Boston Globe on Burma 26/1/99

[moe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Enough of ethical squeamishness 
Boston Globe; Boston, Mass.; Jan 26, 1999; Steven Levingston; 

Sub Title: 
          [City Edition]
Start Page: 
          D4
ISSN: 
          07431791

Abstract:
To do business overseas, especially in cudgel-wielding dictatorships, the
savvy
executive adopts a three-point strategy: 1) See No Evil, 2) Hear No Evil, 3)
Speak No
Evil. In the spirit of this philosophy, I present today in my capacity as
chairman of the
billion-dollar multinational Make a Buck at Any Cost Corp., my special
report on
American Business Sentiment Toward Burma.

Of course, antibusiness fanatics delight in squawking about the occasional
tiffs
between the people of Burma and their military rulers. Yes, Rangoon cracked
down
on protests in 1988, killing thousands to restore order. Yes, the government
ignored
results of an election in 1990 clearly indicating that 90 percent of the
people rejected
its rule and wanted democracy. And, yes, it placed the elected victor, Nobel
Peace
Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi, under house arrest. Yes, many of Suu Kyi's
party
members have been killed, jailed, or forced into exile. Yes, the rulers
practice torture,
turn a blind eye to slavery, and traffic in drugs.

Full Text:
Copyright Boston Globe Newspaper Jan 26, 1999


Steven Levingston is director of the Business and Economics Journalism
Program at Boston
University. He can be reached at leving(AT SIGN SYMBOL)bu.edu

To do business overseas, especially in cudgel-wielding dictatorships, the
savvy executive adopts a
three-point strategy: 1) See No Evil, 2) Hear No Evil, 3) Speak No Evil. In
the spirit of this
philosophy, I present today in my capacity as chairman of the billion-dollar
multinational Make a
Buck at Any Cost Corp., my special report on American Business Sentiment
Toward Burma.

Let's begin with the government's own view of life in this Southeast Asian
paradise of more than
47 million people. In the words of the ruling junta, Burma is one of the
most pleasant places created
by Mother Nature. I couldn't agree more.

Of course, antibusiness fanatics delight in squawking about the occasional
tiffs between the people
of Burma and their military rulers. Yes, Rangoon cracked down on protests in
1988, killing
thousands to restore order. Yes, the government ignored results of an
election in 1990 clearly
indicating that 90 percent of the people rejected its rule and wanted
democracy. And, yes, it placed

the elected victor, Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi, under house
arrest. Yes, many of
Suu Kyi's party members have been killed, jailed, or forced into exile. Yes,
the rulers practice
torture, turn a blind eye to slavery, and traffic in drugs.

Is this any concern of ours? As long as imprisonments, torture, slavery, and
political repression
don't hinder business, let's not get in a huff about it. These spats will
work themselves out.

I will say just one thing to those who whine about human rights: We will
battle all attempts to
impose on us a social conscience. Are we in business to save the world or
make a profit? Lately,
I'm pleased to report, we've seen some progress in silencing the wild- eyed
whiners.

Right here in Massachusetts, we finally crushed a radical law late last year
that bans state
contracts with companies doing business with Burma. We applaud the clever
logic of the National
Foreign Trade Council, which took the battle into the courts on behalf of
its 580 corporate
members. The judge, in his wisdom, agreed with the council that the state
law was unconstitutional.
Of course! What right does Massachusetts, or any state, have to make its own
foreign policy?

But no sooner did we lop off the head of this human rights demon than
another beast sprung up in
its place. A month after the Massachusetts law was struck down, the Los
Angeles city council
voted unanimously to enact a similar ban on the municipal level.

If only these were the few isolated attacks on us. But more than two dozen
other states and cities
are discussing or have already passed laws that target trade with not only
Burma but other
promising markets like Nigeria, Indonesia, and Cuba.

Already some companies have retreated from Burma on moral grounds. It breaks
my heart. If a
company must withdraw, it is far better to do it proudly for manly
businesslike reasons -- not from
any moral squeamishness.

Let us all hail Ericsson, the Swedish telecommunications giant. It ended
operations in Burma last
year because of threats of a worldwide consumer boycott. The company stated
in unequivocal
terms that its decision was not based on ethics -- it was, as it should be,
purely a commercial move.