The EU and Japan take exception to an ordinance enacted by the state of Massachusetts in June that bars state agencies from contracting with companies that do business in Burma. In These Times has obtained a January 22 letter from the EU to the U.S. State Department insisting that the law is an infringement of free trade. The letter threatened that the EU may appeal the case to the World Trade Organization in Geneva. Representatives from the Japanese consulate in Boston have also exerted pressure on the state, threatening to approach the WTO, according to Massachusetts officials. In the last year, Massachusetts and 10 cities, including San Francisco and Oakland, Calif., have adopted local ordinances that bar business with Burma or financially penalize companies that invest there. The Massachusetts legislature is also considering a law aimed at companies that invest in Indonesia, which has a history of human rights abuses in East Timor even worse than that of Burma's military regime. As a result of Massachusetts' restrictions, Apple Computer pulled out of Burma in October, followed shortly there after by Hewlett-Packard, Motorola and Eastman Kodak. Now the ordinances, known as selective-purchasing laws, threaten powerful multinational corporations such as Los Angeles-based Unocal and France's Total, who will reportedIy share $200 million in profit from a joint venture to build a gas pipeline in Burma. The Japanese consulate responded so vehemently to Massachusetts' selective-purchasing law because 30 Japanese companies, including Mitsubishi and Toyota, showed up on the state's Burma blacklist.

"Now that these laws are hitting the companies where it hurts, the companies realize this is a serious threat to their business," says Simon Billeness, a senior analyst at the Boston-based investment firm Franklin Research and Development and coordinator of the Massachusetts Burma Roundtable, a human rights group that advocated the bill.

Burma's military junta seized power in 1988 after crushing a pro-democracy uprising led by students. Commonly known as the State Law and Order Restoration Council, or SLORC, the regime is responsible for egregious human rights violations, including torture, rape, forced labor and suppression of free speech.

The chance is "very high." says Mike Dolan of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, that a case considered by the WTO could result in nullification or weakening of the Massachusetts law. "Under the WTO, those kinds of laws become nontariff-based barriers, which invite WTO challenges," Dolan explains. In January 1996, the WTO threatened the United States with trade sanctions if it didn't abrogate the Clean Air Act to allow Venezuela to export gasoline that didn't meet U.S. emissions standards. Because WTO rules allow only national government representatives to dispute claims, Massachusetts will have no recourse if the Clinton Administration makes a deal over its head.

The EU's missive is only the latest in a series of protests received by the State Department from foreign entities, according to Dr. Thaung Htun, the U.N. representative of Burma's exiled democratic government. The State Department's Burma desk officer would not return calls for comment.

Critics of the Burmese military regime are concerned that opposition to the Massachusetts law could not only affect existing laws but also corrode support for initiatives in other states and cities.

Human rights advocates point to the brewing trade war as evidence of the way democracy has been undermined by global free trade agreements. Afraid of retaliatory trade sanctions, nations are effectively ceding veto power over their laws to the WTO. That, says Dolan, "is the new jurisprudence of international commerce."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Image] Home Page

From di238@freenet.carleton.ca Fri Jan 29 16:29:06 1999

Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 13:20:08 -0400

From: Terry Cottam <di238@freenet.carleton.ca>

To: mai-not@flora.org

[Includes list of 22 U.S. cities and states, plus one in Australia, that

now have similar laws.]

---

Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 10:39:04 -0400

From: Simon Billenness <sbillenness@frdc.com>

Originally From: Marco Simons <msimons@post.harvard.edu>

CAMBRIDGE (MA) PASSES BURMA SELECTIVE PURCHASING

June 8, 1998: The Cambridge City Council passed a Burma selective purchasing resolution tonight in a unanimous vote of all nine council members. Congratulations to all who helped out with this campaign; it was very satisfying to see the Council pass the resolution. A number of individuals spoke in favor of the resolution in the public comment period.

The resolution as passed is a pretty strong one, although as a resolution it is city policy rather than law. The text is printed below.

The most important step now is to keep defending the Massachusetts Burma Law; the Cambridge resolution includes a clause supporting that law. The lawsuit against the Massachusetts law may ultimately decide whether any local selective purchasing laws are allowable.

Massachusetts is still trailing California, however, at six selective purchasing laws to eight. But we're catching up.

--Marco Simons

[Editorial note: If you are interested in starting a campaign to enact a Burma selective purchasing law in your home town or state, contact Simon Billenness <sbillenness@frdc.com> and Dan Orzech <orzech@well.com>]

-----------------

The current list of 22 cities, counties and states with Burma selective purchasing:

Berkeley, CA

Madison, WI

Santa Monica, CA

Ann Arbor, MI

San Francisco, CA

Oakland, CA

The State of Massachusetts

Takoma Park, MD

Carrboro, NC

Alameda County, CA

Boulder, CO

Chapel Hill, NC

New York, NY

Santa Cruz, CA

Quincy, MA

Palo Alto, CA

Newton, MA

West Hollywood, CA

Brookline, MA

Somerville, MA

Marrickville, NSW, Australia

Cambridge, MA

---------------------

WHEREAS:

The nation of Burma (also known as Myanmar) has institutionalized torture and rape as political instruments, has embarked upon campaigns of forcible relocation, forced labor and slavery, the persecution of ethnic minorities and other human rights violations, all designed to deny the majority of the population the right to life, liberty and equality, and has denied to the people of Burma the right to participate in the political process, the right to benefit from a fair and equitable system of justice and the right to exercise fairly their economic rights; and

WHEREAS:

The military regime that controls Burma is attempting to enhance its standing in the international community and to increase the flow of foreign money and investment in Burma through the use of economic incentives that are based, in part, upon the forcible relocation, forced labor and slavery of its people; and

WHEREAS:

The City of Cambridge declares the right to measure the moral character of its business partners in determining with whom it seeks to have business relationships; now therefore be it

RESOLVED:

That as a matter of public policy the City of Cambridge declares that it will not purchase goods, services or commodities from any company or corporation that does business in the nation of Burma; and be it further

RESOLVED:

That "Doing business with Burma (Myanmar)" is defined as:

Having a principal place of business, place of incorporation or its corporate headquarters in Burma (Myanmar) or having any operations, leases, franchises, majority-owned subsidiaries, distribution agreements or any other similar agreements in Burma (Myanmar), or being the majority-owned subsidiary, licensee or franchise of such a person;

Providing financial services to the government of Burma (Myanmar), including providing direct loans, underwriting government securities, providing any consulting advice or assistance, providing brokerage services, acting as a trustee or escrow agent, or otherwise acting as an agent pursuant to a contractual agreement;

Promoting the importation or sale of gems, timber, oil, gas or other related products, commerce in which is largely controlled by the government of Burma (Myanmar), from Burma (Myanmar);

Providing any goods or services to the government of Burma (Myanmar), or a person with operations in Burma (Myanmar) for the sole purpose of reporting the news or solely for the purpose of providing goods or services for the provision of international telecommunications shall not be subject to the provisions of this resolution; and be it further

RESOLVED:

That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Chief Procurement Officer for the City of Cambridge to inform all potential bidders with the City of this policy and resolution and is requested to enforce the policy stated herein with respect to the purchase of all goods, services, commodities and construction contracts by the City of Cambridge; and be it further

RESOLVED:

That this resolution shall not apply if the Chief Procurement Officer makes a finding that:

The particular goods or services to be provided are necessary to protect or preserve the health, safety or welfare of the public; and

No comparable product is available from another source without incurring substantial additional costs or suffering substantial decrease in quality;

That implementation of this policy would be inconsistent with the laws of the Commonwealth, including the competitive bidding statutes; or

That the implementation of this policy would be inconsistent with established guidelines for a particular product or class of products; and be it further

RESOLVED:

That the City Council go on record as continuing its support of the Massachusetts Burma Law and urge vigorous defense of this law by the Attorney General's Office, and be it further

RESOLVED:

That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward a copy of this resolution to the Massachusetts Attorney General.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

ICEM Update

Burma: American Unions Call For Sanctions No. 10/1997

24 February 1997

---------------------------------------------------------------------

The Clinton administration should "implement economic sanctions" against the Burmese regime "without further delay in accordance with the law." So says the US labour federation AFL-CIO in a resolution introduced by the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers' Union (OCAW).

At global level, the OCAW is affiliated to the 20-million-strong International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers' Unions (ICEM). The ICEM has repeatedly called upon the oil multinationals either to use their great influence to end human rights violations by the Burmese military regime - notably the use of forced labour - or to pull out of Burma (Myanmar).

"We hope we have stuck another nail in the military regime's coffin with this resolution, which expresses the leadership sentiment representing millions of US workers," commented OCAW President Robert E. Wages, who is a member of the ICEM Executive. "Maybe now the Clinton Administration will do what Congress intended it to do and quit making excuses for refusing to impose these sanctions."

The AFL-CIO resolution calls on US corporations to withdraw investment from Burma and encourages unions to mobilise members to press the Clinton administration and the US Congress to take whatever steps necessary to restore democracy and civilian rule in Burma. Unions should also support selective purchasing legislation - already adopted in a number of US localities - barring the spending of public funds with companies that do business with Burma.

Oil multinationals Unocal, Arco and Texaco are providing the Burmese military regime with "large amounts of desperately needed hard currency," the resolution points out. At the same time, these companies are engaged in "severe downsizing and cost-cutting which has compromised worker and community safety and is resulting in significant loss of high-skill, high-wage jobs in the United States."

The production and sale of heroin are also highlighted in the resolution. These are said to be the Burmese regime's biggest source of revenue after oil (see ICEM UPDATE 78/1996).

"We're soon going to find out whose side the Clinton Administration is really on," Wages said, "the oil companies' and drug dealers' - or the workers'."

Wages said the 90,000-member OCAW is planning a "Three Days for Burma" campaign across America this spring, with the aim of pressing the Clinton administration and the US Congress to act for the restoration of democracy and civilian rule in Burma.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

ICEM Update

April 22-24 No. 20/1997

9 April 1997

---------------------------------------------------------------------

President Clinton will come under renewed pressure this month to bring in sanctions against Burma's repressive military regime.

"Three Days For Burma" will be organised by the US Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union (OCAW) on April 22-24, the union announced today. The event will be held in cooperation with the United Mine Workers' Union of America (UMWA) and the Free Burma Coalition, which is represented on over 130 college campuses in the US.

Globally, the OCAW and the UMWA are both affiliated to the 20-million-strong International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers' Unions (ICEM).

"Three Days For Burma" will focus attention on the Clinton administration's refusal to impose sanctions against the Burmese regime, despite receiving full authorisation from the US Congress to do so.

The European Union is now withdrawing Burma's trade privileges after the international trade union movement presented detailed evidence of the use of forced labour and child labour (see ICEM UPDATE 16/97).

Currently, some 800,000 Burmese are reported to be engaged in forced labour - in effect, slavery. Their work accounts for around 10 per cent of the country's gross domestic product.

"Three Days For Burma" will also put the spotlight on "the support of multinational corporations, particularly oil companies, for repressive governments in Burma and elsewhere."

The ICEM has repeatedly called upon the oil companies either to use their great influence to help end rights violations in Burma, notably the use of forced labour, or to pull out of the country.

The organisers of "Three Days For Burma" would welcome supporting action by unions and others worldwide. For more information, contact Joe Drexler at the OCAW, PO Box 281200, Lakewood, CO 80228-8200, USA. e-mail OCAWIU@aol.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------

ICEM Update

U.S. Union Hails Burma Sanctions Victory No. 23/1997

23 April 1997

------------------------------------------------------------------------

A US oil workers' union and an umbrella group established to restore Burmese democracy have jointly applauded the Clinton Administration's decision to impose economic sanctions on Burma.

The sanctions follow international campaigning by trade unions and others over massive human rights violations by the Burmese military regime, notably the systematic use of forced labour. The European Union has already withdrawn trading privileges from Burma over the same issue.

Robert E. Wages, President of the 90,000-member Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union (OCAW), said the new US sanctions are "a major victory in the struggle to make multinational corporations accountable for their actions at home and abroad. The repercussions of the decision to impose sanctions extend far beyond Burma and would not have been possible without an upsurge from workers, students and community activists, along with the brave actions of the Burmese people in fighting repression."

The sanctions were announced on the eve of the "3 Days for Burma" campaign on April 22-24, which was planned by the OCAW to take place at 400 workplaces around the country. The campaign is supported by the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) and now has participation from over 60 college campuses and communities across the US. A central focus of the 3 Days for Burma campaign was a petition for sanctions.

Zar Ni, a Burmese exile and founder of the Free Burma Coalition, cautioned that the imposition of limited economic sanctions, while a major victory, will not put an end to Burma's dictatorship and its atrocities. "We will now concentrate our efforts on the major oil companies who are providing a lifeline to the dictatorship as they downsize their US operations, lay off thousands of US workers and make oil refineries unsafe," he said.

At global level, both the OCAW and the UMWA are affiliated to the 20-million-strong International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers' Unions (ICEM), which has consistently called upon the oil multinationals either to use their great influence to end rights violations in Burma or to close down their operations there.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Today, the European Parliament voted unanimously to support a resolution that included a clause specifically urging the European Parliament NOT to file a complaint at the World Trade Organization concerning the Massachusetts Burma law.

This is a tremendous slap in the face to the European Commission. It is the clearest indication of the lack of support within the European Union for the European Commission's opposition to the Massachusetts Burma law. It greatly strengthens the position of proponents of the Massachusetts Burma law.

Congratulations should go to Gijs Hillenius and Tom Kramer of the Burma Center Netherlands for ensuring that the European Parliament resolution contained this provision on the Massachusetts Burma law.

We have just won an important battle.

Simon Billenness

· for the New England Burma Roundtable *

Franklin Research & Development

711 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, MA 02111

(617) 292-8026 x 225

(617) 482 6179 fax

sbillenness@frdc.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------

PRESS-RELEASE

AMSTERDAM, Friday 13 June 1997 - The European Commission should not complain to the World Trade Organization about the Burma-law from the American state of Massachusetts. A resolution to this effect was adopted unanimously by the European Parliament Thursday-evening. Using firm language, the European Parliament urged the Commission "not to take action against the Massachusetts selective purchasing law under the dispute settlement procedure of the WTO". The Burma Law of Massachusetts, adopted on 25 June in `96, bars companies doing business in Burma from receiving local government contracts.

Instead of complaining at the WTO about American Burma-laws, the European Parliament urges the European Union to take economic sanctions against Burma's regime. "Burma's State Law and Order Restoration Council is guilty of conducting a policy of complete disregard for human life," the Parliament stated. The Parliament also "vigorously condemned the accession of Burma to ASEAN." This gives the regime further international recognition "despite its violations of human rights."

The European Commission pressures the US Government to invalidate the Massachusetts law. Failing this, the EC threatens to make a formal complaint to the WTO, which would rule on the dispute.The commission's efforts to overturn American local selective purchasing laws against Burma's military dictatorship have drawn a sharp response from European Burma supportgroups and American lawmakers and activists. Along with Massachusetts, New York City, twelve other American cities and one county have enacted selective purchasing Burma-laws.

"European Commission meddling in American legislative decisions interferes with the democratic process in the US," stated Thomas Lansner, an adjunct professor at New York's Columbia University and member of the New York City Burma Support Group. "We view the EC's activity as an arrogant dismissal of American public support for Burma's democrats." Spokesperson for the Burma Centre Netherlands, Gijs Hillenius, says that the EC threat contradicts the withdrawal in March of trade preferences by the EU for Burma: "The European Union should follow the American example, and take economic sanctions. Then a complaint on the Burma-law is no longer necessary." Last year, American papers reported that the Massachusetts' law blocked the Dutch Banks ING Barings and ABN AMRO from buying the Bank Boston. Also Dutch electronics manufacturer Philips ceased export to Burma because of the Burma Law.

For more information:

USA:

Thomas Lansner: 1- 212-7873756

Prime Minister Sein Win, NCGUB:1-202-393-7342

Mass. State Representative Byron Rushing: 1-617-722-2637

Europe

Burma Centre Netherlands, 31-20-6716952

Burma Action Group UK, 44-17173597679

Members of European Parliament who introduced the resolution Mrs H.

Maij-Weggen 31-40-2416310 (Dutch)

Mrs G. Kinnock 32-2-284-5402 (starting Monday 16 June)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

* Justice For the Trade Workers of Burma

--------------------------------------------------

August 7, 1997

The Honorable Charlene Barshefsky

U.S. Trade Representative

600 17th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20508

Dear Ambassador Barshefsky:

On behalf of our respective unions, we are writing to express our deep concern about your on-going consultations with the European Union and Japan regarding the Massachusetts state law restricting the procurement of goods from companies doing business in Burma. We commend you for defending the Massachusetts law and we urge you to remain resolute in protecting the right of state, county and municipal governments in the United States to make such purchasing decisions.

As you know, Massachusetts and eleven local governments have passed laws restricting government contracts with multinational corporations doing business in Burma. These state and local governments are part of an international grassroots movement opposed to the Burmese military dictatorship which is guilty of gross violations of human rights and is engaged in trafficking in narcotics. Multinational corporations doing business in Burma have provided support and sustenance to the dictatorship and because of this, Nobel peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi and the Burmese opposition National League for Democracy have asked that all foreign companies disinvest from Burma. Particularly complicit have been several multinational oil companies, including the U.S.-based Unocal, ARCO and Texaco and the French-based Total. These companies continue to prop up the military regime by providing it with large amounts of desperately needed hard currency.

The Clinton Administration has recognized the illegitimacy of the Burmese military dictatorship. In its 1997 Report on Human Rights, the U.S. Department of State reported that in 1996, "the military regime in Burma stepped up its rolling repression and systematic violation of human rights," citing the killing and torture of dissidents and ethnic minorities. On April 21, 1997, President Clinton fulfilled the mandate of the Cohen-Feinstein law by imposing sanctions on Burma and restricting new U.S. corporate investment in that country. U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright told the leaders of ASEAN meeting in Kuala Lampur, Malaysia on July 27, 1997, "Drug money has become so pervasive in Burma that it taints legitimate investment and threatens the region as a whole." We commend the Administration for taking this stand and believe the international community must strengthen its resolve in dealing with the Burmese dictatorship, including the forcible removal of all multinational corporations doing business there.

The European Union and Japanese government complaints about the Massachusetts law are without merit. The state law treats foreign-based corporations the same as it treats U.S.-based corporations. In fact, unlike the federal law, which affects only U.S.-based corporations, state and local purchasing laws are the only way to effectively pressure U.S. and foreign-based corporations equally.

The citizens of Massachusetts, as well as every other state, have every right to decide criteria fitting with their principles on where and how they choose to spend their tax dollars. Such decisions are part and parcel of our democratic, federal form of government. In no way can we accept interference by foreign governments or the World Trade Organization in our elected governments= ability to make these decisions. Failure to uphold the right of state and local governments to make their own purchasing decisions in this instance would harm not only the growing campaign to pressure the Burmese dictatorship but our rights as a free and democratic people. We urge you to vigorously defend these rights with the European Union and Japan and in the World Trade Organization.

Thank you for your serious attention to this

matter.

Sincerely,

Robert E. Wages, President

Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union

Lawrence Bankowski, President

American Flint Glass Workers Union

Edward L. Fire, President

International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, Machine and Furniture Workers

Charles W. Jones, President

International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers

Frank Hanley, President

International Union of Operating Engineers

Douglas H. Dority, President

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union

Jay Mazur, President

Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees

Donald Wightman, President

Utility Workers Union of America

Andrew L. Stern, President

Service Employees International Union

cc: The Honorable William J. Clinton

The Honorable Albert Gore, Jr.

The Honorable Madeline Albright

The Honorable Alexis Herman

The Honorable Daniel Patrick Moynihan

The Honorable Mitchell McConnell

The Honorable William F. Weld

The Honorable Byron Rushing

Mr. John J. Sweeney

Top of Page

Copyright © 1998 ICEM North American Regional Office

------------------------------------------------------------------------

ICEM Update

No. 47/1997 Unions Urge Vigorous Defence of Massachussetts Law

8 August 1997

Will a global "free market" effectively ban elected public authorities from building moral concerns into their purchasing policies?

The fate of a current law in the US state of Massachusetts may provide the answer. The law restricts Massachusetts government purchases from companies - American or not - that do business in Burma. Eleven US local authorities have brought in similar regulations, most recently the City of New York.

Those laws are now under international challenge on "free trade" grounds. The Clinton administration must "vigorously defend" the right to adopt and implement such laws. So say the presidents of eleven major US unions in a letter sent yesterday to US Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky. Trade unions and others worldwide have been campaigning for economic sanctions against the Burmese military regime, which is undoubtedly one of the world's most repressive. The Burmese junta is engaged in massive human rights violations, notably the systematic use of forced labour. The EU, and the US at national level, have already brought in a range of trade sanctions against Burma over this issue. Burma is also one of the world's foremost suppliers of illegal hard drugs, and most of the profits from these sales flow back to the military junta.

The Massachusetts law and the various local regulations are now under challenge by the European Union and Japan, who allege that they violate the rules of the World Trade Organisation. The WTO is the unelected global body set up to police world "free trade".

"Multinational corporations doing business in Burma have provided support and sustenance to the dictatorship," the US unions state in their letter to Barshefsky. She is currently in negotiations with the EU and Japan over their WTO challenge.

The union presidents point out that, because of the global corporations' role in sustaining the Burmese regime, "Nobel peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi and the Burmese opposition National League for Democracy have asked that foreign companies disinvest from Burma." The US unions particularly criticise the role of various global energy corporations in Burma, notably Unocal, ARCO, Texaco and Total.

At global level, most of the eleven unions are affiliated to the 20-million-strong International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers' Unions (ICEM).

The ICEM has consistently called upon the oil multinationals either to use their great influence to end rights violations in Burma or to close down their operations there.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

ICFTU ONLINE...

196/980921/DD

Brussels. September 21 1998 (ICFTU OnLine): International and European trade unions said today that they were astounded at the action being taken by the European Union under WTO rules to force the US state of Massachusetts to do business with companies which trade with Burma, a country in which institutionalised forced labour amounts to a crime against humanity, and which was condemned in a report published last month by the UN's International Labour Organisation (ILO).

The European Union has taken a case against the USA to a WTO disputes panel because Massachusetts is refusing to award public contracts to any companies which trade with Burma, because of the country's appalling human rights record. According to Massachusetts, the UK-based company Unilever, and the German-based company Siemens do business in Burma, so Massachusetts state is refusing to sign contracts with them. US multinationals such as the computer giant Apple have also faced action under the Massachusetts law.

"If the actions of (the US state) of Massachusetts which put the human rights of the Burmese people above the interests of a few multinational companies do not comply with WTO rules, then the WTO rules need changing, not the actions of Massachusetts", exclaimed Bill Jordan, ICFTU General Secretary.

In August this year, the ILO issued a 400-page report by a special Commission of Inquiry on the use of forced labour in Burma, which concluded that there was widespread and systematic use of forced labour on projects ranging from the carrying of equipment and ammunition for the military to the building of roads, railways, bridges and other infrastructure. It also concluded that the practice "often give(s) rise to extortion of money, ... threats to the life and security and extrajudicial punishment of those unwilling to comply" and said forced labour was widely imposed on "women, children, elderly persons as well as persons otherwise unfit for work".

The publication of this recent report by a United Nations body coincided with crackdowns against Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other democratic opponents of the military regime in Burma, drawing widespread condemnation from the international and European community. The trade union organisations said they were astounded that the EU has decided to bring this case. Just last week, the UK government called for EU countries to consider fresh measures to discourage trade and investment, and on September 11, the Austrian government, currently holding the Presidency of the EU, issued a statement condemning Burma.

"It is extraordinary that one arm of the EU can pass resolutions condemning Burma's human rights record, while at the same time, another EU arm is helping the Burmese generals' commercial ties with big multinational companies" said the ICFTU and ETUC.

"The European Union will now risk appearing to be condoning the current repression of human rights in Burma in order to promote the interests of European multinational companies" say the ICFTU and ETUC.

"Rather than seek to prevent others from subjecting the Burmese regime to further economic pressure, the European Union should welcome these measures which support EU decisions under its own GSP rules to suspend trade privileges to Burma because of its human rights record", concluded Emilio Gabaglio, ETUC General Secretary.

Note: The case is being raised at the WTO Disputes Panel in Geneva on Tuesday, September 22.

For further information, please contact the ICFTU Press Office on: 322 224

0212

------------------------------------------------------------------------

International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU)

Boulevard Emile Jacqmain 155, B - 1210 Brussels, Belgium. For more information please contact: Luc Demaret on: 00 322 224 0212 - press@icftu.org

------------------------------------------------------------------------

ICFTU OnLine

[Go to Corporate Watch Homepage]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

BOSTON (AP) November 5, 1998 - A federal judge has ruled the state's so-called ``Burma Law,'' designed to show opposition to Burma's military regime, is unconstitutional.

Chief U.S. District Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled Wednesday that the law ``impermissibly infringes on the federal government's power to regulate foreign affairs.''

The 1996 law prohibits the state or its agencies from buying goods or services from companies that do business with the military government of Burma, also known as Myanmar.

Tauro's ruling came in a challenge to the law by the National Foreign Trade Council. The council, which represents 580 members said more than 30 of them have been prevented by the law from seeking contracts with the state.

``Chief Judge Tauro's ruling rests on clear constitutional grounds and should significantly deter states and cities from imposing their own foreign policy sanctions,'' said Frank Kittredge, council president.

An estimated 30 local governments around the country have similar laws. `We share concerns over reported human rights abuses inBurma. However our system of government was not designed to allow the 50 states and hundreds of municipalities to conduct their own individual foreign policies,'' Kittredge said.

Burma's military regime has been accused of drug trafficking and widespread human rights violations. The European Commission and Japan challenged the Massachusetts law before a World Trade Organization panel in Geneva.

They said the law deprived them of potential trade benefits. But an international labor federation of 450 unions, which said they represent more than 20 million workers around the world, asked the European Community to stop opposing the law.

Officials with the International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers' Unions said last month they wrote to Sir Leon Britton, vice president of the Commission of the European Communities.

The letter said the Burma government uses forced labor, child labor and denies labor and human rights. ``Whatever the technicalities of the Commission's case at the WTO, global public opinion will see its pursuance as implying EU support for one of the world's most brutal and corrupt military dictatorships,'' the letter said.

In addition to showing opposition to the Burma regime, the Massachusetts law was an attempt to encourage it to negotiate a peaceful transition to representative government.

The National League for Democracy was a huge winner in Burma's election in 1990, but the military has not allowed parliament to meet.

FAIR USE NOTICE. This document contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Corporate Watch is making this article available in our efforts to advance understanding of ecological sustainability, human rights, economic democracy and social justice issues. We believe that this constitutes a `fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond `fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

ICEM--NORTH AMERICA

* ICEM North America Washington, D.C., December 17, 1998-- In an important victory in the ongoing struggle over human rights in Burma, the Los Angeles City

Council voted unanimously Tuesday to prohibit city contracts with corporations doing business in that country.

The decision comes at a time when the right of local and state governments to impose selective purchasing ordinances against companies doing business in Burma and other countries that grossly violate human rights is under attack throughout the United States and internationally.

The vote follows a November 5, 1998, federal court decision overturning a similar law in Massachusetts, in a law suit brought by an employers' organization. That decision is being appealed by the Attorney General of Massachusetts.

"The victory in Los Angeles will reinvigorate the efforts of unions and human rights groups to protect the right of state and local governments to pass selective purchasing laws," said Kenneth S. Zinn, North American Regional Coordinator of the International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers' Unions.

Los Angeles' "Free Burma" ordinance, like those of 22 other local and state governments in the United States, is aimed at bringing democracy to Burma, one of the world's most brutal dictatorships. In the 1980s state and local selective purchasing laws penalizing companies doing business in South Africa were instrumental in helping topple the apartheid regime.

Labor unions played a decisive role in advocating for the Los Angeles selective purchasing law. "Having the active participation of union members . . . was a huge boost," commented Kevin Rudiger of the L.A. Burma Forum. A number of local unions and the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO contacted city council members urging that their tax dollars not be used to support companies propping up the Burmese regime.

A leader in the fight for the selective purchasing law was Local 1-675 of the Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers International Union, an affiliate of the ICEM. The push for a city council ordinance was assisted by the OCAW's successful effort this summer to pressure Los Angeles-based ARCO to pull out of Burma. ARCO announced on August 11, 1998 that it would not renew its remaining oil exploration lease in Burma.

Another Los Angeles-based oil company, Unocal, attempted to prevent the Los Angeles City Council from passing the law on Burma. The Burmese government is forcing some 80,000 men, women and children to work as virtual slave laborers on projects related to a Unocal natural gas pipeline. However, after OCAW Local 1-675 official Pat Patterson addressed the city council, the body voted not only to pass the selective purchasing law, but also to instruct the city attorneys to draft an amicus brief in support of the Massachusetts law on Burma.

OCAW International Representative Rick Latham credited Local 1-675's membership with making the Burmese people's fight their own. "With everything going on in the oil industry today, it says something when rank and file workers stand up to the oil companies on behalf of people they've never met."

"And that's what this is all about," he added.

The ICEM represents 20 million workers employed in the chemical, energy, mining, pulp & paper, rubber, ceramics, cement, and glass industries in 115 countries.

Copyright © 1998 ICEM North American Regional Office

[JOC Top News]

Los Angeles bans firms' trading with Myanmar

BY MICHAEL S. LELYVELD

JOURNAL OF COMMERCE STAFF

A U.S. court decision that struck down a Massachusetts sanctions law aimed at Myanmar has proved to be less of a deterrent than corporations had hoped.

Despite the Nov. 4 ruling that the state's selective purchasing law is unconstitutional, the city of Los Angeles recently adopted a similar ban on contracts with companies that do business with the military-ruled country, formerly known as Burma.

The city council's unanimous vote on Dec. 15 drew cheers from activists who suffered a setback when U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro found that the Massachusetts law was an unconstitutional infringement on federal powers over foreign policy.

"Without a doubt, this ordinance will rejuvenate advocates of selective purchasing in Massachusetts and across the country to use these tools to promote democracy abroad," said Simon Billenness, a senior analyst at Franklin Research & Development Corp. in Boston, who has promoted the tactic.

"We have the country's two largest cities -- New York and now Los Angeles -- saying that we will not give contracts to companies that do business in Burma as long as the brutal junta is in charge," Mr. Billenness said.

Women's organizations and labor unions were also heartened.

"The victory in Los Angeles will reinvigorate the efforts of unions and human rights groups to protect the right of state and local governments to pass selective purchasing laws," said Kenneth Zinn, North American regional coordinator of the International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers' Unions.

But as a result of the court ruling, the right to impose "subfederal" sanctions seems to be in doubt. Earlier this month, Judge Tauro denied a motion by Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger to leave the state's law in force pending the outcome of an appeal, which could be taken up next May.

The National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC) filed suit against Massachusetts last April on behalf of its 580 corporate members, hoping to knock out dozens of sanctions initiatives against various countries that have cropped up at state, county and municipal levels.

Leaning away from suit

Although the court ruled in its favor, the NFTC seems to be leaning away from a separate suit against the Los Angeles ordinance because of differences with the Massachusetts law.

While the state law covers all contracts, the city ban only affects purchases of $25,000 or less, said Dan O'Flaherty, vice president of the Washington-based trade group. The limit may not make it worthwhile to pursue with legal action, although NFTC would like to see the principle of the Massachusetts ruling upheld.

"What this says to me is that there's all the more reason to have this decided by the Supreme Court," Mr. O'Flaherty said.

Los Angeles was also unmoved after reportedly being informed that the city could be subject to recovery of legal costs if it were sued, as in the Massachusetts case.

"The city of Los Angeles will not be intimidated. We praise the city council for having the courage and the compassion to pass this ordinance," said Kevin Rudiger of city's Burma Forum in a statement.

Decision fails to end complaints

The Massachusetts decision also has not ended the complaints of the European Union and Japan against the state's Myanmar law, even though it is no longer in force. The World Trade Organization has agreed to convene a dispute resolution panel to decide whether the purchasing curb violates a 1994 agreement with the United States on open bidding practices.

An EU official in Washington said the WTO action will not be suspended because Massachusetts is still considering a motion to the appeals court to keep the law active, despite Judge Tauro's denial of a stay.

"Suspension of the request has not occurred, and it will not occur until we are definitively assured that the law will not be enforced," the EU official said.

July 15 - 22, 1999

Politics by Ben Geman

Attorney General Tom Reilly's defense of the controversial Burma law could prove he's more than just a tough-on-crime prosecutor

Back up a few months in the life of Attorney General Tom Reilly. He was in the thick of the election season's muddiest fight, slugging it out with State Senator Lois Pines of Newton to win the Democratic nomination for the state AG's job.

Reilly -- who made his reputation as the tough-bordering-on-overzealous district attorney of Middlesex County -- was being knocked by Pines for holding what she believed was too narrow a view of the AG's office. The attorney general, said the Pines campaign, should be more than just a prosecutor on steroids. Boston Globe columnist Eileen McNamara flogged the point: "By all appearances," she scolded last September, "Reilly sees the post as no more than a glorified district attorney."

Well, score a point for the Reilly side. His office announced this week that it will wade into the foreign-policy arena by petitioning the Supreme Court to reverse a federal-court decision that struck down a state law barring Massachusetts from giving contracts to companies that do business with the country of Burma.

The repressive military junta that rules Burma (renamed Myanmar by the regime) has been in the crosshairs of human-rights activists for years. In 1990, it ignored the results of an election that would have put the National League for Democracy in power. Activists say it has wiped out political expression consistently and sometimes violently, used forced labor to build its infrastructure, and censored and intimidated the leader of the democracy movement, Aung San Suu Kyi.

The state law was the project of State Representative Byron Rushing (D-Boston), human-rights activist Simon Billenness, and others. Since passing the legislature in 1996, it has been shot down twice by federal courts after challenges from a coalition of large corporations called the National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC). Last year, Boston federal-court judge Joseph Tauro struck down the law, ruling that it improperly allowed states to set foreign policy. Then-attorney general Scott Harshbarger appealed, but last month, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling. According to the appeals court's unanimous decision, "the conduct of the nation's foreign affairs cannot be effectively managed on behalf of all the nation's citizens if each of the many state and local governments pursues its own foreign policy."

But Reilly and other backers of the law say the case is less about foreign policy and more about the power of cities and states to apply moral criteria to their purchases -- the way citizens do when they boycott brands for reasons of politics or principle.

The Supreme Court challenge could end with a whimper instead of a bang: the court accepts only a small fraction of the cases it is asked to hear. If the court does hear the case, though, its decision will have implications not just for Massachusetts, but for any city or state that wants to use its buying power to pressure repressive governments into reform. Although Massachusetts is so far the only state to enact selective-purchasing legislation related to Burma, such laws are pending in several other states and are already on the books in dozens of cities, including New York, Los Angeles, and Portland, Oregon.

"It's a high-stakes gamble," says Billenness, a member of the New England Burma Roundtable and an analyst with Trillium Asset Management, a socially conscious investment firm. "If they uphold the decision, it nationalizes the decision, and that would strike down Burma laws across the country. And also, a range of other laws would be at risk. What's at risk here is the right of citizens to ensure their tax dollars are spent in accordance with their moral principles."

"Is it a gamble? Certainly," says Reilly. "Any time you litigate any matter there is a risk or a gamble, but there are important matters at issue here, important enough to fight for."

Reilly's actions on Burma, a welcome sign for those who want to see the Massachusetts law survive, also give hope to those who believe the role of the attorney general should be an activist one. But this isn't the first encouraging signal he's given those observers so far in his young term.

Reilly has taken an aggressive stance on the proposed Fleet-BankBoston megamerger, arguing that, in order to create a strong competitor, one large out-of-state bank should be granted permission to gobble up the branches that Fleet and BankBoston would be forced to divest. This bucks the wishes of many state politicians, who believe smaller community banks should be allowed to divide the cast-off branches among themselves.

Reilly has also criticized the planned merger between Boston Edison and Commonwealth Electric, calling a proposed plan to freeze rates for several years an inadequate gesture to consumers. "The rate freeze deprives customers of rate decreases, to the enrichment of shareholders," Reilly told the Boston Globe last month.

"I would say that he is just getting his stride, and we are encouraged by a few of the early actions he's made," says Rob Sargent, legislative director of the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group, which has been critical of the utility-merger plans. Bruce Marks, executive director of the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America, a community advocacy and housing group, is also pleasantly surprised by what he's seen so far. "Certainly the perception was that he would look at just people who rob and steal with a gun or a knife," he says, commenting on Reilly's bank-merger position. "But now he has shown he is looking at entities that rob and steal with a stroke of a pen."

Now, by looking across the ocean, Reilly could make waves not just in Massachusetts but around the country and even the world. The 1996 Massachusetts law is among those credited with changing the behavior of several large companies. Apple Computer and Eastman-Kodak, among others, have cited such laws as reasons for pulling out of Burma.

But these laws have angered many US trading partners, who complain that such legislation violates free-trade principles. The European Commission and the government of Japan have complained to the World Trade Organization that the Massachusetts law runs afoul of an international agreement on contract bidding.

Mainly, though, the war on selective-purchasing laws, and the Massachusetts law in particular, is being waged by the NFTC, which has more than 500 member corporations. This represents real muscle -- corporate board members of the NFTC include Texaco, Monsanto, and General Electric.

The NFTC calls unilateral sanctions bad for business. Selective-purchasing laws, says NFTC president Frank Kittredge, would hurt companies doing business with Burma without really influencing the Burmese regime, because a government can always find other suppliers. "The selective-purchasing laws," he says, "are feel-good measures that don't work." What's more, he adds, the laws make US suppliers "unreliable" in the global marketplace.

Although the fight over the Massachusetts law largely pits big business against human-rights advocates and sympathetic politicians (many members of Congress expressed their support to the appeals court), even some on the left share the trade council's opposition to selective purchasing. One long-time Boston-area progressive activist agrees with Kittredge, arguing that the Burma law is more about making liberals in Massachusetts feel good about themselves than about effecting change in Burma. "This is Newton liberalism," says the activist, who asked for anonymity, arguing that the Burmese regime's self-isolation limits the impact of outside pressure.

Reilly's office, however, insists that states should have the right to make decisions based on the human-rights priorities supported by their own legislatures. Backers of the law point out that the foes of South African apartheid demonstrated the value of applying moral criteria to investment and business.

The Burma law "is a decision about how the state wants to spend its own funds," says Tom Barnico, the assistant attorney general working on the case. "We say we can apply a moral principle to our spending decisions."

Adds Reilly: "It is really about the rights of a state, the rights of Massachusetts and other states, to advocate for human rights . . . we feel very strongly that the state takes positions against regimes that violate human rights."

Byron Rushing believes there's even more at stake here. Simply put, he says, it's a decision about whether, in a globalized economy, corporations have any accountability at all. The NFTC, says Rushing, "doesn't want popular grassroots democratic actions to affect any of the business they do, anytime, anywhere, anyplace.

"This is the tyranny of corporate America at work," he adds. "They see this [the Burma law] as an intrusion on their ability to run their corporations, and we don't believe American corporations should have unlimited power."

In this case, at least, Reilly doesn't either.

Ben Geman can be reached at bgeman@phx.com.

| Copyright © 1999 The Phoenix Media/Communications Group. All rights reserved.

Action Alert! Write Your State Attorney General & Member of Congress

========================================================== September 21, 1999

1. Massachusetts Files With U.S. Supreme Court 2. Write Your State Attorney General & Member of Congress 3 Sample Letter

4. List of State Attorneys General

==========================================================

1. Massachusetts Files With U.S. Supreme Court

On September 17, Massachusetts filed its Petition for Certiorari and supporting brief with the U.S. Supreme Court asking the court to review the case of the Massachusetts Burma Law.

On June 22, 1999, the Massachusetts Burma Law was struck down in federal appeals court. The National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC), which represents major multinational corporations, brought the case. The NFTC claims that the law is unconstitutional. But this decision - if it stands - would greatly restrict our ability as citizens to direct how our elected officials spend our tax money.

Modeled on similar anti-apartheid statutes, the Massachusetts Burma Law effectively barred the state from buying goods or services from companies that did business in Burma. Had the courts struck down South Africa-related laws in the 1980's, Nelson Mandela might still be in prison today. =========================================================

2. Write Your State Attorney General & Member of Congress

There will be several amicus - or "friend of the court" - briefs filed in support of the Massachusetts petition on the Burma Law, and these are due on October 20th. Those filing the amicus briefs will likely include:

* state attorneys general;

* local governments;

* members of Congress; and

* nonprofit organizations that support human rights, consumer protection and environmental protection.

It is crucial that - over the next three weeks - we send as many letters as possible to our state attorneys general and Members of Congress to urge them to sign on to these amicus briefs.

=======================================================

3. Sample Letter

[Please remember to write both your state attorney general (name, address and fax number below) and your Member of Congress - check: <http://thomas.loc.gov/> for your Member's contact information.]

Start your letter: "Dear Attorney General _____" "Dear Representative ________" or "Dear Senator __________" as appropriate.

I am writing to urge that you sign on an amicus brief to be filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the Massachusetts Burma selective purchasing law.

[Include a paragraph describing yourself and your roots in the local community.]

On June 22, 1999, the Boston Federal Appeals Court struck down the Massachusetts Burma Law. Sponsored by state rep. Byron Rushing, this law effectively barred companies that do business with the Burmese military junta from receiving state procurement contracts. On September 17, the Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly filed its Petition for Certiorari and supporting brief with the U.S. Supreme Court asking the court to review the case of the Massachusetts Burma Law.

How Massachusetts - or any state -spends its tax dollars is matter for the citizens of Massachusetts and their elected officials. It is a violation of state sovereignty and local democracy for the federal government or corporations to try to micro-manage state or local spending.

Inspired by the anti- apartheid campaign, Aung San Suu Kyi, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate and leader of the Burmese democracy movement, has called for economic sanctions on Burma to press the ruling military junta to restore democracy in that country. She has described selective purchasing laws - such as the Massachusetts Burma Law - as an effective way of supporting the Burmese democracy movement.

I urge you to offer your support in defending the Massachusetts Burma Law. I specifically urge you to sign on the amicus brief in support of the petition filed by Massachusetts on September 20 asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. To do this, please contact either Thomas Barnico (x2086) or Jim Sweeney (x3321), both Massachusetts Assistant Attorneys General at (617) 727-2200.

I look forward to your support on this critical issue. Please write back and tell me what action you intend to take.

***************

Please send copies of your letter to:

Simon Billenness

New England Burma Roundtable

c/o Trillium Asset Management, 711 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, MA 02111 (617) 423-6655, x225

(617) 482-6179 - fax

sbillenness@trilliuminvest.com

http://www.trilliuminvest.com

Assistant Attorney General Tom Barnico

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, One Ashburton Place, Boston, MA 02108. (617) 727-5785 - fax

====================================

<list of state attorney generals deleted>

Harrison Institute for Public Law

Georgetown University Law Center

September 24, 1999

Supreme Court Review of the Burma-Law Decision

The State of Massachusetts has asked the Supreme Court to review the decision by a federal court of appeals that overturned the Mass. "Burma law." The law is modeled after the successful anti-Apartheid boycott laws that were adopted by 25 states and 80 local governments. The Burma law seeks to avoid spending public funds on business with companies that support repression of human rights by doing business in Burma. The following bulletin calls for diverse public officials and organizations to join amicus briefs that support Massachusetts and the traditional power of states to spend public funds on the basis of standards that promote human rights and democracy.

Deadline for responding: Friday, 10/15/99

Contents

1. Massachusetts Burma Law

2. Status of the Case

3. Merits & Risks of Supreme Court Review

4. Need for Amicus Participants

5. Summary of Amicus Briefs

6. Sources of Further Information

7. Draft Letters to Join an Amicus Brief

1. Massachusetts Burma Law

The Massachusetts Burma law was challenged in federal court by the National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC) with a supporting amicus (friend of the court) brief from the European Union. Often referred to as "selective purchasing," the law discourages state agencies from doing business with companies that do business in Burma. It provides a 10% preference for bids

>from companies that avoid doing business in Burma unless the preference

would impair essential purchases or result in inadequate competition. The premise behind this law is that virtually all international trade and investment in Burma contributes to violation of human rights.

Official reports of the U.S. government, the United Nations and the International Labor Organization find that the military government of Burma has violated international standards of public morality. These abuses include forced labor, suppression of a democratically elected government, suppression of individual political rights, torture, rape, and various forms of discrimination against ethnic minorities. In addition, the military profits from money laundering and support of narcotics trafficing, which accounts for approximately half of all heroin exported to the United States.

Doing business in Burma inescapably supports the ability of the military government of Burma to continue abusing human rights. That is because international trade provides the foreign currency that the government uses to purchase weapons and military equipment. Virtually all international commerce with Burma requires direct business relations with the government of Burma or with trading companies that are owned or controlled by the government. In addition, the economy of Burma depends upon infrastructure that has been built with the forced labor of over 5.5 million people over the past decade.

2. Status of the Legal Challenge

On April 30, 1998, the National Foreign Trade Council filed a legal challenge against the Massachusetts Burma Law in the federal district court in Boston. The NFTC is an association of approximately 600 corporations, which is closely allied with USA*Engage, a corporate coalition that opposes selective purchasing, and more generally, unilateral sanctions.

On November 4, 1998, Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that the Burma law is unconstitutional because it encroaches upon an exclusive power of the federal government to manage foreign affairs. In defining the scope of foreign affairs, Judge Tauro embraced the European Union's argument that the Burma law "interferes with the normal conduct of EU-US relations" because it "raises questions about the ability of the U.S. to honor international commitments it has entered in the framework of the World Trade Organization."

On June 22, 1999, the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston upheld Judge Tauro's decision. It also ruled against Massachusetts on two other arguments raised by the NFTC. First, it ruled that the Burma law impermissibly burdens foreign commerce. Second, it ruled that the law is preempted by the federal sanctions against the military government of Burma. Congress authorized federal sanctions several months after Massachusetts enacted its law. The decision of the First Circuit Court of Appeals is binding only on jurisdictions within that circuit, which includes Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. However, the NFTC has announced its intent to sue other jurisdictions and use the First Circuit opinion to persuade other federal courts to follow this precedent.

On September 20, 1999, Massachusetts filed a "Petition for Certiorari" that asks the Supreme Court to review this case. Amicus briefs in support of Massachusetts are due on October 20, as is the response from the NFTC.

3. Merits & Risks of Supreme Court Review

Massachusetts is asking for Supreme Court review at a time when the Court has consistently ruled in favor of state governments on issues of federalism, set high standards for congressional preemption of state law, and limited the capacity of private parties to sue states. The high court is the best court for a state to defend its legislative authority against a challenge that seeks to expand federal judicial review of state spending practices.

The Supreme Court grants only abut 3 percent of the petitions for review, so the odds are that the First Circuit opinion will remain in place. There is no legal risk in seeking but not obtaining Supreme Court review of a case. If the Supreme Court accepts the case, there is always a risk that it will uphold the lower court, thus applying the lower court decision to the rest of the country. However, once the Supreme Court accepts a case, it reverses the lower court decision well over half of the time.

4. Need for Amicus Participants

>From thousands of cases of legal merit, the Supreme Court selects a

relative handful of cases that it believes are the most import for legal or policy reasons. The Massachusetts Office of Attorney General encourages the widest possible amicus support because that is one way to establish the importance of the request.

Before the First Circuit Court of Appeals, a diverse group of 62 organizations and public officials filed 8 different amicus briefs in support of Massachusetts. At this stage of requesting Supreme Court review, there will be four amicus briefs filed by: state attorneys general; local governments; members of Congress; and nonprofit organizations. If you are interested in supporting one of these briefs, you should contact the attorney for that brief (listed below) by Friday, October 15th. The brief must be filed on October 20th.

You may also be in a position to forward this information to public officials who could themselves join an amicus brief: members of Congress, state attorneys general or local government officials. A draft letter for this purpose appears below.

5. Summary of Amicus Briefs

Amicus briefs in support of the Massachusetts petition for Supreme Court review will be written between October 1st and 15th. Their likely themes are summarized below. The much more detailed briefs that were submitted to the First Circuit Court of Appeals are now available. See item 6 below, "Sources of Further Information".

a. State Attorneys General

Contact: Beth Baumstark, North Dakota Office of Attorney General, 701-328-3623, <msmail.bbaumsta@ranch.state.nd.us>. See draft letter below.

Previous amicus participants: The attorney general of North Dakota, joined by attorneys general of California, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Texas, Vermont and West Virginia.

Themes: Congress must clearly preempt a state law before the courts may intervene. The Supreme Court held in its 1994 Barclays Bank decision that Congress, not the courts, is the branch that must decide whether to preempt state law if there is a potential conflict with congressional authority. State procurement is solely a state issue. This has been upheld by the Supreme Court's market participant exception to the power of Congress to regulate states under the commerce clause. State primacy over procurement is also supported by the 10th Amendment reservation of power to the states since the Constitution does not delegate power over state purchasing to the federal government. In making decisions on how to spend their taxpayers' money, states should have the same right to base decisions on principles of morality as private businesses do. In fact, states may well have an obligation to consider the social consequences of their own purchasing or investment decisions. Especially when dealing with such a traditional area of state authority, preemption must be determined explicitly by Congress and not presumed by the courts.

b. Local Governments

Contact: Sara Kay, Office of General Counsel, Comptroller of the City of New York, 212-669-3749, <no email address>.

Previous amicus participants: The New York City Comptroller, joined by Alameda County, CA; Amherst, MA; Berkeley, CA; Boulder, CO; Carrboro, NC; Los Angeles, CA; NY; Newton, MA; Oakland, CA; Philadelphia, PA; San Francisco, CA; and Santa Cruz, CA.

Themes: The Burma-law decision threatens local purchasing based on public values and ethics. Local governments have long based their purchasing decisions on public values and ethics, which include international standards of human rights. For example, the lower court ruling in the Burma-law case would have invalidated the South Africa boycott laws. The ruling sets a precedent that be used to challenge current policies including: advocacy in support of Holocaust survivors' property claims against foreign banks and insurance companies; support for environmental protection; and preference for businesses that avoid practicing religious discrimination in Northern Ireland. These policies do not regulate what private market actors may do; they only set ethical limits on how state and local governments spend public funds.

c. Members of Congress

Contact: Robert Stumberg, Harrison Institute for Public Law, Georgetown University Law Center, 202-662-9603, <stumberg@law.georgetown.edu.> See draft letter below.

Previous amicus participants: Senator Edward Kennedy and Representatives David Bonior, Sherrod Brown, Michael Capuano, Peter DeFazio, William Delahunt, Lane Evans, Barney Frank, Marcy Kaptur, Dennis Kucinich, Edward Markey, James McGovern, Martin Meehan, Joseph Moakley, George Miller, Richard Neal, Robert Ney, John Olver, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Bernard Sanders, Janice Shakowsky, Christopher Smith, Ted Strickland, John Tierney, James Traficant, and Henry Waxman.

Themes: The Burma-law decision upsets the WTO sovereignty protections that Congress enacted in 1994. In response to the states' fears about private litigation, Congress banned private cause of action "in connection with" obligations of the United States under the World Trade Organization (such as the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement). This limit on litigation explicitly covers "indirect" causes of action that are based on federal constitutional powers such as the commerce clause. In the WTO implementing legislation, Congress stated that "suits of this nature may interfere with the President's conduct of trade and foreign relations and with suitable resolution of disagreements or disputes under those agreements." By ignoring this sovereignty protection for state and local governments, the lower court opinions could unravel the political consensus that enabled Congress to adopt both NAFTA and the Uruguay Round of WTO Agreements.

d. Nonprofit Organizations

Contact: The lead author of this brief will be Peter Rosenblum, Harvard Program on Human Rights, 617-496-2825, <prosenbl@law.harvard.edu>. However, the Harrison Institute at Georgetown University Law Center will coordinate commitment letters from nonprofit organizations that wish to join this brief. Contact Matthew Porterfield, 202-662-9608, <porterfm@law.georgetown.edu>. See draft letter below.

Previous amicus participants: American Lands Alliance, Center for Constitutional Rights, Citizens for Participating in Political Action, Consumer's Choice Council (a coalition of 48 environmental, labor and consumer organizations), Defenders of Wildlife, Earthrights International, Friends of the Earth, Humane Society of the United States, International Labor Rights Fund, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, New England Burma Roundtable, Preamble Center, Rainforest Relief, and Unitarian Universalist Service Committee.

Themes: International law authorizes the Burma law. The Massachusetts law is authorized by at least three international human rights agreements. When the U.S. Senate ratified the international agreements, it reserved authority for states to implement the agreements within the scope of their traditional authority, which includes public purchasing.

The lower court decision could place hundreds of state and local laws at risk. By overturning a state law based on WTO obligations, the lower court decision empowers the European Union, Japan and other nations to invalidate environmental and consumer laws simply by complaining that the laws violate U.S. obligations under various WTO agreements. These include environmental purchasing preferences in 48 states regarding recycled content, alternative fuels and ink, and sustainable forestry standards. Dozens of cities have adopted fair labor standards for goods that they purchase, including sweatshop boycotts and living wage standards for contractors. The foreign complaints about these laws were a factor that motivated Congress to adopt the sovereignty protections in the WTO act.

6. Sources of Further Information

a. Copies of court decisions and briefs: You can view and print all court decisions and briefs in support of Massachusetts before the First Circuit Court of Appeals at the website for Earthrights International, <http://www.earthrights.org/our_project/>. Alternatively, you can request an electronic copy of individual briefs by sending a message to <stumberg@law.georgetown.edu>. You can view and print all briefs in support of the NFTC at the website for USA*Engage, <http://usaengage.org/background/lawsuit/>.

b. Citations to legal opinions: The federal trial court opinion is NFTC v. Frederick Laskey et al., 26 F. Supp.2d 287 (D. Ma. 1998). The federal appeals court opinion is National Foreign Trade Council v. Andrew S. Natsios, et al., 181 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 1999).

c. Background on Burma: For information on the movement for democracy in Burma, we recommend three of the many Burma-related web sites because they include links to many other websites: Free Burma.org, <http://www.freeburma.org/>; the Burma Project of the Open Society Institute, <http://www.soros.org/burma.html>; and the Free Burma Coalition, <http://www.freeburmacoalition.org/>.

7. Draft Letters to Join an Amicus Brief

Please send the following letter by fax and mail if your organization would like to join the amicus brief that will be filed by nonprofit organizations. If you would like the letter for joining another amicus brief, please contact Robert Stumberg at 202-662-9603 or stumberg@law.georgetown.edu.

___________________________________________________________________a. Letter to Urge Public Officials to Join an Amicus Brief

October __, 1999

name

title

jurisdiction

street address

city, state zip

fax to: ___________

Dear ____ ________:

I am writing to encourage you to join an amicus brief in a case that involves important human rights and state sovereignty interests. The brief will be filed on behalf of [named public officials: members of Congress, state attorneys general or local government officials] in support of a Massachusetts Petition for Certiorari. The case involves the state's "Burma law," a selective purchasing law that was modeled after the successful anti-Apartheid laws that were adopted by 25 states and 80 local governments. This petition asks the Supreme Court to review the decision of the First Circuit Court of Appeals in National Foreign Trade Council v. Andrew S. Natsios, et al., 181 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 1999), which overturned the Massachusetts Burma law on grounds that the law was preempted by federal sanctions on Burma and that the law encroached upon federal foreign affairs power, federal power to regulate foreign commerce.

The contact people and themes of the brief that I encourage you to join are provided in the attached material, which was prepared by the Harrison Institute for Public Law at Georgetown University Law Center. The attachment also explains the other amicus briefs that will be filed in support of Massachusetts in this case.

Sincerely,

___________________________________________________________________

b. Letter for Local Governments to Join the Amicus Brief

October __, 1999

Sara Kay

Office of General Counsel

Comptroller of the City of New York

1 Center Street - Room 52

New York, NY 10007

fax to: 212-815-8563

Dear Ms. Kay:

My office, _____________________, has decided to join the amicus brief on behalf of local government officials in support of the Massachusetts Petition for Certiorari in the Burma law case. This petition asks the Supreme Court to review the decision of the First Circuit Court of Appeals in National Foreign Trade Council v. Andrew S. Natsios, et al., 181 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 1999), which overturned the Massachusetts Burma law on grounds that the law was preempted by federal sanctions on Burma and that the law encroached upon federal foreign affairs power, federal power to regulate foreign commerce. I understand that this amicus brief is limited to a short statement of why the Supreme Court should accept this case for judicial review. If the petition is successful, my office has also decided to join in a subsequent local government amicus brief that would fully address the merits of the case.

My office is aware of the general themes presented in this brief, which include the argument that the lower court decision threatens local purchasing based on public values and ethics. Local governments have long based their purchasing decisions on public values and ethics, which include international standards of human rights. For example, the lower court ruling in the Burma-law case would have invalidated the South Africa boycott laws. The ruling sets a precedent that be used to challenge current policies including: advocacy in support of Holocaust survivors' property claims against foreign banks and insurance companies; support for environmental protection; and preference for businesses that avoid practicing religious discrimination in Northern Ireland. These policies do not regulate what private market actors may do; they only set ethical limits on how state and local governments spend public funds.

I am aware that the positions taken in this brief in support of Massachusetts are opposed by the National Foreign Trade Council and USA*Engage, a coalition of 600 corporations. The brief may also be contrary to positions that are later taken by the federal Executive Branch and some members of Congress.

The legal representation that this letter authorizes is strictly limited to filing this brief. I am aware that by joining this brief, my office will be listed on the brief and our support for Massachusetts in this case will be public information, which will be shared with the media, the State Department, members of Congress and other public officials.

Sincerely,

___________________________________________________________________

c. Letter for Members of Congress to Join the Amicus Brief

October __, 1999

Professor Robert Stumberg

Harrison Institute for Public Law

Georgetown University Law Center

111 F St., NW - Suite 102

Washington, DC 20001-2095

fax to: 202-662-9613

Dear Professor Stumberg:

I would like to join the amicus brief on behalf of members of Congress that will be filed by the Harrison Institute at Georgetown University Law Center in support of the Massachusetts Petition for Certiorari in the Burma law case. This petition asks the Supreme Court to review the decision of the First Circuit Court of Appeals in National Foreign Trade Council v. Andrew S. Natsios, et al., 181 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 1999), which overturned the Massachusetts Burma law on grounds that the law was preempted by federal sanctions on Burma and that the law encroached upon federal foreign affairs power, federal power to regulate foreign commerce. I understand that this amicus brief is limited to a short statement of why the Supreme Court should accept this case for judicial review. If the petition is successful, I would also like to join the subsequent amicus brief on behalf of members of Congress that would fully address the merits of the case.

I am aware of the general themes presented in this brief, which include the argument that the lower court decisions upset the WTO sovereignty protections that Congress enacted in 1994. In response to state government fears about private litigation, Congress banned private cause of action "in connection with" obligations of the United States under the World Trade Organization (such as the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement). This litigation limit explicitly covers "indirect" causes of action that are based on federal constitutional powers such as the commerce clause. In the WTO implementing legislation, Congress stated that "suits of this nature may interfere with the President's conduct of trade and foreign relations and with suitable resolution of disagreements or disputes under those agreements." By ignoring this sovereignty protection for state and local governments, the lower court opinions could unravel the political consensus that enabled Congress to adopt both NAFTA and the Uruguay Round of WTO Agreements.

I am aware that the positions taken in this brief in support of Massachusetts are opposed by the National Foreign Trade Council and USA*Engage, a coalition of 600 corporations. The brief may also be contrary to positions that are later taken by the federal Executive Branch and some members of Congress.

The legal representation that this letter authorizes is strictly limited to filing this brief. I am aware that by joining this brief, my name will be listed on the brief and my support for Massachusetts in this case will be public information, which will be shared with the media, the State Department, members of Congress and other public officials.

Sincerely,

__________________________________________________________________d. Letter for Nonprofit Organizations to Join the Amicus Brief

October __, 1999

Professor Robert Stumberg

Harrison Institute for Public Law

Georgetown University Law Center

111 F St., NW - Suite 102

Washington, DC 20001-2095

fax to: 202-662-9613

Dear Professor Stumberg:

My organization, _____________________, has decided to join the amicus brief on behalf of nonprofit organizations that will be filed by the Harvard Law School immigration law program in support of the Massachusetts Petition for Certiorari in the Burma law case. This petition asks the Supreme Court to review the decision of the First Circuit Court of Appeals in National Foreign Trade Council v. Andrew S. Natsios, et al., 181 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 1999), which overturned the Massachusetts Burma law on grounds that the law was preempted by federal sanctions on Burma and that the law encroached upon federal foreign affairs power, federal power to regulate foreign commerce. I understand that this amicus brief is limited to a short statement of why the Supreme Court should accept this case for judicial review. If the petition is successful, my organization has also decided to join in a nonprofit amicus brief that would fully address the merits of the case.

My organization is aware of the general themes presented in this brief. The first major theme is that international law authorizes the Burma law. A second major theme of the brief is that the lower court decisions could place hundreds of state and local laws at risk. These include environmental purchasing preferences in 48 states regarding recycled content, alternative fuels and ink, and sustainable forestry standards. Dozens of cities have adopted fair labor standards for goods that they purchase, including sweatshop boycotts and living wage standards for contractors. The foreign complaints about these laws were a factor that motivated Congress to adopt the sovereignty protections in the WTO act.

I am aware that the positions taken in this brief in support of Massachusetts are opposed by the National Foreign Trade Council and USA*Engage, a coalition of 600 corporations. The brief may also be contrary to positions that are later taken by the federal Executive Branch and some members of Congress.

The legal representation that this letter authorizes is strictly limited to filing this brief. I am aware that by joining this brief, my organization will be listed on the brief and our support for Massachusetts in this case will be public information, which will be shared with the media, the State Department, members of Congress and other public officials.

Sincerely,

___________________________________________________________________Staff Contacts

Harrison Institute for Public Law

Georgetown University Law Center

111 F Street, NW - Suite 102

Washington, DC 20001-2095

Phone 202-662-9600

Fax 202-662-9613

Robert Stumberg, professor of law - 202-662-9603 - stumberg@law.georgetown.edu Matt Porterfield, senior fellow - 202-662-9608 - porterfm@law.georgetown.edu Lauren Bernick, policy analyst - 202-662-9600 - burmalaw@law.georgetown.edu Kimare Jones, policy analyst - 202-662-9600 - burmalaw@law.georgetown.edu Uma Natarajan, policy analyst - 202-662-9600 - nataraju@law.georgetown.edu

=================================================

20 October, 1999

by Leslie Miller

BOSTON (AP) Fourteen states, including New Hampshire, planned to file a brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to restore a Massachusetts law preventing the state from doing business with companies that deal with Myanmar, formerly known as Burma.

The states fear they'll be forced to trade with countries run by brutal regimes if the high court upholds a lower court decision striking down the Massachusetts law. The brief was to be filed today.

Burma's military dictatorship has been accused of drug trafficking, torture and using slave labor.

Dozens of states, counties and municipalities have imposed sanctions on companies that deal with repressive governments in Nigeria, China, Cuba or Myanmar. Others forbid pension funds from investing in companies in Northern Ireland that discriminate on the basis of religion.

Critics say such ''freelance foreign policy'' infringes on the federal government's ability to deal with its allies and enemies.

In November, U.S District Court Judge Joseph Tauro struck down the Massachusetts law because, he wrote, it ''impermissibly infringes on the federal government's power to regulate foreign affairs.'' The Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.

Now, Massachusetts is asking the Supreme Court to hear a case involving local sanction laws for the first time ever.

''If they take the case it would have a significant effect on procurement laws, whichever way they come out,'' said Assistant Attorney General Thomas Barnico.

The case pitted the state's 1996 Burma law against business groups seeking to strike down local sanction laws.

The initial lawsuit was brought in U.S. District Court in 1998 by the National Foreign Trade Council, which represents nearly 600 major U.S. corporations.

The trade group has until Oct. 27 to file a brief that argues for or against the high court hearing the case.

The number of groups signing on to briefs supporting Massachusetts including the 14 states, 11 cities and counties, 44 nonprofits and 54 members of Congress from both sides of the aisle indicates the widespread interest in resolving the question, Barnico said.

''We've shown a great deal of national interest in the question and the businesses might agree,'' Barnico said. ''Then it's up to the court to decide whether it ought to hear the issue now or wait for it to develop further in other courts in other parts of the country.''

Opposition to Massachusetts' Burma law has spread beyond the United States. The World Trade Organization has opposed the law, and a group of activists plan to protest that stance at the so-called ''Protest of the Century'' in Seattle during the WTO Ministerial Conference Nov. 30-Dec. 3.

The 14 states filing on behalf of Massachusetts are: Arkansas, California, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah and Washington.

Also filing are 11 local governments, including New York City; Alameda County, Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oakland, San Francisco and Santa Cruz, Calif.; Boulder, Colo.; Carboro, N.C.; Newton; and Philadelphia.

*****************************************************

NEW ENGLAND BURMA ROUNDTABLE

================================

October 26, 1999

================================

The amicus briefs in support of the Massachusetts Burma Law were filed with the U.S. Supreme Court last week.

Everyone's hard work paid off. Compared to the last set of amicus briefs filed in Federal Appeals Court, there was a large increase in the number of elected officials and organizations that signed on to the briefs. For example, the number of Members of Congress that signed on more than doubled.

Please take the time to send a letter to your state attorney general or Member of Congress if they signed on to the amicus brief. It never hurts to say thank you.

Once again, a big thank you to all of you who made this possible through your hard work.

Best Regards, Simon Billenness

Simon Billenness

*for the New England Burma Roundtable*

Trillium Asset Management

711 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, MA 02111

(617) 423-6655, x225

(617) 482-6179 - fax

sbillenness@trilliuminvest.com

http://www.trilliuminvest.com/

===========================================

Burma-Law Amicus Participants In Support of the Massachusetts Petition for Supreme Court Review

October 20, 1999

55 members of Congress

44 nonprofit organizations

14 state attorneys general

11 local governments

124 total amicus participants

**********************

<list deteted>

NEW ENGLAND BURMA ROUNDTABLE

==================================

November 29, 1999

Supreme Court Takes Mass. Burma Law Case ==================================

The U.S. Supreme Court announced today that it would take up the case of the Massachusetts Burma Law.

The Court did not request the views of the U.S. Administration before making its decision.

The U.S. Supreme Court only takes about 1% of cases that are referred to it. It is encouraging that the Court has decided to hear the case. It may be because the Court wishes to alter or overturn the decision of the First Circuit to strike down the law as unconstitutional.

The Massachusetts Attorney General's office has 45 days - or until January 7 - in which to file its brief arguing the merits of the case. Amicus briefs in support of Massachusetts are also due on that date.

After Massachusetts and its amicus parties have filed their briefs, the National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC) will have 30 days - or until the first week in February - in which to file its response.

Massachusetts will then have an additional 30 days - or until the first week in March - to reply to the NFTC's brief.

Oral arguments will likely take place in April. The Court will provide its final decision before its term ends in June.

Time is very tight before the deadline for the amicus briefs. Start contacting your state attorney general (if you live outside Massachusetts) and your Member of Congress immediately! Let them know that you want them to sign on to an amicus brief in support of the Massachusetts Burma Law.

Simon Billenness

==================================================

November 30, 1999

Justices to Decide Foreign Policy Question in Massachusetts Boycott of Myanmar

By LINDA GREENHOUSE

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide whether Massachusetts intruded too far into the realm of foreign policy when it adopted a law requiring state agencies to boycott companies that do business in Myanmar.

So-called Burma laws (bearing Myanmar's former name), descendants of the numerous state and local laws that barred trade with South Africa during the era of apartheid, have proliferated in the last few years. This case, with its overtones of federalism and with billions of dollars in public purchasing power at stake, is likely to be one of the most closely watched disputes on the court's docket this year.

More than two dozen state and local governments, including New York City, have barred their departments and agencies from buying goods and services

>from companies that do business in Myanmar, Cuba or other countries with

authoritarian governments.

In a ruling last June, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in Boston, declared a 1996 Massachusetts law unconstitutional as an "impermissible intrusion into the foreign affairs power of the national government."

The decision upheld an earlier ruling by a federal district judge in Boston in a lawsuit filed by the National Foreign Trade Council, an association of companies that do business overseas. Thirty-four of the group's members were on the state's "restricted purchase" list. The European Union also filed a brief in the district court opposing the law.

In striking down the law, the appeals court, in an opinion written by Judge Sandra L. Lynch, said that while there was no dispute over the "deplorable" conditions imposed by the military government that rules Myanmar, a state had no constitutional authority to regulate conduct beyond its borders.

Judge Lynch said the law was a "direct attempt to regulate the flow of foreign commerce," an activity that was the responsibility of the federal government under the foreign commerce clause of the Constitution. That clause of Article I gives Congress the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations."

The State of Massachusetts, in its appeal to the Supreme Court, makes the contrary argument that "not one constitutional grant, prohibition or command requires the states to trade with dictators."

Noting that 23 states and 80 cities had once had "selective purchasing" laws toward South Africa, the Massachusetts brief said, "Nothing in our federal Constitution denies to the states the right to apply a moral standard to their spending decisions."

A broad spectrum of groups filed friend-of-the-court briefs urging the justices to hear the Massachusetts appeal, Natsios v. National Foreign Trade Council, No. 99-474.

Several state and local governments as well as nonprofit and human rights organizations asked the court to overturn the decision by the appeals court, while business groups including the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers said the justices should take the case in order to make the ruling by the appeals court binding on the rest of the country.

In the appeals court opinion, Judge Lynch, noting that there are 39,000 different governments in the United States, said there was the potential for cacophony if many others followed the Massachusetts model. She observed that there were substantial differences between the Massachusetts law and the more flexible approach that the federal government took almost simultaneously in imposing trade restrictions on Myanmar.

"In the federal Burma law, Congress has chosen to rely on both carrots and sticks" while "Massachusetts uses a cudgel," Judge Lynch said, adding that the state law "interferes with the ability of the federal government to speak with one voice."

=================================================

The San Francisco Bay Guardian December 22, 1999

by Dennis Bernstein and Leslie Kean

At the recent debacle in Seattle, WTO director-general Michael Moore used strong rhetoric to condemn slave labor and assuage labor leaders' concerns that the WTO would become a battering ram used against hard-won labor rights here and abroad.

In a Nov. 30th speech to the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions in Seattle, Moore suggested that the International Labour Organization , the U.N. agency in charge of monitoring worker rights around the world, would play a key role in determining countries' involvement in the WTO. "Who supports slave labour?" Moore asked. "Or prison labour? Who wants their children in factories rather than in school? ...None of us."

According to the WTO Wed site, Moore receives "documentation" from the ILO on labor issues. "The WTO will be guided by [ILO] Ministers on the issue of trade and core labour standards," it says. Since taking office in September 1999, Moore has met twice with ILO director-general Juan Somavia.

That Moore could make those statements at a WTO gathering that included the Burmese ambassador and welcomed Burma (Myanmar) as an equal partner in the WTO is extraordinary, labor and Burma activists say. In an unprecedented action last June, the ILO virtually expelled Burma from its ranks, banning it from receiving aid or attending meetings until it halts the widespread use of forced labor. The United Nations labor organization chided the Burmese military government for imposing a "contemporary form of slavery" on its people. Activists assert that Burma's inclusion as a member in good standing of the WTO calls everything Moore says into question.

One of those activists is Stephen Dun, a member of the Karen minority, which has been decimated by the military regime in Burma. He presented a statement at the AFL-CIO rally held in Seattle during the recent WTO meetings.

"This is the strongest action ever undertaken by the ILO in its 80-year history! Incredibly, Burma under the military junta is a member in good standing of the World Trade Organization," Dun said in his statement.

"Forced labor is used to build roads, to build airport runways for tourists, to build military camps and facilities, and to produce crops and products for international trade," he said. "Let me tell you about the conditions for forced laborers: Girls and women are harassed, molested and raped by soldiers. Men and women are chained at night like animals, so that they cannot run away. Those who work too slowly are beaten, and even killed."

A 1998 ILO report stated that government officials and the military "treat the civilian population as an unlimited pool of unpaid forced laborers and servants at their disposal" and that life under the current regime is "a saga of untold misery and suffering, oppression and exploitation of large sections of the population."

According to a September 1998 Report on Labor Practices in Burma by the U.S. Department of Labor, "forced labor has reportedly been imposed upon many hundreds of thousands of people in Burma since the early 1990s."

Because of the extremity of these findings and the historic action by the ILO to expel Burma, the Burmese dictatorship has become the ultimate "poster child" for those working to improve labor standards in the context of free trade, says Larry Dohrs, director of public education for the Free Burma Coalition. "How can the WTO rationalize having a member that has been kicked out of the ILO?" he told the Bay Guardian.

Perks for dictators

Along with the advantage of a huge pool of free labor, Burma's rulers have benefited from WTO membership perks. The WTO was the first to challenge a 1996 Massachusetts law that prevents the state from doing business with companies that deal with Burma. The law is modeled after the successful anti-apartheid boycott laws that were adopted by 25 states and 80 local governments.

For the time being, the WTO was let off the hook because a U.S. federal district court ruled against the Burma purchasing law, and last November the Supreme Court decided it would rule on the case. But the trade organization is ready to back Burma's iron-fisted rulers if the court decides in favor of the people of Massachusetts. Ironically, a lawless, unelected military junta has the world's most powerful trade organization attempting to override the laws of a democratic country.

The rulers of Burma have also benefited from other services provided to them by the WTO. Last July, the WTO sponsored a two-day course titled "Internet Technology" in Rangoon, Burma's capital. "Manager Mr. Jean Guy Carrier of World Trade Organization spoke on the occasion," reported the New Light of Myanmar, the state-controlled newspaper. In contrast, the few citizens of Burma who can afford a computer are denied the right to have one. Those caught with an unsanctioned computer face imprisonment for as much as 15 years.

Participating in the elite computer training course with some 30 junta members were officials from the Office of Strategic Studies, which is headed by Lieutenant-General Khin Nyunt, one of the junta's most powerful and feared members. The OSS is a military think-tank comprising high-ranking intelligence officers who wield tremendous authority. Khin Nyunt, who has also been head of the Directorate of Defense Services Intelligence for 15 years, is responsible for much of the brutality and terror that has been inflicted on the Burmese people, partly through his OSS.

Free trade in drugs

Khin Nyunt has also had success in stimulating free trade in one of his country's most profitable business ventures: the export of heroin and other drugs. On Oct. 1, he paid a visit to the rural headquarters of Wei Hsueh-kang, an ethnic-Chinese drug lord who is wanted for trafficking by both U.S. and Thai authorities.

The U.S. State Department has called Wei's outfit "the world's biggest armed narcotics trafficking organization" and has a $2 million bounty out for his capture. His amphetamine factories are believed to be the key source for the explosive wave of Burma's newest export, which is now devastating the youth in neighboring Thailand. But this has not stopped Khin Nyunt from comfortably visiting road and dam-building projects being undertaken with drug profits in Wei's area.

In fact, this particular free trade zone is expanding, thanks to Khin Nyunt and the rest of the Generals in charge. Wei has recently been allowed to spread his business south, infuriating Thai officials. The Bangkok Post argued that the regime's "tacit approval of Wei's drug activities can only add to the regime's foul reputation as a real danger to the well-being of the global community of nations."

As early as 1993, narcotics officials in Thailand had linked Khin Nyunt to Lo Hsing Han, who had been one of the largest heroin traffickers in the world. A memo from the Thai Government's Office of Narcotics Control Board names Khin Nyunt as key "supporter" of Lo, and says that in February 1993, Lo Hsing Han was granted the "privilege from Brig. Gen. Khin Nyunt to smuggle heroin from the Kokang group to Tachilek [on the Thai border] without interception." Now Lo and his son, Steven Law, are two of the leading lights in Burma's business community.

The drug-connection was definitely on the minds of the Burma pro-democracy activists in Seattle. Among their numbers was a retired army sergeant who had served in numerous U.S. special operations as well as several tours at the U.S. embassy in Burma. The sergeant, an intelligence specialist who worked directly with the State Department, helped carry a 20-foot, 40-pound mock hypodermic needle into demonstrations on the streets of Seattle.

"Our message with the needle," said the career soldier who requested anonymity, "is that heroin is Myanmar's number one money making export.

>From a trade standpoint, heroin is definitely their thing." The Seattle

police seized and crushed the giant syringe.

Lending legitimacy

"It's ironic to think that peaceful demonstrators - truly peaceful - were gassed and shot with rubber bullets as they sat, in order to protect an institution that was meeting inside with the Burmese dictators treated as honored guests and normal members," Dohrs said.

While the attacks on pro-democracy demonstrators took place on the outside, Burma's ambassador U Tin Win, attended President Clinton's WTO luncheon on Dec. 1. At this event, he listened to a speech presented by Moore.

"This is the chance to help build the new world. There are so many in this conference who also marched, protested, went to prison, fought, suffered. The idealists sit in this conference...These men and women were chosen by their people, they must ask their Parliaments and Congresses to ratify what they agree."

"Burma must have slipped Moore's mind when he made this statement," Dohrs said. "Not only is democracy nonexistent in Burma, it is for all practical purposes illegal." None of Burma's current rulers were chosen by their people, and the duly elected Parliament has been prevented from taking office by those whom Win represents.

In a recent interview, the chief of the Myanmar (Burma) mission in Washington, Minister U Thaung Tun, who attended the Seattle summit with the ambassador, said he thinks issues such as labor and the environment have no place within the WTO.

"Every issue deserves concern in an appropriate forum. And for labor, it is the ILO," he said, surprisingly referring to the United Nations body that had expelled Burma for its practice of massive forced labor. He believes that the ILO "allegations" were made for "political reasons" and says he has invited an ILO delegation to "come and look." However, during the ILO investigation all requests from the ILO commission for access to the country were denied

"They're running the entire country as if it was the army," said the veteran sergeant who carried the giant syringe. "Membership in the WTO lends the regime legitimacy. Anything that gives the regime legitimacy is just not right."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------