Business in Burma? by Mark Daly, fr

[brelief@xxxxxxx]

Subject: Business in Burma? by Mark Daly, from Human Rights Soldarity  AHRC Newsletter, June 1996

--=====================_836273258==_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


--=====================_836273258==_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

"The time has come to recognize a simple truth: while
it might not always be the case that trade and
business are good for human rights, it most certainly
is the case that a good human rights environment is
always good for business.

There must be far more "joint ventures" between
human rights groups and businesses. This may mean
a human rights "activist" has to occasionally put on a
business suit. NGOs must take the debate to the
financial district. Likewise, businesses must begin to
understand that as their influence in world events
grows so does their responsibility

June 1996

BUSINESS IN BURMA?

The need for "joint ventures" between human rights
groups and business
by Mark Daly

I was asked last week by the director of a prominent
publicly listed company with investments in Burma to,
"Help me out" when discussing how business can
play a positive role if it decides to continue doing
business in Burma. There is no simple solution. But in
a world of increasing globalization and marketization,
where decisions that affect great numbers of people
are increasingly made in boardrooms and not
legislatures, solutions must be found. For those today
being tortured, detained, raped, abused and living out
a meagre and completely undignified existence, the
solution must be found now. 

The First Hurdle

We must first get over the tendency to polarize the
issue. The following news item is symptomatic of this
shortsighted and dangerous thinking: "Media divided
by ethics and business" (South China Morning Post,
p.11, 11 April 1996). Referring to Li Peng's visit to
France it continues, "French newspapers were split
over the premier's visit, with some angry about
human rights abuses and the intimidation of Taiwan,
and others eyeing up a potential cash cow." 

The words "ethics" and "business" are not polar
opposites. They are increasingly becoming linked as
creative and forward - thinking businesses realize that
to ignore the effects of their practices will be bad for
business and the human rights situation in the
country. In the West, an effective and independent
media, discriminating consumers and concerned
shareholders can pay close attention to corporate
behaviour, providing an "ethical" check on business.
Businesses are responding and companies like Levi
Strauss, Reebok, and Sears etc are understanding
the connection between human rights and business.
In material reproduced for Amnesty International,
John Kamm, businessman and former President of
the American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong,
in a speech to the Commission on Security and
Cooperation, Washington D.C., (13-14 November
1995) discusses the "Role of Business in Promoting
Respect for Human Rights. He states that, 

"The time has come to recognize a simple truth: while
it might not always be the case that trade and
business are good for human rights, it most certainly
is the case that a good human rights environment is
always good for business. Businesses are acting in
their own self-interest when they actively promote
respect for human rights in the countries where they
operate." 

After outlining at least 5 reasons why promoting
human rights is good for business he provides
suggestions for what businesses can do in the
country in which they operate. He suggests that
businesspeople can lobby for example for the Red
Cross to have access to prisons which is standard
practice in more than 100 countries in the world.
>From personal experience he has also come to the
conclusion that businesses can "be monitoring posts,
places which collect information on local conditions,
rules and regulations governing such things as religion
and ownership of satellite dishes and, most important
from a humanitarian perspective, the sentencing of
political and religious prisoners." 

Sir Geoffrey Chandler CBE, a former senior
executive of Royal Dutch Shell and the former
Director General of the UK National Economic
Development Office, in Business Ethics, April 1993,
highlights an important consideration particularly
appropriate for Burma: 

It is more difficult to determine whether a foreign
company simply by its presence, contributes to or
deters such abuses. It does neither directly. However,
its contribution to economic development and what
can be inferred (fairly or unfairly) to the confidence it
places in the government in power could encourage
that government to persist in its ways. Equally a
company with an explicit code of  practice in its own
operations, derived from clear humanitarian and
ethical principles, could, by its example, act as a
deterrent to practices which transgress these
principles. But if either case is correct, and I believe
both can be true, it means that companies cannot
extract themselves - Pharisee - like from the issue. 

(emphasis added) 

Aung San Suu Kyi has been saying this for years.
Along similar lines, Joe Clark, the former Prime
Minister of Canada, has engaged the debate in a
speech on "Globalization, Trade and Human Rights:
The Canadian Business Perspective" at a conference
jointly sponsored by the Institute on Human Rights
and Democratic Development and the Business
Council on National Issues, February 22,1996. He
concludes with a call to make consultations between
business groups and human rights groups - "far more
the norm." 

(Photo caption:  US students working on a campaign
to pressure Pepsico to disinvest from Burma. The
slogan "The Choice of a new GENOCIDE" is a
parody of Pepsico's advertising slogan "The choice of
a new generation")
 
Some companies are responding. In Burma, a wave
of boycotts across the US persuaded Pepsi to sell a
40% share in its Burma joint venture to its local
partner although the drink will still be bottled in the
country under a franchise arrangement. (South China
Morning Post, p.15, 26 April 1996) For the last 4
years Britain's Cooperative Bank "has promoted a
radical yet carefully moulded ethical and
environmental stance" and it is paying dividends.
("High moral stance is paying back dividends--Room
for profit in the wholesome end of market", Eastern
Express, p.22, 2 March 1996) 

Although there are trends in some areas towards
integrating a human rights approach into business
one cannot underestimate the difficulties in getting
over this first hurdle. It is not so easy to bring up the
topic of human rights at a gathering of "business"
people (I dislike the label just as I dislike the term
"activist") in this region and often the responses are
equivocal, evasive or nonexistent. But the topic must
continually be put forward. 

Empty Rhetoric

Every report from every human rights organization,
the media, and the UN rapporteur has shown that the
repression in Burma is worse now than it was when
Aung San Suu Kyi was released. The human rights
abuses are extensively documented and include
eyewitness reports, reports from refugees,
admissions from SLORC army defectors, UN reports,
documentaries (including a new one by Pilger and
Munro, titled "Inside Burma: Land of Fear" which we
await) and journalists reports et al. The abuses
include torture on a horrific scale, including beatings,
shackling, near suffocation, burning, stabbing,
rubbing of salt and chemicals into open wounds, rape
of women, mutilation, threats of death,
disappearances, random killings, arbitrary detentions,
and slave labour of entire villages including the elderly
and children. Despite these incontestable facts we
still often hear the stale, unresearched rhetoric
exemplified by the editors of the Far Eastern
Economic Review, in the editorial of the 6 June 1996
issue:

"When it comes to trade we part company with Miss
Suu Kyi's call for foreign investors to forsake Burma
until it has a functioning democracy; along with
Burma's immediate neighbours in Southeast Asia, we
believe that Burmese hopes for liberty have a far
greater chance of taking root where there is
economic engagement and not isolation." 

What is such a belief based upon? Just as sanctions
and boycotts are not the answer in all cases neither is
economic engagement. It may improve the well being
and freedoms of the people suffering repression OR
IT MAY NOT. But businesses and governments must
move beyond the empty rhetoric. Economic
engagement is not some kind of universal religious
principle that holds for all circumstances although it is
often preached as if it is. Businesses must begin to
take some responsibility for determining the effect it
has when it invests in a repressive regime such as
Burma. The public, consumers, shareholders and
others must hold them accountable. 

The same editorial provides:

"In response to suggestions that this latest crackdown
will only invite sanctions from the West, Brig. Gen.
Win Tin, minister for finance and revenue, resorted to
bravado, noting that Burma has been isolated 'since
1988 and we have grown with our resources.' True
enough. Obviously, however, there were problems
with that isolation or else the SLORC would not have
moved to open its economy and link up with its Asean
neighbours." 

Obviously, there maybe some merit in the argument
that sanctions and not economic engagement may be
a suggested approach in this case. Maybe the writer
of that editorial is confused. 

The South China Morning Post is also confused. In
the face of increasing repression correlated with
increasing investment (Sunday Morning Post, 14
April, 1996) it writes an editorial entitled ``Bad
business in Burma" (p.16, 23 May 1996) where it
states
that "The arrest of 90 [later increased] Burmese
opposition activists by the ruling
military junta should give pause to those who
advocate continuing business as
usual and integrating the regime into the Association
of Southeast Asian Nations. ... But foreign companies
and governments which have chosen until now to
believe the Government's claims to be working
towards democracy must now admit to themselves
that the whole process is a sham." OK. But I think the
Post should provide a human rights conscience
warning on its next travel article which entices
travellers to go and assist SLORC with tourist dollars. 

(see "Burma's city of monks," SCMP, 21 May 1996) 

The Asian Context

Many of the businesses who collaborate with SLORC
are from Singapore, Hong Kong and Thailand and
numerically, most projects and joint ventures are from 
China, Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore. As I have
previously discussed, much of the pressure for
businesses to be accountable comes from a fiercely
independent and principled media. In many areas in
Asia this is lacking. This is a big problem and again
underscores the great importance of an independent
and free press in each of the countries in the region. 

It must be pointed out that Singapore is the second
largest investor in Burma from 1989 to 1995, with
$793.4 million dollars (Source, New Internationalist,
which quoted Burmese "government" figures, March
1995). In an Asian executives poll Singapore had the
press that was considered the least free (31% said
not free, 65.6% said somewhat free) and thus fresh
obstacles in an approach to the business - human
rights dialogue are presented. Similarly, China, is
Burma's closest ally and supplier of arms (since
1988, $1.4 billion worth of arms) and China wasn't
even surveyed with respect to its press freedom!
(Survey from the REVIEW and Asia Business News,
June 6,1996) In the same poll 56.3% of
Singaporeans see democracy as a hindrance to a
developing economy. 

Therefore, in the Asian context, a director faced with
a decision on Burma is faced with further
considerations, particularly when joint venture
partners are from different regions and different
countries. But top management people are smart,
resourceful and creative and get paid big bucks to be
so. They must be challenged to find a way to
communicate their human rights concerns to other
members of a partnership and they must not be
allowed to back down. 

THE NEED FOR "JOINT VENTURES" BETWEEN
HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS AND BUSINESS 

Human rights groups must work within and without
the present realities to create changes. They must
build links with a provide information to those who
can effect change. There must be far more "joint
ventures" between human rights groups and
businesses. This may mean a human rights "activist"
has to occasionally put on a business suit. NGOs
must take the debate to the financial district.
Likewise, businesses must begin to understand that
as their influence in world events grows so does their
responsibility. Although we've set out some
suggestions on approach, in the final analysis, all
decisions hinge on our internal morality and our sense
of justice. To the business community, remember the
words of Hans Kung: "Market analysis cannot replace
morality." 



BURMA Awaiting Liberation ..

"Human rights observers should be sent to the
country"
proposes Japan's Professor Yozo Yokota a special
United Nations human rights rapporteur for Burma.

Professor Yozo Yokota in his report this year to the
United Nations Commission on Human Rights has
recommended sending Human Rights observers to
Burma as the situation has very much worsened after
a slight improvement following the release of Aung
San Suu Kyi. (South China Morning Post, 17 April
1996) His suggestions seem particularly germane
considering the past week's events which include the
detention of 262 National League for Democracy
delegates trying to attend a conference in the capital.
Only 18 delegates eluded arrest and attended. (South
China Morning Post, 30 May 1996) As we go to press
"at least 81 of the people detained were freed."
(South China Morning Post, 1 June 1996) 

In his report, Mr. Yokota had been informed that
political prisoners were severely tortured, the number
of victims of forced labour had increased and the
ruling military junta had tightened control over political
life, while the Army was allegedly committing grave
human rights violations. Reported cases include
attacks by soldiers on villagers and refugees, torture
and a renewal of forced labour. Burma's generals
barred Aung San Suu Kyi's opposition party from
holding a Buddhist ceremony on the 16th of April and
prevented those members who had not heard of the
ban from visiting her.(Hongkong Standard, 18 April
1996) 

He estimates the number of political prisoners [this
estimate is prior to the recent arrests] to be not less
than 1000 while Amnesty International spoke of 2000.
Aung San Suu Kyi in a message to the UN Human
Rights Commission has appealed for more pressure
on the Burmese Government to restore democracy.
She said hopes of lucrative business investments in
Burma's developing economy should not blind
countries to the harsh political reality in her homeland.
"Injustice and lack of peace in the country means
injustice and lack of peace for the rest of the world,"
she said in a video message. Aung San Suu Kyi
added, "At the moment there is a danger that those
who believe that economic reforms will bring political
progress to Burma are unaware of the difficulties in
the way of democratization. It is not possible that any
kind of economic reform can succeed in a country
where there is no rule of law."(Eastern Express, 19
April 1996) 

The recommendation of Professor Yozo Yokota for
sending human rights observers to Burma is most
timely. As many observers have pointed out the
misery of the people has increased in the recent
months and the releasing of Aung San Suu Kyi has
not been accompanied by any willingness to bring
about any democratic reforms. On the economic front
poverty has been on the increase. 

The United Nations has sent human rights observers
to several countries before. Cambodia and Haiti are
two recent examples. In Burma the presence of such
observers could provide an opportunity for the
international community to have direct information on
human rights matters. It could also help the
opposition to work for democratic reforms in a
peaceful atmosphere. As SLORC has repeatedly
promised the international community to respect the
human rights of the people there is no basis for it to
object to this proposal. The business community,
which has promised to those who pressurize them
not to engage in business with Burma to urge
SLORC to give priority to reforms, should support this
recommendation of the United Nations Human Rights
Rapporteur. 
The European Union in particular could do a great
deal to implement this recommendation. They could
start sending their own human rights ob~ servers as a
start to this program.

(Photo caption: THREATENING LETTER containing
a bullet (represents summary execution) and chili
(represents burning of the village) sent from SLORC
to a Karen man. Such letters to village headmen are
symbolic of the future that awaits them if they do not
co-operate. Co-operation often means forced labour.) 


Asian Human Rights Commission
Fax:  + 852 -2698 - 6367
E-mail: ahrchk@xxxxxxxxxxxx
--=====================_836273258==_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


--=====================_836273258==_--