Following The Burma Campaign's high profile campaign Triumph International have now pulled out of Burma. Read the Press Release

summary
Burma is ruled by an illegitimate military dictatorship - one of the most tyrannical and secretive the modern era has seen - a regime that refuses any democratisation of the political system, that systematically violates the most fundamental human rights, and that oppresses and exploits its population. It is a regime engaged in the perpetuation of relentless misery.

Triumph International is a Swiss-based German multinational company owned by the Spiesshofer and Braun families. The company is one of Europe's main retailers of lingerie. The company has an annual turnover of US$ 1.6 billion and employs more than 30,000 people worldwide. In 1996 Triumph International established a company in Burma 'Myanmar Triumph International'. The company began operating a factory there in April 1997 exporting lingerie to the international market.

Triumph's presence in Burma has given rise to much controversy. An international campaign supported by the following organisations is calling on the company to close down its Burmese production site:

	The Burma Campaign UK
	The Burma Centre Netherlands
	The European Clean Clothes Campaign
	APHEDA - Union Aid Abroad, Australia
	The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU)
	The International Textile, Garment and Leather Workers' Federation (ITGLWF)
	The exiled Federation of Trade Unions - Burma (FTUB)

With particular thanks to the Canadian Friends of Burma for the use of their 1996 report 'Dirty Clothes: Dirty System'.

destructive engagement

To Top

"Foreign investment in most countries acts as a catalyst to promote change, but the Burmese regime is so single-minded that whatever money they obtain from foreign sources they pour straight into the army while the rest of the country is collapsing" Burton Levin, former US Ambassador to Burma

Burma's military regime is responsible for:

	The refusal to transfer power to a government democratically elected in 1990 under the leadership of Nobel Peace Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi who is held under house arrest.
	Millions of men, women and children in forced labour - often imposed with the threat of physical abuse, beatings, torture, rape and murder.
	One and a half million internally displaced people, in part the result of ethnic cleansing campaigns against minority groups.
	The detention of approx. 1500 political prisoners, many of them routinely tortured.
	Thousands of refugees who have fled to Thailand, China, India and Bangladesh.
	The production over the last decade of most of the world's illegal opium and heroin.
	One of the largest armies in Asia even though the country has no external enemies.
	The closure of Burma's universities for most of the last decade in an attempt to avoid civil unrest. A whole generation's education and opportunity has been lost.

Burma was once one of Asia's healthiest economies, and seen to be one of the most promising of the newly independent countries at the end of the Second World War. By 1987 however the country had been given United Nations' Least Developed Country status and at the start of the 21st century Burma is among the world's lowest-income countries. The dramatic change in Burma's fortunes is a consequence of four decades of dictatorship by a regime that is as corrupt and inept as it is brutal.

According to the regime's official statistics, since 1988 Burma has attracted US$7.39 billion of foreign investment in 366 projects as of the end of August 2001. In 2000 investments totalled US$152.8million mostly injected into the manufacturing, oil and agriculture sectors of the economy. A total of US$49.49 million has been invested in 10 projects in the first eight months of this year. (Xinhua, November 2001).

However the windfall of income generated has not contributed to the social and economic welfare of Burma's people. It has instead helped the regime to defer essential economic reform and to dramatically expand Burma's armed forces. Nearly half the national budget is consistently spent on 'defence', while around five per cent is spent on health and social services combined. Over the last fourteen years an influx of foreign capital has been used to more than double the size of the military and to enrich a narrow elite closely connected to senior military personnel.

Burma's people meanwhile have grown ever poorer. Burma is now a country that hovers persistently on the brink of bankruptcy. A resource rich country has a population suffering widespread malnutrition, high under-five and maternal mortality, escalating HIV transmission rates and a burgeoning education deficit. With water shortages and routine electricity blackouts public services have all but collapsed.

An influx of foreign capital has served simply to strengthen - financially and politically - the very dictatorship that oppresses and impoverishes the people of Burma. For these reasons Burma's elected representatives have asked the international community - governments and international corporations - to take what measures it can to stem the flow of foreign capital into the regime's coffers; to help cut the lifeline that sustains them and further delays Burma's transition to democratic governance.

In May 1997, President Clinton issued a federal order banning any new investment in Burma by US businesses. Selective purchasing legislation passed by a number of US states and cities places pricing penalties on companies doing business in Burma -effectively denying them contracts to provide goods and services. Additional legislation has recently been proposed in the US which seeks to ban the import of any article produced, manufactured or grown in Burma. This will have a marked effect on clothing imports from Burma which soared to $454 million in 2000 from $168 million in 1999 (Wall Street Journal, July 9, 2001). Though the European Union has not yet imposed sanctions legislation, a number of significant European governments - notably the UK - do now actively discourage trade and investment with Burma's regime.

In 1989, the U.S. Government suspended Burma from eligibility for preferential trade concessions under the Generalized System of Preferences Programme (GSP) because of its violation of labour rights. In March 1997, the European Union followed suit; suspending Burma from its GSP program because of its use of forced labour. In 1997 the ILO set up an official Commission of Inquiry into the use of forced labour in Burma:

"There is abundant evidence before the Commission showing the pervasive use of forced labour imposed on the civilian population… also threats to the life and security and extra-judicial punishment of those unwilling, slow or unable to comply with a demand for forced labour; such punishment or reprisals range from money demands to physical abuse, beatings, torture, rape, and murder…Forced labour is widely performed by women, children, and elderly persons as well as persons otherwise unfit for work."

By the time the ILO annual conference met in June 1999 the regime had still failed to implement any of the recommendations made by the Commission to bring laws and practice into compliance. As a result, the ILO passed a resolution finding the attitude of the government of Burma "grossly incompatible with the conditions and principles governing membership in the organization." The resolution went on to state: "the Government of Burma should henceforth cease to benefit from any technical cooperation or assistance from the ILO" and "should henceforth not receive any invitation to attend meetings, symposia, and seminars organized by the ILO, until such time as it has implemented the conclusions of the Commission of Inquiry."
In November 2000 given no improvement in the situation the ILO went further still; adopting an unprecedented resolution calling on other organisations, as well as on national governments and private companies, to review their relations with Burma, in order to ensure their relations do not serve to perpetuate or extend the widespread system of forced labour. In October 2001 an ILO mission to Burma to assess progress on the issue confirmed that forced labour remains widespread. The November 2000 resolution therefore remains in place.

The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions has been co-ordinating an international campaign in this regard to draw an appropriate response from all governments and international companies. This has amounted to a campaign for trade and investment sanctions to be imposed on Burma's regime and the naming and shaming in the media of companies active in the country.

Other companies have issued the following statements upon withdrawing:

"We do not feel that we can adequately apply our human rights standards and do business in Burma" Reebok, 1997 "It is not possible to do business in Burma without directly supporting the military government, and its pervasive violations of human rights." Levi-Strauss, 1992 "Public opinion and issues surrounding this market (Burma) have changed to a degree that could have an adverse effect on our brand and corporate reputation." Heineken, 1996 The policy of Liz Claiborne is to promote positive change in developing nations where people produce our products. Current conditions in Burma prevent Liz Claiborne from complying with that policy." Liz Claiborne, 1994

The briefing that follows focuses specifically on the involvement of Triumph International in Burma.

Working hours in the industry are said to be particularly 'flexible' - approaching 60 hours a week and average shop-floor wages are said to be amongst the lowest in the world. According to the trade journal Textile Asia, October 1995 Burma's 'biggest attraction (is)…ultra cheap labour". Burma "offers numerous cheap English speakers; control and communication cause no problems." Workers in Burma are denied the right to organize and bargain collectively to set wages and benefits.

A BBC Newsnight documentary in 1997 reported that at one factory it was routine for employees to have to hand over half their earnings as the price of keeping their jobs. At another where employees dared to protest at working conditions two truckloads of armed soldiers appeared and threatened to arrest them if they failed to return to work.

Despite this the European market for Burmese made garments looks set to increase. Since the introduction of proposed US legislation, which would prohibit within 15 days of enactment the import of any article produced, manufactured or grown in Burma, international garment buyers have already begun ordering from alternative sources in Asia. Simultaneously Burma-based manufacturers have been exploring in earnest alternative outlets in Europe to weigh against lost US business.

triumph or disaster

To Top

"There are hundreds of countries in the world to do business in. Why would you pick a place where you're going to get your name in the newspaper? No one wants that. Being in Burma is taking a chance." Laura Jones Executive Director US Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel

Triumph International is a German multinational company founded in 1886 and owned by the Spiesshofer and Braun families. The Switzerland-based company is one of Europe's main retailers of lingerie. The company has a turn-over of US$ 1.6 billion and employs more than 30,000 people worldwide (Triumph International website, 2001.)

In 1996 Triumph International established a company in Burma 'Myanmar Triumph International'. It began operating a factory there in April 1997 exporting almost 100% of its lingerie production to the international market. The factory employs 845 Burmese workers who according to Triumph work a 48-hour week for US1.00/day (Letter from Director of Triumph UK, July 2001).

The factory is located on a military-designated industrial estate called Pyin-Ma-Bin north of Rangoon's airport. The factory is rented from the Union of Myanmar Economic Holdings (UMEH).

triumph's response to the campaign

To Top

"The people in Burma do not pay taxes, this is not possible in that country. So if the government has to construct a road or an airport or something else, how could they do it differently? Triumph's Director Wolfgang Spiesshofer on the regime's use of forced labour

To date Triumph has pointedly refused to close down its production site. In attempting to justify its position the company argues that a withdrawal would mean the dismissal of 845 employees. According to Triumph, the campaign is purely a "political" one aimed at a private company.

Triumph's refusal to close its Burmese production site is likely to have more to do with the total lack of freedom in Burma than genuine concern for the workers it employs. The company does not after all have an unblemished record with regard to respect for the labour rights or the well being of its workers in other parts of the world; in May 2000 for example the company dismissed 21 Filipino employees belonging to a trade union who were asking for the legal minimum wage to be upheld.

Garment manufacturers do business in Burma because of rock-bottom wages and a 'compliant' workforce; cheap clothes and higher profits are the real issue of concern for them. This is after all an industry known to hop from country to country in search of the cheapest workforce with little regard to the consequences of withdrawing business from previous clients and workers.

Most companies sourcing clothing in Burma or with manufacturing bases in the country have an international high street presence. This gives consumers in these countries the power to take direct action against an industry prepared to bolster one of the worlds most corrupt and brutal dictatorships.

The aim of this campaign is not merely to inform but to inspire people to take action. Consumer power can make a difference. Individuals can play a role by choosing not to buy an item manufactured in Burma or the products of those companies that refuse to end their presence in Burma. Companies should be told of your decision not to buy their goods, and the reasons why. We can vote for change in Burma through our wallets.

Though this campaign targets Triumph International, through it we aim to effect a change in attitude towards business in Burma within the wider clothing and textile industry.

The campaign will:

	Engage the company in dialogue about the issues concerned with the aim of securing their withdrawal from Burma.
	Educate members of the public about the issues; encouraging a boycott of all Triumph products.
	Encourage high street retailers of Triumph products such as Debenhams and Selfridges to terminate contracts with the company until it withdraws form Burma.