Causecast

by ASHISH SHARMA, Causecast Editor

Gone are the protests of the 60s and 70s. In this new age, if people want to make a difference, it’s going to be through their pocketbooks. Personally, I would find nothing better to do than walk the streets with my fellow activists to protest Proposition 8 or jump in a tree to prevent it from being bulldozed. However, with the majority of the developed world glued to their computer screens, the most effective way to make an impact could be through managing your portfolio or selling stocks. Sit-ins, demonstrations and rallies are slowly being replaced by economic actions such as microfinance loans, divestment and socially responsible investing (SRI). In fact, in the late 80s and early 90s, divestment not only affected South Africa’s economy, but it also caused a storm of negative publicity and greatly contributed to ending apartheid. Now it is time to free the people of Burma using economic diplomacy. Burma is a nation where a military of 500,000 denies the basic human rights of 47 million people. Aung San Suu Kyi and her party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), won over 82% of the seats during elections in 1990, but the military junta nullified the results. Aung San Suu Kyi has spent the last 19 years under house arrest and remains the only imprisoned Nobel Peace Prize recipient. On August 14, 2009, U.S. Senator Jim Webb flew to Burma in a highly publicized trip, where he met with senior generals and Aung San Suu Kyi. Although he secured the release of John Yettaw, an American, there was no progress with Aung San Suu Kyi’s detention. With much of Burma’s development being funded by overseas actors, divestment is the most efficient way to bring democracy to Burma.

Divestment is the act of selling an asset for a greater social goal. It was first used in South Africa in 1984 and immediately impacted South Africa’s relationship with the rest of the world. Within the next five years, South African currency, the rand, rose to above 12% inflation and billions were moved out of the South African economy. Recently, the movement to divest from companies in Sudan, headed by the Sudan Divestment Task Force, was successful in signing up 20 states using the Task Force Model and eight others using another model. The Sudan divestment movement was targeted at big companies that are heavily invested in Sudan, with the ultimate goal of making people conscious of where their money is going. As with South Africa and Sudan, Burma is the perfect candidate for economic sanctions because of its foreign dependency and for the military junta’s blatant disregard of human rights.

Burma is a country ravaged by war and suffering. The military is guilty of human rights violations of the most brutal nature; the military rapes women, imprisons dissenters and enacts scorched earth policies against innocent villages. Burma’s economy is dependent on foreign institutions coming in to take advantage of the natural resource rich country. Some big corporations that have signed millions of dollars of contracts in Burma are Chevron/Unocal (US), Nippon Oil (Japan), Total S.A. (France), and PetroChina, but smaller multinational corporations perform most of the work. Surprisingly, Berkshire Hathaway and their philanthropic CEO Warren Buffet invested over $3.3 million into PetroChina. Not only does this fuel the military regime in Burma, PetroChina accounts for the majority of oil business in Sudan and funds the genocide there as well. Warren Buffet serves as a trustee for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which invests around $22.4 million in different oil companies that work in Sudan. This dependence on foreign investment brings in a lot of money, but it goes directly to the military junta. So implementing economic sanctions wouldn’t make the Burmese people worse off since reports indicate that the profits from oil investments directly fund the military government. Economic sanctions would be an effective way to cripple the ruling military and make them more willing to cooperate.

Some claim that economic sanctions are counterproductive because in this new era of globalization, the people benefit from technology and better wages. The Cato Institute claims that the United States would have a minimal effect, if any, because it is the fifth largest investor in Burma, after Britain, France, Thailand and Singapore. Also, the reason Chevron and Total are still operating in Burma is not due to the lack of sanctions, it’s because they made contracts before there was international pressure on the repressive regime. I advocate for the economic sanctions to be expanded for all international institutions. Globalization can increase the welfare and quality of lives for people, but not in totalitarian regimes. People are forced to work in camps against their will, so it doesn’t make sense to say that they will get richer. There is no freedom of press and even art exhibits have to be cleared through the military. Although the U.S. is not a primary partner with Burma, a country with the biggest economy in the world is definitely not powerless in this situation. The U.S. should impose full economic restrictions on Burma, and at the same time, be vigilant in urging the other four countries to get involved.

A few weeks ago, Senator Jim Webb visited Burma and won the release of American John Yettaw, who was imprisoned in Burma for swimming across a lake to Aung San Suu Kyi’s house. Webb was also fortunate enough to meet with Aung San Suu Kyi, but was not able to get her release. There is speculation that this is the beginning of a new policy toward Burma and its leadership. However, a more lenient diplomatic approach to Burma will do nothing towards freeing the people or making it more democratic. Burma’s generals have thrived without U.S. financial support and they have no intention to give up their power. After witnessing the UN International Criminal Court find Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir guilty of war crimes, the ruling military in Burma will definitely not be willing to relinquish their power over fears of being convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Releasing Aung San Suu Kyi will also do nothing unless elections are truly democratic and she is allowed to lead the people. She has maintained that her plight is the struggle for the freedom of her people.

The struggle for freedom is never an easy one. The Burmese people have stood up to their military junta for almost 20 years and they need our help. All it takes is a little research to make sure that you’re not funding their exploitation. Just as we make sure our clothes do not exploit workers in developing nations, let’s ensure that our retirement plans and portfolios are not funding any unnecessary killing. Everyone has their part to play and it doesn’t require any diplomatic negotiations between world leaders. If the people lead, then the leaders will follow.

Photo by Donna Cymek, Flickr