Is the Burmese people’s renewed outrage destined to swell and die, as did the events of 8/8/88? The signs are already there. And if the rest of the world continues to believe in a policy of engagement, “domestic reconciliation” and non-interference, it is clear that the Burmese regime will continue to thrive. Secret detentions, extrajudicial executions, forced labour and the specific repression of minorities will persist, and September 2007 will become another date etched in the collective memory of the Burmese – yet another marker of the international community’s indifference. 

World reaction has been disappointingly passive and formulaic over the last few weeks. While influential Asian countries such as China, India and Thailand have chosen to humour the Burmese junta, the rhetoric of the West has not been matched by action on the ground. 

By allowing their nationals to conduct business in Burma, the United States, Europe as well as Asian countries have helped the military junta, the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), survive and prosper, even as ordinary Burmese receive none of the benefits. In order to stop the flow of money into the junta’s coffers, the United States and the European Union must implement a version of the Helms-Burton Act, which forces investors to choose whether to do business with Burma or with the United States.  

How is the Burmese military junta funded? The country’s main source of revenue derives from its vast oil and natural gas reserves. So large that, according to Human Rights Watch, “[g]as exports accounted for fully half of the country's exports in 2006. Burma's gas business brought in revenue of $2.16 billion in 2006 from sales to its main buyer, Thailand”. Other exports include teak and forest products, agricultural, and garments. 

US sanctions inadequate 

The United States is the only country to have imposed trade and investment sanctions on Burma. It banned new investment in the country in 1997, but allowed already established companies to remain legal entities. Its 2003 Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act and a 2006 renewal of the law prohibits the import of Burmese goods, freezes US assets of SPDC officials, and imposes a travel ban on senior members of the government. The State Department estimates that the regime lost $200 million in the first year of trade sanctions.  

Last week, Washington’s trailblazer status disappeared when it announced that the only new sanction would be an expanded visa ban on Burmese officials. According to the White House, the policy intends to express, “outrage of the American people at the continued oppression of the people of Burma.” However, it fails to suggest a meaningful strategy for peaceful democratic transition.  

Apparently, President George Bush considers permitting US-owned Unocal (Chevron) to continue its contract with the military junta as “stand[ing] up for people suffering under dictatorship.” Does President Bush honestly expect the Burmese government to feel the heat when only “new investments” are banned?  

Europe’s hypocrisy 

France’s most profitable company, Total, is a major investor in the Burmese economy. Its contract with the state-controlled gas corporation makes it the leading partner in the Yadana gas project – an offshore pipeline that produces 17.4 million cubic meters of gas per day. Other investors in the project are US-owned Unocal/Chevron (28.2%), the Petroleum Authority of Thailand Exploration & Production (25.5%), and the state-owned Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise (MOGE, 15%). According to a United Nations estimate, Burma spends over 40% of its annual budget on military expenses. The significance of the Yadana pipeline is clear: it means gigantic profits for the Burmese junta.  

The United Kingdom is a substantial contributor to the military junta through the British Virgin Islands. Burmese officials claim that Britain is the second largest foreign investor in the country, pumping £1.2 billion into the economy from 1988 to approximately 2004. While the British Foreign Office denies this claim, arguing that the figure includes decades-old investments from companies that disinvested years ago, the Burma Campaign UK confirms the figures to be reasonable and the BBC is unconvinced by the Foreign Office’s response, as well. The Burma Campaign UK also points out that, “[c]ompanies from all over the world have used subsidiaries in British dependent territories to invest in Burma, including France's Total Oil, Unocal (now Chevron) of the US, and ex-Thai Premier Thaksin's Shincorp”. 

What the European Union (EU) peddles as sanctions is actually a cover-up for inaction. The EU has set travel restrictions, banned arms sales, and frozen assets of SPDC senior military, government officials and their families. A regulation banning investment in state-owned companies neglects to prohibit investment in the mining, timber, and oil and natural gas sectors. The EU’s recently announced sanctions follow the United States’ pitiful example of expanding travel and visa bans. The proposed sanctions will not bar investment by European oil and gas companies, even as the MOGE continues to operate joint ventures in approximately 30 different gas fields. 

EU legislators and French President Nicolas Sarkozy are equally unfazed by French Total’s role in military abuses linked to construction of the Yadana pipeline. Total has been on the defensive regarding forced labour accusations since 1992 when its contract with the government established that the Burmese military would provide security for the pipeline. This militarisation of the pipeline has triggered abundant and well-documented human rights abuses such as rape, torture, and most commonly, forced labour. Total has settled several labour compensation suits, but refuses to pull out of Burma claiming that “far from solving Myanmar's problems, a forced withdrawal would only lead to our replacement by other operators probably less committed to the ethical principles guiding all our initiatives. Our departure could cause the population even greater hardship and is thus an unacceptable risk”. Total’s moralistic response indicates that it will not leave Burma on its own. President Sarkozy’s feeble call for a freeze on new investment allows Total and other companies to stay active in the region. His response is a typical example of EU leaders’ shadowboxing aimed at protecting their countries’ business interests. 

A number of other European firms have a presence in Burma. These companies are based in countries that claim to uphold and speak up for human rights in Burma and elsewhere. The activities of Maersk (Denmark), Siemens (Germany), SBM Offshore (Netherlands), Worldwood (Netherlands) and SGS Group (Switzerland) serve to expose the glaring hypocrisy of these countries. 

Japan’s balancing act 

Japan is the largest provider of humanitarian aid to Burma, with an annual contribution of over $26 million. This, however, is effectively neutralised by the extent of Japanese corporate investment in Burma – in oil, natural gas, textiles and timber. Investing companies include Sompo Japan, Sumitomo Corporation, Kajima, Marubeni, Mitsui, Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance, Nikko Hotels International/Japan Airlines, and Nippon Oil. Japan’s Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda has threatened to cut aid to Burma, but has yet to impose new economic sanctions. 

Australia’s excuse  

Prime Minister and Liberal Party member John Howard has refused to impose sanctions against the junta on the grounds that Australia does not “have a lot of trade with Burma.” Despite the supposed absence in trade, Burma’s economy does indeed appear to matter to Australian politicians. In late September 2007, it was alleged that a company linked to the Liberal Party was doing business in Burma. The Green Party alleged that Health Minister Tony Abbott was receiving funding from Twinza Oil, which had signed an exploration deal in November 2006 with the Burmese government.  

Australia’s attempt to assuage its guilt has been to launch numerous ‘human rights training” programmes for mid-level bureaucrats in the SPDC. The stated intention of these ludicrous programmes was to establish an independent human rights institution. This absurd plan, unsurprisingly, failed and only served to lend legitimacy to the ruling junta. 

The case for sanctions 

Massive international investment coupled with the fact that Burma, along with Somalia, has the most corrupt public sector in the world, means that all revenues flow into the military’s coffers. 

The National League for Democracy (NLD), the party democratically elected in 1990 but prevented from taking office, has consistently lobbied for economic sanctions by the international community. Nobel Peace Prize winner and leader of the NLD, Aung San Suu Kyi, has made it abundantly clear that Burma’s junta depends on foreign investment. She declared more than ten years ago that “[French] Total has become the main supporter of the Burmese military regime”. 

It is time for the West to initiate targeted, hard-hitting economic sanctions against the Burmese regime. Only then will it be able to apply the requisite moral pressure on countries such as China, India and Thailand. As Human Rights Features has consistently pointed out, it is these countries that have helped prop up the Burmese regime by audaciously and unapologetically courting it (see HRF/81/03 - “Time to make the generals sweat” and HRF/144/06 - “Mission of Burma”).  

The shadowboxing has gone on too far.

 Human Rights Features