SUPES DEFEND ,EXPAND BURMA BAN

[moe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Supes defend, expand Burma ban  18/6

Amos Brown wants 5 more countries on enemies list

Rachel Gordon
OF THE EXAMINER STAFF

        Not only did the Board of Supervisors expand and passionately
endorse San
        Francisco's Burma ban - it also paved the way to place economic
sanctions on
        other nations rife with allegations of rampant human rights abuses. 

        Supervisor Amos Brown on Monday requested legislation that would
prohibit
        The City from doing business with companies linked to five African
nations:
        Sudan, Liberia, Rwanda, Congo (formerly Zaire) and Nigeria. The
intent of his
        proposal mirrors the Burma ban. 

        "We have to be consistent," Brown said. 

        His proposal now will be turned into legislation and subject to
public hearing. 

        Meanwhile, Supervisor Gavin Newsom, whose opposition to the Burma
        sanctions triggered the debate, offered a list of 20 troubled
countries that he
        said The City should go on record as condemning for their oppressive
regimes
        as a matter of consistency. 

        But he favors rhetoric over action and is not suggesting city
sanctions. 

        The debate was one of the most heated at the board this year and was one
        that has been played out in City Hall many times before. The dominating
        question: Should San Francisco be involved in foreign policy issues? 

        Speak out about brutality 

        Supervisor Sue Bierman, in echoing all but two of her colleagues,
made her
        answer very clear in supporting the Burma ordinance. 

        "It's very dangerous to think you should just stick to your own
backyard,"
        Bierman said. "You can't cover all of the world, all of the time,
but you can
        once in a while speak out about brutality and inhumanity." 

        Newsom said San Francisco should not tread in the territory of
foreign policy
        unless it decides to go after human rights violations everywhere. 

        "How can you deny the fact that no member of the board has focused on
        human rights abuses in Sri Lanka, in Nigeria . . . in East Timor? The
        inconsistency of the Burma ordinance is amazing," he said. 

        But he warned that going after all the abusive nations would be
costly - in time
        and money. 

        Already, Newsom said, in the 14 months since the Burma law has been
on the
        books, the city attorney's office has spent at least $33,669
defending it and the
        purchaser's office has spent nearly $10,000 overseeing it. The
costs, he said,
        are sure to go up as time passes, and the money could be better spent on
        other, more pressing city services. 

        Supervisor Tom Ammiano, the chief sponsor of the Burma ban, didn't deny
        there's a price to pay. 

        "Is there a cost? Yes, there's a cost," he said. "Can you nickel and
dime civil
        rights? No." 

        Success of sanctions 

        He and other supporters noted the success of San Francisco's
participation in
        sanctions against South Africa, a tactic that many credit with
helping end
        apartheid. 

        At one point, Newsom threatened an attempt to overturn the Burma
        ordinance, but nixed the idea because he knew it would be a losing
        proposition. 

        As the newest member of the board, Newsom seemed genuinely surprised
        that his opposition sparked so much passion among his colleagues,
many of
        whom grabbed the microphone to make speeches on why The City's
        involvement in foreign policy matters is right. 

        "We can't presume to change the whole world, but when someone comes
        forward to ask us for help, we should," Supervisor Michael Yaki said. He
        added that most of the board's business sticks to local matters. 

        The issue arose after Ammiano made a bid to tighten the Burma
ordinance to
        include construction contracts and to make some technical changes.
Newsom
        used the opening to question the Burma policy altogether, unleashing a
        torrential debate. 

        Only Board President Barbara Kaufman sided with Newsom in voting against
        Ammiano's amendments. She did not state her reasons. 

        If Brown follows through with his proposal to place sanctions on
five more
        nations, the legislative roil is sure to continue.