[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Washington Post: Boston's Stand on Human Rights
>X-Sender: etanfield@pop.igc.apc.org
>Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 01:49:22 -0400
>To: etan@gnu.ai.mit.edu, anairn@igc.apc.org, max@igc.apc.org,
> janet_d@earthlink.net, Margaret Bergamini <bergami@inxpress.net>,
> bterrall@igc.org, constancio_pinto@brown.edu,
> farsetta@students.wisc.edu, aepstein@aiusa.usa.com,
> marizac@u.washington.edu
>From: Kristin Sundell <etanfield@igc.apc.org>
>Subject: Washington Post: Boston's Stand on Human Rights
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Sender: etanfield@igc.org
>X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by igc7.igc.org id XAA05228
>
>>Return-Path: <sbillenness@frdc.com>
>>X-Sender: simonbil@zero.frdc.com
>>Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 09:19:54 -0400
>>To: (Recipient list suppressed)
>>From: Simon Billenness <sbillenness@frdc.com>
>>Subject: Washington Post: Boston's Stand on Human Rights
>>X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by igcb.igc.org id
>GAA27267
>>
>>Boston's Stand on Human Rights
>>
>>By Fred Hiatt
>>
>>Monday, August 25, 1997; Page A19
>>The Washington Post
>>
>>Is the European Union about to slap economic sanctions on the Commonwealth
>>of Massachusetts? It may come to that, in a case that helps explain this
>>nation's ambivalence about its place in a globalizing economy -- an
>>ambivalence that will come to the fore in Washington next month, when
>>President Clinton seeks expanded trade negotiating powers from Congress.
>>
>>This particular story begins on the other side of this interconnected
>>globe, in the beautiful but sad Asian land of Burma. The narco-thug junta
>>of military bullies who misrule that nation may qualify, against stiff
>>competition, as the world's most odious regime. By the same token, the
>>woman who should be Burma's leader, Aung San Suu Kyi -- whose party won an
>>election seven years ago but never was permitted to take office and who has
>>been under house arrest pretty much ever since -- is unsurpassed in
>>courage, dignity and determination.
>>
>>The contrast hasn't gone unnoticed. A grass-roots movement in this country
>>has persuaded a dozen cities, including San Francisco and New York, and one
>>state -- Massachusetts -- to adopt economic sanctions of their own. Modeled
>>explicitly on laws designed to help Nelson Mandela and the South African
>>anti-apartheid movement, the Massachusetts law bars any state procurement
>>from companies doing business in Burma. As in the South Africa case, the
>>law is having an effect; supporters claim that Apple Computer, PepsiCo,
>>Eastman Kodak and other major firms have pulled out of Burma rather than
>>risk losses in the United States.
>>
>>But wait. While Massachusetts was debating the Burma bill, the United
>>States (in 1994) joined the World Trade Organization, a new Geneva-based
>>body intended to promote fair, universal rules of commerce. As part of the
>>package, Congress signed on to an international code on government
>>procurement, to which most states (but no cities) voluntarily acceded. In
>>so doing, they promised to award contracts based solely on merit, not on
>>extraneous political or cultural factors.
>>
>>Aha! said the European Union last June (joined by Japan a month later):
>>Massachusetts's Burma law is in clear violation. Following WTO procedure,
>>the Europeans requested "consultations" and may now demand a three-judge
>>panel to hear their case. If it wins, the WTO would demand a change in the
>>Massachusetts law or, as an alternative, economic compensation -- perhaps
>>targeted, if possible, at the Bay State.
>>
>>Why would the Europeans hand Burma's thugs this kind of moral support,
>>especially when the European Parliament claims to back Burma's democrats?
>>Many Europeans are fed up with what they see as America's growing habit of
>>seeking to impose its own foreign policy by punishing European companies
>>that do business in Iran, Libya, Cuba, Burma or elsewhere. Because they
>>couldn't stop Congress from acting this way, they're picking on
>>Massachusetts, kicking Aung San Suu Kyi along the way.
>>
>>The administration says it will defend the Massachusetts law. As he asks
>>Congress for wider authority to shape new trade agreements, the last thing
>>Clinton wants is confirmation that the WTO impinges on local sovereignty.
>>
>>But while they're defending the Massachusetts law, administration officials
>>haven't gone so far as to label it defensible. In the long run, some will
>>admit privately, they don't think it would be so bad if states and cities
>>were nudged out of the foreign-policy business. And they point to the
>>advantages U.S. firms gain from an international code on procurement,
>>suggesting it's worth giving up something along the way. To the
>>administration, in fact, and to defenders of the globalizing trade regime
>>in general, the WTO not only can help U.S. multinationals sell more, but
>>can also help spread the American way throughout the world: the rule of
>>law, the sanctity of contract, the opportunity for anyone to compete based
>>on hard work and quality, rather than personal connection or corruption.
>>Trade talks these days focus less and less on tariffs and quotas and more
>>on how societies organize themselves -- in environmental or copyright law,
>>health and safety standards, local zoning and national cultural protection.
>>
>>WTO critics on both the left and the right see danger precisely in that
>>drive toward uniformity. They don't want to cede local control on such
>>basic issues, especially when they believe the benefits flow mostly to
>>large corporations.
>>
>>For Michael Shuman, a lawyer at the Institute for Policy Studies, the
>>Massachusetts law on Burma is a case in point. The U.S. Constitution may
>>assign foreign-policy powers to Washington, but states and local
>>governments always have nibbled at the edges, he says. "A large number of
>>voices on foreign policy helps democratize the process," he says, adding
>>"creativity and diversity."
>>
>>In truth, the WTO can't force Massachusetts to change its law, nor can it
>>force Washington to make Massachusetts back down, as trade lawyer Alan
>>Wolff points out. The WTO can only hold the United States to what it agreed
>>to and extract a price if our country falls short -- exactly as the United
>>States has demanded of many other countries.
>>
>>But the U.S. trade representative, trying to appease the Europeans, already
>>has pressed other states not to follow the Massachusetts example. And some
>>in Massachusetts aren't pleased about the pressure.
>>
>>If the WTO had been around 10 years ago, argues Burma activist Simon
>>Billenness, "Nelson Mandela might still be in jail today." He doesn't think
>>the Massachusetts legislature will back down.
>>
>>"Here in Boston," Billenness says, "there's a certain tradition of not
>>letting European bureaucrats impinge on our decisions regarding taxes and
>>spending."
>>
>>The writer is a member of the editorial page staff.
>>
>>© Copyright 1997 The Washington Post Company
>>
>>
>>
>________________________________________________
>Kristin Sundell, Field Organizer
>East Timor Action Network/UUSC
>130 Prospect St.
>Cambridge, MA 02139-1845
>tel: 617-868-6600 x319 or 617-441-5043 (evenings/weekends)
>fax: 617-868-7102
>