NYT: Bill Clinton's Moment on Myanm

[Winston_Lee@xxxxxxx]

Subject: NYT: Bill Clinton's Moment on Myanmar <Editorial>

          March 24, 1997


          Bill Clinton's Moment on Myanmar

               The decision whether to apply sanctions to Myanmar for its
human
               rights abuses now rests with President Clinton. Last July,
Congress
          passed a law calling for a ban on new American investment in
Myanmar
          if that country's repressive Government harmed or rearrested the
          democracy leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi or cracked down on the
          democracy movement. The President's top foreign-policy advisers
are
          divided. For the sake not only of democracy in Myanmar, but also
of
          American credibility when dealing with other dictatorial regimes,
          President Clinton should invoke the law.

          The case for sanctions on Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, is
more
          convincing than perhaps anywhere else in the world. If President
Clinton
          chooses not to apply them, there is little reason any other
abusive country
          should take Washington's tough talk seriously.

          By all credible accounts, including the State Department's annual
 human
          rights report, Myanmar's Government has met if not exceeded the
          conditions in the sanctions legislation. In 1996, the worst year
of
          repression in this decade, it detained hundreds of students and
activists
          and held Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi under virtual house arrest in
December.
          Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi, who would be Myanmar's elected leader had
          the Government not annulled 1990 elections, has appealed to
          Washington to apply the sanctions.

          The sanctions would also cost American business little.

          The United States currently has only about $220 million invested
in
          Myanmar, almost all of it in oil and gas projects. Many American
          companies have already pulled out in response to public pressure
and
          new laws in Massachusetts and several cities prohibiting
government
          contracts with companies that do business in Myanmar.

          Because investment is relatively small, sanction opponents have
argued
          that the action would have little impact, and that other
businesses, mostly
          from Asia, could fill the gap.

          Sanctions would indeed be more effective if they were joined by
          European and other nations that have criticized Myanmar's
Government.
          So far, Washington has not persuaded them, although
Administration
          officials have made only a halfhearted attempt. But American
allies may
          be more likely to join if Washington takes a bold first step.

          Even though American investment is small, the United States is
still
          Myanmar's biggest investor. Moreover, Myanmar's economic
          desperation -- its hard currency reserves would last only a few
weeks --
          would magnify the impact of sanctions.

          Opponents also argue that once sanctions are applied,
Washington's
          influence would dissolve. That is a rationale for paralysis.
Washington's
          leverage in a case like this is useless if it is perpetually held
 in reserve.

          With Myanmar there are few of the complicating considerations
that
          come with a country like China. If Mr. Clinton ever intends to
stand
          firmly behind the principle of human rights, this is the time and
 the place.


                    Home | Sections | Contents | Search | Forums | Help

                      Copyright 1997 The New York Times Company