vast
petrodollars gives the generals yet another reason to cling to
office no matter how many bodies of their fellow citizens pile
up.”
Throughout the state, many students, faculty and alumni, as well
as dozens of Burmese exiles, are asking for the UC Regents to take
a position of moral leadership by standing up for the people of
Burma.
The democratic leadership in Burma is joined by international
institutions like the U.S. State Department and the United Nations;
Archbishop Tutu and other Nobel Laureates; and editorial boards
across the nation, including the Wall Street Journal; in its plea
that organizations divest from Burma-related stock. We ask that the
regents heed their calls.