| |
The European Parliament, the British government, Burma’s democrats,
the US government and many other bodies and institutions recognise
the role investment plays in strengthening Burma’s regime.
The British government actively discourages trade and investment
in Burma - Robin Cook, when Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,
made an unprecedented call to Premier Oil and other British companies
to pull out of Burma.
Concern about the role foreign investment plays in perpetuating
the brutal regime is also widespread in the private sector. In December
2001 European investment funds managing over £400bn in assets
issued a groundbreaking statement of concern about companies investing
in Burma.
Over the last five years a large number of foreign companies have
withdrawn from the country. The reasons cited for doing so include:
difficulties in working with the regime, consumer boycotts, damage
to company reputation and incompatibility with corporate values.
These companies now include amongst others: Adidas, Premier
Oil, Triumph International, Levi Strauss, PepsiCo, Erickson, Heineken,
Carlsberg, British Home Stores, Burton, River Island, Apple, Reebok
and Compaq.
Companies remaining in Burma often attempt to justify their involvement
by claiming that pulling out would harm ordinary Burmese people.
Aung San Suu Kyi disputes this. Two days after her release from
house arrest in May 2002, Aung San Suu Kyi stated “I don’t
think we have found evidence that sanctions have harmed the Burmese
people, because they have been clearly limited and many of those
who have suffered under sanctions have belonged to the business
community. Naturally some ordinary employees have been exposed,
but we have not yet found proof that large numbers of Burmese have
suffered as a result of sanctions. Sanctions have a role to play
because they are a strong political message. But also because they
are an economic message.”
Companies investing in Burma are not doing so because of an altruistic
wish to help the people of Burma. They are there to make a profit,
and are attracted by salaries of less than 25p a day, a compliant
workforce where unions are banned, and limited health and safety
laws which in any case are rarely enforced. The minimum working
age is 13.
Tourism companies sometimes attempt to justify organising holidays
to Burma by claiming that Aung San Suu Kyi’s release in May
2002 shows that things in Burma are changing. Again, Aung San Suu
Kyi disputes this. “We have not yet come to the point where
we encourage people to come to Burma as tourists” she told
the BBC in December 2002. Tourism is an important source of income
for the regime.
This list of companies supporting the regime in Burma (The Dirty
List) mainly consists of British companies or foreign companies
with a significant presence in Britain. It lists companies whose
involvement in Burma provides financial or other support to the
regime. It is not a definitive list of every single company which
operates in Burma. The Burma Campaign UK is not calling for a total
trade boycott of Burma. We are calling for targeted sanctions which
will cut the economic lifeline to the regime. We believe companies
on this list are directly or indirectly helping to keep the regime
in power.
This list is for use by campaigners, investment funds and individual
investors. Many people will not wish to purchase products from companies
linked with the regime in Burma. At present BCUK is co-ordinating
boycott campaigns targeting Lonely Planet and tourism to Burma.
We are not actively co-ordinating boycotts of all the companies
on this dirty list, however we welcome people contacting these companies
urging them to pull out.
We have also published a ‘Clean List’ of companies that
have taken principled decisions not to operate in Burma, or that
have pulled out in response to campaigns.
The Burma Campaign UK welcomes suggestions for additions to the
Dirty List that we may have neglected to include.
|
|
