|
Published Tuesday, June 20, 2000, in
the San Jose Mercury News
Foreign trade: U.S. precedence over local sanctions upheld. BY KEN MCLAUGHLIN Mercury News BY AND FRANK DAVIES
Mercury News Washington Bureau Ruling that the federal government has wide discretion in
international affairs and trade, the Supreme Court on Monday made it more
difficult for states and liberal cities like Berkeley and Santa Cruz to impose
their own foreign policy.
The court tossed out a 1996 Massachusetts law that
restricted state purchases from companies that do business with Burma, also
known as Myanmar, whose regime is accused of severe human rights abuses. The
decision effectively strikes down similar laws passed by nearly two dozen local
governments.
In a decision written by Justice David Souter, the court
said the law ``undermines the president's authority by leaving him with less
economic and diplomatic leverage.''
Significantly, the current court, which has allowed states
to ignore provisions in labor, patent and unfair-competition laws enacted by
Congress, clearly deferred to the federal government in the area of foreign
policy.
The immediate impact of the surprising 9-0 decision is not
clear. Few businesses operate in Burma, and the federal government already
prohibits new investments by U.S. companies there and restricts foreign
assistance and travel by Burmese officials to the United States. Also, the
ruling does not automatically throw out similar laws directed at China, Cuba,
Nigeria or other nations.
Local role lost However, the decision angered politicians and activists in
places ranging from Berkeley and San Francisco to Los Angeles and Santa Monica,
who sometimes stray from talking about potholes to taking potshots at repressive
regimes. Some saw it as a strike against the voice of people at a grass-roots
level.
``I'm very disappointed the Supreme Court took away the
right to express ourselves,'' said Alameda County Supervisor Wilma Chan, who
pushed through county sanctions. ``I don't think we're usurping foreign policy.
We weren't dictating to anyone else.''
Several politicians also noted that local ordinances can
have considerable impact in shaping federal policy.
``Berkeley was the first city to disapprove of apartheid
in South Africa -- a classic example of changing political opinion,'' said Mayor
Shirley Dean of Berkeley, which was also the first city in the country to
prohibit doing business with Burma or firms that do business with Burma in
February 1995. ``Eventually the rest of the country caught up with us. It's a
shame that now we can't do what our citizens want us to do.''
When Congress finally passed anti-apartheid sanctions,
carried by former Oakland Rep. Ron Dellums in the early '90s, ``it was more of a
taillight than a headlight on that issue,'' agreed Santa Cruz peace activist
Scott Kennedy, who was on the city council for eight years in the '90s.
``It's really too bad,'' he said of Monday's ruling. ``If
the federal government abided by its own guidelines on restricting aid to
countries that violate human rights, then local cities wouldn't have to do it.''
Santa Cruz adopted its Burma sanctions in 1997, two years
after Berkeley. Other Bay Area cities taking similar actions included San
Francisco, Oakland and Palo Alto.
In Monday's case, Massachusetts was supported by legal
briefs from 16 counties and cities, 22 states (including California), several
human rights organizations and 78 members of Congress, including Sen. Barbara
Boxer of California.
The state law was opposed by the Clinton administration
and a broad coalition of business groups and foreign policy figures, including
former Secretary of State George Shultz. Support on both sides cut across party
lines.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the U.S. government
pre-empted the Massachusetts law when Congress enacted weaker legislation
against Burma and gave the Clinton administration flexibility in coordinating a
multinational campaign to pressure the Southeast Asian nation.
``The state act is an obstacle to the federal act's
delegation of discretion to the president to control economic sanctions,'' wrote
Souter.
Souter also pointed out that similar laws -- such as those
launched by California and other states and cities against South Africa during
the apartheid era -- had never faced a Supreme Court test.
President Clinton welcomed Monday's ruling, stressing that
his administration and Massachusetts ``share the same policy goal: the
restoration of democracy and full respect for human rights in Burma.''
``We will continue to coordinate international action to
support the Burmese people in their struggle for political change,'' Clinton
said in a statement.
Frank Kittridge, president of the National Foreign Trade
Council, said Monday's ruling ``should help put an end to state and local
efforts to make foreign policy.''
``Local governments are going to be hard-pressed to defend
those sanctions after this ruling -- the language is very clear,'' said
Kittridge, whose organization represents many U.S. companies involved in trade
and helped pursue this case.
Scope of ruling debated But Robert Stumberg, an expert on trade agreements who
helped defend the Massachusetts law, said the court's decision is narrowly
tailored to this case. For example, he said, California's law limiting business
with firms that sell goods made by slave labor would still stand up -- except as
it relates to Burma.
And several local politicians were not reassured by the
federal government's stand. The court's ruling reflects what a ``dismal'' state
of foreign affairs under the Clinton administration, said Mike Feinstein, one of
two Green Party members of the Santa Monica City Council.
``They seem a lot more interested in paving the way for
business, regardless of the impacts,'' he said.
Los Angeles City Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg also called
the ordinance a way to say that ``global capital is more important that local
elected officials' decisions about how taxpayers' money is spent.'' Goldberg
noted that immigrants from a country have more access to local officials than to
Congress.
Berkeley disappointment And Betty Olds, the Berkeley councilwoman who originally
proposed the boycott of Burma after hearing the accounts of abuses by one of her
constituents, expressed her disappointment.
``There weren't many companies doing business in Myanmar
anyway, but it showed that we oppose human rights abuses of the people of
Myanmar by the government,'' she said. ``That's what Berkeley stands
for.''
The Nation - June 21, 2000. US activists to continue
fight against junta
ONE day after the US Supreme Court struck down a
Massachusetts law imposing unilateral sanctions on Burma, human rights activists
across America vowed to increase their legislative campaign to punish companies
doing business with the country's ruling junta.
Within hours of the Supreme Court's decision, local
advocates announced they would seek new legislation. The Free Burma Coalition, a
US-based organisation that raises awareness of political and human rights abuses
in Burma, has circulated a four-part model for local advocates to draw from to
compose legislation to replace the bill struck down by the Supreme Court's
decision.
These options include requiring companies to disclose any
business activities in Burma before bidding on procurement contracts,
encouraging shareholder resolutions on corporate accountability in pension
funds, calling on public institutions to divest, and asking the Congress to
authorise selective purchasing.
"It is a shame we no longer have available one of the
strategies that helped end Apartheid," said Massachusetts state representative
Byron Rushing, author of the so-called "Burma Law."
"The Court's decision does leave room for state and local
governments to heed moral concerns in the way they do business in the global
economy. I want all advocates for human rights and democracy, especially in
Burma, to be assured that the campaign for human rights and democracy is
redirected, not blocked."
Burmese generals have imposed uncompromising military rule
and are accused of perpetrating human rights abuses including forced labour and
repression and torture of political opponents.
Sein Win, head of the exile National Coalition Government
of the Union of Burma, said: "Renewal of local Burma laws can continue to
highlight the economic links between trade and repression in my country."
The Massachusetts' Burma Law was modelled on
anti-Apartheid "selective purchasing" laws adopted by 25 states and 164 local
governments in the 1980s. The laws helped end the Apartheid system in South
Africa.
Unlike the federal sanctions that ban private investment
in Burma, the Massachusetts law only limits purchasing by the state government.
It provided a 10 per cent preference for bids from companies that avoid doing
business in Burma unless the preference would impair essential purchases or
result in inadequate competition. In addition to Massachusetts, there are 22
cities or counties whose local Burma laws could be affected by the Supreme
Court's decision.
Meanwhile, in Rangoon yesterday, Burma's military
government welcomed the US Supreme Court's decision.
"The US court took the right decision," a senior spokesman
said. "One can just imagine what kind of chaos there would be if the 50-plus
states of the US adopt not only their own foreign policies but defence policies
as well."
The attempt to force change in Burma, also known as
Myanmar, by imposing restrictions on companies who do business with the military
regime was misguided, the spokesman said in a statement.
"Myanmar, like many other countries in the region,
believes that cooperation, sharing responsibilities and building mutual
confidence are the most important factors to achieve success, rather than
imposing sanctions and boycotts to slow down the economic development of any
developing nation."
The Nation
The NewYork
Times
June 20, 2000 A CORPORATE ACTOR Trade Ruling Is Victory for Oil Giant By JAMES RISEN ASHINGTON, June 19 -- For years, Unocal, the California-based international oil company, has been courting criticism by doing business in Myanmar in the face of sanctions imposed on the military leadership there by the Clinton administration and a growing list of state and local governments. So while Unocal was not mentioned in today's Supreme Court decision that struck down a Massachusetts law that prohibited companies doing business in Myanmar from receiving state government contracts, the ruling was a significant victory for the oil giant. The Myanmar government has been accused of drug
trafficking and of numerous labor and human rights abuses.
It has been the subject of an intense campaign by human
rights advocates who have sought to force reforms on the country by putting
pressure on Western corporations doing business there.
Unocal, which holds a 28 percent interest in a natural gas
production and pipeline project in Myanmar, is the largest American investor in
the country, and has faced lawsuits and protests from human rights advocates and
student groups demanding its withdrawal from the project.
But the company has refused to bow to the criticism.
In fact, Unocal announced a deal with the Myanmar
government to expand its rights to explore and develop gas fields off the
nation's coast on the same day in 1997 that the State Department issued a report
condemning the killing and torture of dissidents and ethnic minorities in the
country.
The Clinton administration has imposed sanctions on
Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, banning all new investment.
Unocal's natural gas project was grandfathered in under
the federal sanctions, but the company is prohibited from expanding its
investments there.
Human right advocates had also persuaded a number of local
governments, including the State of Massachusetts, to pass laws prohibiting
contracts with companies that do business in Myanmar.
Unocal was in the background of the suit that made its way
to the Supreme Court.
The case was brought against Massachusetts by a Washington
lobbying group called the National Foreign Trade Council. Unocal is one of the
group's 550 members, and is represented on the group's 70-member board.
A spokesman for the trade council said the lawsuit was
intended to attack a broader problem than simply the protests against Unocal in
Myanmar.
The group initiated the suit to combat the growing trend
among state and local governments seeking to influence United States foreign
policy through local sanctions.
Myanmar just happened to be the best test case because a
state, in addition to cities and towns, had imposed sanctions against it, said
Daniel O'Flaherty, vice president of the foreign trade council. He said that
about a half-dozen countries are facing similar locally generated sanctions.
He acknowledged that Myanmar has "an unlovely government"
that added to the public relations problems of the suit.
"Did we think about the P.R. aspects of choosing Burma? --
of course," Mr. O'Flaherty said. "But we were testing the principle of the
latitude of subfederal units" to influence foreign policy.
"The lawsuit was not about Burma," he said. "It was not a
crusade on behalf of Unocal."
The NewYork Times
June 20, 2000 THE FOREIGN POLICY
ISSUE
State Law on Myanmar Boycott Is Voided By LINDA GREENHOUSE ASHINGTON, June 19 -- The Supreme Court today unanimously struck down a Massachusetts law aimed at boycotting companies that do business in Myanmar, ruling that crucial differences between the state law and existing federal sanctions "compromise the very capacity of the president to speak for the nation with one voice in dealing with other governments." Making a rare excursion into the realm of foreign policy,
the court said that under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which gives
Congress the power to pre-empt state laws, the Massachusetts law intended to
undermine the government of Myanmar, formerly Burma, had to fall because it
"stands in the way of Congress's diplomatic objectives."
The court stopped well short of declaring that states have
no constitutionally valid means of taking positions with foreign policy
implications, as many did during years of protest against the apartheid
government in South Africa.
Rather, Justice David H. Souter's opinion focused tightly
on the ways in which the Massachusetts law, which was adopted in early 1996, was
irreconcilable with a federal law passed by Congress three months later and
carried out by a presidential executive order in May 1997.
Justice Souter wrote that while the hallmark of the
federal policy was a "calibration of force" -- leaving the president great
flexibility to impose or lift sanctions as a form of diplomatic leverage -- the
Massachusetts law was much more categorical in barring state agencies from doing
business in most circumstances with any company that conducted business in
Myanmar.
"We see the state Burma law as an obstacle to the
accomplishment of Congress's full objectives under the federal act," he wrote.
The ruling left proponents of cutting off trade with the
Asian country's repressive military government with several other approaches,
including seeking divestment by public pension funds of the stock of companies
that do business there.
Robert Stumberg, a law professor at Georgetown University
who has provided legal advice to "free Burma" coalitions around the country,
said today that along with divestment, other options included seeking public
disclosure of corporate activities in Myanmar as well as pushing for new
legislation from Congress that would disavow any desire to pre-empt state and
local efforts.
There is considerable sympathy in Congress for state and
local anti-Myanmar efforts. Mr. Stumberg filed a brief for 78 members of
Congress who said they had not intended to pre-empt local laws.
The Clinton administration argued strongly that beyond its
specific provisions, the Massachusetts law was unconstitutional as an incursion
into the federal government's exclusive foreign policy role.
It was on that broad ground that the United States Court
of Appeals for the First Circuit struck down the state law last year. The court
today did not go so far, limiting its analysis to the specific ways in which the
state law conflicted with "Congress's specific delegation to the president of
flexible discretion."
As a result, Professor Peter Spiro of Hofstra Law School
said, "once you get outside the Burma context, this decision is of limited
utility in trying to bat back state and local efforts to make foreign policy."
Several cities, including New York, Los Angeles and
Philadelphia, have adopted similar measures restricting municipal purchases from
companies that do business in Burma. Vermont is the only other state with such a
law.
Other countries, including Indonesia, Nigeria and
Switzerland, have recently been the targets of selective-purchasing legislation,
most of which have not passed. But Miami's embargo against Cuba, which is
stricter than the federal embargo, is almost certainly unconstitutional under
today's ruling, said Professor Pamela S. Falk of the City University of New York
law school.
The court today took note of the state and local sanctions
against South Africa that were widespread during the 1980's. No challenge to
those laws ever reached the court, so there was no particular lesson to draw
from that recent history, Justice Souter said. Professor Spiro said that many of
the South Africa sanctions "would have had a tough time surviving" today's
opinion.
The case drew intense interest overseas. The European
Union and its 15 member states filed a brief asking the justices to find the law
unconstitutional.
It also became a lightning rod for anti-globalization
sentiment; protesters demonstrated outside the court the day of arguments,
carrying such signs as "Boston Tea Party 2000" and "E.U. out of Boston Harbor."
The case, Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, No.
99-474, was brought in 1998 against the Massachusetts law by a Washington-based
trade organization of 550 companies that engage in foreign commerce.
Thirty-four of the National Foreign Trade Council's
members were on the state's restricted-purchase list of companies that did
business in Myanmar. The council won a permanent injunction against the law's
enforcement from the Federal District Court in Boston, in a decision that the
appeals court affirmed. (When the case first reached the Supreme Court, it was
known as Natsios v. National Foreign Trade Council.)
Wednesday June 21 10:51 AM ET
WHO Says France, Italy Provide Best Overall Healthcare By Patricia Reaney LONDON (Reuters) - France, Italy, Singapore and Oman
provide the best overall healthcare in the world, the WHO said Wednesday in a
report assessing health systems around the globe.
The United States spends $3,700 per person on healthcare,
more than any other country, but only ranks 37th in the World Health
Organization evaluation of health systems in 191 countries.
``It is the first time anybody, not just WHO, has tried to
quantify and measure what health systems achieve and produce,'' Dr Christopher
Murray, the director of WHO's Global Program on Evidence for Health Policy, told
Reuters.
``It's not more money for health, it's more health for the
money,'' he added in a telephone interview.
Among the biggest surprises the WHO found were the
variations among countries and how well some nations in the developing world use
their resources to get better healthcare.
San Marino, Andorra, Malta, Spain, Austria and Japan round
out the top 10 performers is the WHO assessment which based its findings on
healthy life expectancy, efficiency and equality of the health system and
whether it responds to the social and financial needs of the people it is
designed to serve.
Sierra Leone, Myanmar, the Central African Republic and
the Democratic Republic of the Congo are at the bottom of the WHO scale.
Oman Is Examplary
``What is new and useful in the analysis is to compare
where a country is to how well they could do, so that countries can identify
where they are not using their resources as well as possible,'' said Murray.
Although the United States is the top spender and scores
well in responsiveness, it falls short on effectiveness and healthcare equality,
pulling down its overall ranking.
In contrast Oman, where just two decades ago 23 percent of
children died before their fifth birthday, spends a fraction of the U.S. figure
and scored eighth on the list.
``Oman is a country that spends $330 per person on health.
It does very well on all the criteria,'' explained Murray. ``In 20 years of
focused development on a well-designed, well-managed health system they are now
one of the best performers.''
Saudi Arabia (26), the United Arab Emirates (27) and
Morocco (29) were other nations in the Middle East and Africa which came out
tops.
``Colombia (22) is doing the best of all the countries in
Latin America. They have implemented an extremely fair way of accessing the
system which is now giving access to a much broader segment of the population
which is reducing health inequalities and leading to better responsiveness,''
said Murray.
Chile (33), Costa Rica (36) and Cuba (39) also scored high
marks in the region.
In Asia and the Pacific, Singapore at number six and Japan
at 10 offer the best healthcare, far ahead of Australia at 32 and New Zealand at
41.
China (144) and Sri Lanka (76), two Asian nations formerly
regarded as exemplary models of good healthcare, have not fulfilled their
promise.
Despite huge economic growth, healthcare has barely
improved in China in the past 20 years and a dismantling of the insurance system
means many people no longer have medical coverage.
``They (the Chinese) could do twice as well with the
available money,'' said Murray, adding that political turmoil had taken a toll
on healthcare in Sri Lanka.
Pre-Payment Better Than Out-Of-Pocket Health Coverage
The report also found that a pre-payment system is better
than paying out-of-pocket. In countries where citizens pay out-of-pocket some
households are spending more than 50 percent of their disposable income on
medical care.
``What we find looking across countries is that systems
that use pre-payment mechanisms, through taxes or insurance, do better,'' Murray
added.
According to the WHO $60 per capita spending on healthcare
is the threshold for an effective health system. Below that amount there is not
enough money to make the health system work.
Wednesday June 21 1:00 AM ET
France Rated No.
1 in Health Care
By EMMA ROSS, AP Medical Writer LONDON (AP) - France has the best health care system in the world, followed by Italy, while war-torn Sierra Leone has the worst, according to a contentious first attempt to rank the world's health systems. The United States, which spends more on health care than
any other nation, came in 37th.
In the analysis published Wednesday, the World Health
Organization evaluated the health care systems of its 191 members and graded
them based on how well each country performs given the resources at its
disposal.
Previous assessments have looked just at how healthy
people are, ``and you're left with the image that the rich (countries) do well
because they're rich,'' said study co-author Dr. Julio Frenk. This new analysis
praises health systems ``that utilize few resources very well.''
The report essentially measures value for money: comparing
a population's health with how effectively governments spend their money on
health, how well the public health system prevents illness instead of just
treating it and how fairly the poor, minorities and other special populations
are treated. It also examines how fairly the bill is divided among people.
When each country's measurements were added together, even
study co-author Dr. Christopher Murray, a Harvard health economist and the
health organization's chief of health policy evidence, was surprised. He had
expected Scandinavian countries or Canada to be the world's best, because
they're always presented as models.
Instead, Norway hit No. 11, Canada 30.
Some health economists raised concerns about the method
used to compile the rankings, in which several Mediterranean countries scored
unexpectedly high.
Tiny countries with few patients to care for - San Marino,
Andorra, Malta - crowd onto the surprising best list. Singapore, Spain, Oman and
Austria also made the top 10. Japan, which came top for the health of its
people, placed 10th overall.
At the bottom of the list were Sierra Leone, Myanmar,
Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Nigeria.
Many of the worst-faring countries are in sub-Saharan
Africa. Largely because of the AIDS epidemic, healthy life expectancy for babies
born this year in many of those nations has dropped to 40 years or less, WHO
said.
Some experts contended the rankings seemed to say more
about the health of people in each country rather than the quality of the health
care systems.
``They are obviously getting an olive oil effect,'' said
Nick Bosanquet, health policy professor at London University's Imperial College,
referring to the famed Mediterranean diet.
``No previous analysis of the Italian health system has
placed it near No. 2 in the world,'' he said. ``Any set of rankings that puts
Finland at 31 and Italy at 2, or even France at No. 1, raises questions.''
Americans - while good at expensive, heroic care - are
very poor at the low-cost preventive care that keeps Europeans healthy, said
Princeton University health economist Uwe Reinhardt.
The United States spends a stunning $3,724 per person on
health each year. But measuring how long people live in good health - not just
how long they live - the Japanese beat Americans by 41/2 years, and the French
lived three more healthy years. Yet Japan spends just $1,759 per person on
health and France $2,125.
``That's a pretty big gap,'' noted Murray. ``For the money
we're spending, we should be able to do a lot better.''
Regardless of debate over rankings and what criteria to
use, the WHO won wide praise for establishing a way countries' improvement, or
worsening, can be measured.
``You could disagree with it, but it's not silly, what
they've done,'' said Julian Le Grand, professor of social policy at the London
School of Economics.
Wednesday, June 21 8:06 PM SGT
N Korea To Join Asean
Regional Summit - Thai Foreign Min
SINGAPORE (AP)--North Korea is expected to attend the security forum of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in July after being granted membership status, Thailand's foreign minister said late Wednesday. North Korea's attempts to cultivate relations with other
countries, as well as the recent summit between North and South Korea, worked in
its favor to become a member of the Asean Regional Forum, Foreign Minister Surin
Pitsuwan said.
"Things have developed in a more favorable direction
regarding the issue of security in the Asia Pacific region," Surin said.
"All our 22 members have endorsed the idea. We welcome the
participation of North Korea as a new member, this will contribute to a wider
opportunity of confidence building," he told reporters at a press conference
here.
Surin is in Singapore to witness the signing of a
memorandum of understanding on legal, judicial and arbitration cooperation
between Singapore's Ministry of Law and the Thai Ministry of Justice. He leaves
Thursday.
The 10 Asean foreign ministers will meet in Bangkok in
July. After their annual meeting, members will discuss regional security issues
in the forum with 12 other nations, including the U.S., Canada, China, Japan,
Russia and India. The European Union also participates.
Asean comprises Thailand, Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia,
Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore and Vietnam.
South China Morning Post
Wednesday, June 21, 2000 BURMA Boycott advocates
unruffled by US court decision
WILLIAM BARNES in Bangkok The US Supreme Court's decision to knock down a
Massachusetts state law shunning companies that do business with Burma will
hardly dent the boycott movement, pro-democracy activists claim.
"It's reached the point where any Western company that does business with Burma knows it risks paying a high price. If there isn't a consumer backlash, the activists will target that company - and not many firms like that," said a Western commercial officer based in Bangkok. The Supreme Court said selective state purchasing laws
aimed at firms doing business in Burma usurped the Washington administration's
right to conduct a coherent foreign policy.
Some 20 cities have such laws aimed at Burma. Others
target the mainland, Nigeria, Cuba, Iran and other countries.
But if companies like Apple, Motorola and Kodak appear to
have been forced out of Burma by state laws, many more have withdrawn for
ethical, image or straight business reasons, said Debbie Stothard, co-ordinator
of the Alternative Asean Network.
Carlsberg, IBM, Heineken, Levi-Strauss, Eddie Bauer,
Macy's, PepsiCo, Texaco and Walt Disney no longer do business in Burma.
In the early stages of the campaign against South Africa's
white regime it was possible for a large number of US businesses to see
prospects in that countries' relatively sophisticated and development economy,
said the commercial officer.
"It's very different in Burma. For most firms it's an easy
decision to pull out," he said.
When Levi Strauss withdrew it said: "It is not possible to
do business in Burma without directly supporting the military Government and its
pervasive violations of human rights." Reebok said: "We do not feel that we can
adequately apply our human rights standards and do business in Burma."
The Supreme Court ruling focused narrowly on selective
purchase agreements - in Massachusetts state targeted firms can only win state
contracts if their bids are 10 per cent lower than any rivals'.
Only months after the Massachusetts law came into effect,
the Clinton administration imposed a ban on new investment in Burma and
continues to veto intervention by international lenders like the World Bank.
Ms Stothard argued that even the thickest-skinned company
often had a hard time justifying its presence in the country.
"The biggest promoter of non-investment is the military
regime itself. It is unpredictable, irrational, non-transparent and dramatically
unable to raise the development of human resources in the country. The generals
themselves give great strength to the boycott campaign."
Wednesday, June 21,
2000.
A BOSTON GLOBE EDITORIAL
New tactics for Burma The US Supreme Court's unanimous decision voiding the
Massachusetts selective purchasing law for companies doing business with the
military junta in Burma was tightly drawn. The justices rejected the law because
they found that federal sanctions against Burma, passed by Congress three months
after adoption of the Massachusetts law, preempted the earlier state law. The
differences between the two laws, the court said, ''compromise the very capacity
of the president to speak for the nation with one voice in dealing with other
governments.''
Now that the court has spoken, upholding the Constitution's Supremacy Clause in conflicts between Congress and the states, defenders of human rights in Burma would be wise to pursue their struggle with other tactics and by other means. After all, the ultimate aim of that struggle is not to punish callous corporations doing business with the junta's narco-thugs but to restore democracy and human and civil rights to the Burmese and to the brutalized ethnic minorities in Burma. The original idea for the Massachusetts selective purchasing law was suggested to Democratic state Representative Byron Rushing of Boston by Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa and was modeled on antiapartheid laws. Yesterday, on the occasion of a birthday celebration for Aung Sun Suu Kyi, the nonviolent leader of Burma's democracy movement, Tutu called on people in the world who had ''supported our cause for sanctions ... For goodness sake you can do something, you can impose stringent economic sanctions on the military regime of Burma, and they too can, as the apartheid rulers, bite the dust.'' Last week the International Labor Organization, by a vote of 257 to 41, gave the Burmese junta five months to end the horrors of forced labor or face sanctions. Similar multilateral actions against the junta may be pursued at the upcoming G-8 meeting in Okinawa and at the meeting of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in Thailand, late in July. More than ever, American citizens and their government should heed Bishop Tutu's call. That call has certainly not been heard by the corporations doing business with the uniformed killers and drug dealers in Rangoon. The Nation - June 21, 2000. Letters - List of Asian leadersshould include Aung San Suu Kyi
This has reference to "'Weaker sex' takes a stronger role in Asia" on the Opinion & Analysis page of your paper on June 18. I think the record should be straightened. Among the four opposition leaders mentioned above, Burma's Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is conspicuously missing. Later her name was mentioned in a small paragraph and that too not correctly. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has never equated her patriotic duties with inherited responsibility as alleged. It is very unfortunate that her status based on her own merit had not been projected. I think history has not produced a woman leader who has fought tyranny and brute force as heroically as she has done. Not only she has suffered imprisonment/house arrest, but she has been constantly subjected to mental agony due to a vilification campaign and harassment by the powers that be. Further, her husband Michel Aris was not allowed to meet her for the last time before his death. She has two sons attending school abroad and they are not permitted to meet their mother. A woman leader under such trying and dreadful conditions fighting for a cause is hardly to be found in the annals of history. She has become celebrated by her writings especially "Freedom from Fear". She is a Nobel laureate, an outstanding leader internationally acknowledged, and the symbol of hope of the Burmese people suffering tyranny and brutal oppression. Women of Burma Day is commemorated on her birthday in many countries. She has also become a model in the grim struggle between democracy and military dictatorship. The more challenges she faces, the stronger she appears.
B K Sem BANGKOK |