U.S. can afford to act against Myan

[aungsan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Subject: U.S. can afford to act against Myanmar (The Hindu, 4/2/97)

U.S. can afford to act against Myanmar
The Hindu (New Delhi), 4/2/97.
 
>From Sridhar Krishnaswami
WASHINGTON, Feb. 3.
With the Clinton administration emphasising that human rights will be a 
central component of American foreign policy, there is the unmistakable 
impression that this would present Washington with many problems, 
especially as it related to the Asia Pacific.  It is not merely a case of 
singling out allies and adversaries on where things have gone wrong in 
the realm of rights and democracy or where, the shortcomings are to be 
met by pursuing a sanctions approach that will strengthen the hands of 
those calling for an even handed approach.
 
A case in point is Myanmar where on the day the State Department came out 
with its 1996 Human Rights Report. a major American oil corporation, 
Unocal, announced that it had signed on for the exploration and 
development of gas fields.  New York Times, quoting Unocal company 
officials, reported that several million dollars had been paid to the 
military junta in Yangon by way of a signing bonus.  It is not the first 
project that the Unocal has been involved in Myanmar: and the company has 
brushed aside allegations that one of its major projects involved the use 
of forced labour or people pressed into work by the military government.  
The State Department has also taken the line that there is no sufficient 
evidence to confirm forced labour has gone to make point that workers at 
the Yadana Gas Field are being paid at least a market wage.
 
The White House and the administration are under increasing pressure to 
tighten the screws on the military regime; and the focus is on whether 
the President, Mr. Bill Clinton, can slap an existing law that would ban 
investments by American companies in Myanmar.  Some will make the point 
that one reason why Unocal rushed into initialling the deal was to escape 
the Presidential directive; but others will argue that the White House 
and the administration will have to think over several times before 
signing on to the new law.
 
The common refrain of human rights activists and groups with respect to 
Myanmar is that Western multinationals doing business with Yangon are 
only prolonging the shelf life of the State Law and Order Restoration 
Council. A valid, point has been made that the generals running the tight 
fisted show are being rewarded millions of dollars through bonuses, 
royalties and, of course, taxes -- all of these keeping the brass hats 
going and things that do little to enhance the lot of the people in the 
country.
 
The real question is if an investment ban on American companies doing 
business with Myanmar is going to work or in any way help the cause of 
Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi.  In fact Washington has had to hear criticism of 
allies like Japan that some of the requirements of specific states, as 
for Instance Massachusetts, vis-a-vis Myanmar, are hurting the business 
environment.  Some states have taken the lead in bringing about 
legislation prohibiting the state from doing business with a company that 
has a Myanmar link.  Not too long ago PepsiCo pulled out of its Myanmar 
operations because of protests from groups -- notably the student 
community -- who have threatened to boycott the company's products.
 
The ban on investments using human rights as the core issue is not going 
to be an easy decision for there is nothing to indicate even within the 
administration any broad consensus on the subject.  It has been pointed 
out that some of Mr. Clifton's advisors in the Economic Council have 
apparently argued that a unilateral move by the United States would not 
get anywhere because there were several nations that do business with 
Myanmar.  Piling pressure on other countries to do likewise would get 
nowhere for the simple reason many have already informed Washington of 
where they stand on economic and investment sanctions.
 
What the Clinton administration must be really apprehensive about 
investment sanctions against Myanmar is the implications of this in a 
larger sense.  As it is there is the criticism that the Clinton 
administration is able to talk tough to Myanmar because the country is 
small and the scope of American investments limited; and that the U.S. is 
unable to advance the same lecture to China is because of the 
extensiveness of economic contact between the two countries.
 
Keeping trade and the opportunities of the mega market in mind the 
Clinton administration has turned a blind eye on not only issues of human 
rights in China -- the same goes as far as Beijing's dubious peddling in 
nuclear weapons technology and outright missile sales or missile 
technology to countries like Iran and Pakistan.  Now if the 
administration moves in against Myanmar on human rights why cannot it 
take the same line with respect to China? That is a question which will 
be asked in Capitol Hill and one that cannot be shrugged off easily.
 
Thus far the strategic reasoning has been heard little of, but the 
Clinton administration cannot be totally ignorant even of that.