[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

Ericsson involvement in Burma; Tran



Here follows a transcript of a radio debate that took place in Swedish 
Radio ('Studio Ett, Channel 1') on Monday, 12 January, 1998. In the 
recent couple of weeks, Ericsson's involvement in Burma has received a 
lot of attention in Swedish media. The interview that follows below was 
broadcasted live in 'Studio Ett' which is the main political debate 
programme in Sweden. That same day, there was a whole page on Burma in 
the main daily newspaper, 'Dagens Nyheter', where half the page took up 
the Ericsson affair. Before this article, there had been three other 
major articles on Burma in the same paper within a cople of weeks. 
Yesterday, there was a major feature on Ericsson and Burma in the 
Swedish Television weekly political programme 'Eight Days' ('Åtta 
dagar'). In the Swedish Burma movement, we will try to continue this 
pressure on Ericsson, and use the opportunity to get even more attention 
in the media. This is definitely a very good opportunity to put pressure 
on Ericsson to move out of Burma, and it would therefore be excellent if 
people in other countries could confront them simultaneously; it would 
be especially effective if they were confronted with their own 
statements from this radio debate by people all over the world. Feel 
free to use this transcript (translated from Swedish to English) in any 
way you feel appropriate!

The Burma Group in Uppsala, Sweden


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

Debate on Business and Moral: The Case of Ericsson?s Involvement in 
Burma
Swedish Radio, Channel 1, ?Studio Ett?, Broadcasted live on 12 January 
1998, 17.00

Participants: Mr Stefan Amér, The Burma Group in Uppsala [SA];Mr  Lars 
Ståhlberg, Senior vice president, corporate relations, Ericsson inc. 
[LS], Jan-Erik Lundeberg, Amnesty International [JEL].

Debate moderator: Ms Cecila Bodström [P1]; 
Background briefing: Mr Anders Holmberg [P2]

P1: Now we will be discussing business and moral. Is it right for a 
company to do business in a country where the regime does not respect 
human rights? This is a burning issue when it comes to Burma where 
Ericsson is conducting business, and, according to critics, is providing 
the military regime with mobile phones. Stefan Amér, from the Burma 
Group in Uppsala, why do you think that Ericsson should not conduct 
business in Burma?
SA: The situation in Burma is quite extreme. I suppose the country is 
facing one of the most severe repressions that we know about today in 
the world ? a brutal military regime oppressing the population. The 
revenues of this regime is mainly based on drug trade and investments 
from foreign companies, and one of these companies is Ericsson from 
Sweden. This company is highly respected here in Sweden, and we think it 
is strange that Ericsson supports such a repressive regime. 
P1: If one conducts business, one supports the dictatorship, is that 
what you are saying?
SA: In this case this is quite clear because in Burma only the regime 
and people connected to it have the right to own mobile phones, and even 
faxes and modems and such equipment. This is just a way of oppressing 
the population of Burma.
P1: This thus means that you answer yes on my question?
SA: Yes.
P1: Lars Ståhlberg, head of information at Ericsson, do you support the 
regime in Burma when you do business with the country?
LS: I do not think that one should view it that way. We supply equipment 
that extend the telecommunications structure in the country, and this is 
an activity which actually tend to contribute to people?s ability to 
communicate with each other and therefore also increases the 
difficulties for a regime to maintain an authoritarian order.
P1: So you mean that, on contrary, you are actually supporting the 
democracy movement, Lars Ståhlberg?
LS: Yes, In a general sense I mean that.
P1: We will be talking more about these issues and continue the debate, 
but first, for all of you who doesn?t know much about Burma, we will 
provide you with a brief background. 
Burma is ruled by a military regime and is one of the countries which 
have been most criticized for violations of the human rights in recent 
years. And much of the attention depends on the fact that the leader of 
the democracy movement, Aung San Suu Kyi, in 1991 was awarded the Nobel 
Peace Prize.
Aung San Suu Kyi [in recorded interview]: There has been no improvements 
in neither democratization or the human rights record.
Interviewer: Is it still a climate of fear in Burma?
Aung San Suu Kyi: Yes, very much so.
P2 [background commentary]: The face of Burma?s democracy movement, ?the 
Lady? as she is often called, Aung San Suu Kyi, in an interview with 
Bengt Terner from the Swedish Radio one and a half year ago. Then she 
said that the democracy and human rights situation was getting worse, 
not better, and that Burma was a country characterized by fear. Burma is 
situated by the Indian Ocean, and borders to the east with Thailand and 
Laos, to the north with China, and to the west with India and 
Bangladesh. 42 million Burmese are ruled with an iron fist by the 
military regime that took power in 1988 under the name ?State Law and 
Order Restoration Council?. When the democratic opposition won a 
landslide victory in the elections 1990, the council revealed what was 
meant by law and order and imprisoned the winner of the elections, Aung 
San Suu Kyi. In 1991 she was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and even if 
it is still the military who decides whether, how and when she will be 
able to leave her house she points out that her situation is much more 
pleasant than that of other opponents to the regime.
Aung San Suu Kyi [recorded interview]: My colleges are in a far worse 
position, because although I am separated from my family I know that 
they are safe.
P2: Imprisonment, torture, forced labor and death penalty is a picture 
that often describes Burma. It is a country where ears constantly hear, 
and eyes constantly see what the citizens do. The secret police is 
compared to Gestapo in Hitler?s Germany or the KGB in the former Soviet 
union. Here, a few examples from Amnesty International?s annual report 
from 1996: During 1996 more than 1000 opposition politicians are kept in 
prison. During the year 2000 people where arrested due to political 
reasons. In March, two comedians are sentenced to seven years of 
imprisonment because they have made a satire on the military council. 
They are later transferred to a labor camp. In June, ?Law number five? 
is issued. According to this law, anyone who expresses oppositional 
views in public can be sentenced to 20 years in prison. It is claimed 
that tens of thousands of people are forced into slave labor, doing 
anything from road construction to brick manufacturing. No political 
prisoners who were in jail in the beginning of 1996 were released during 
the year. The United Nations have adopted several resolutions against 
the oppression of the human rights in Burma. The United States decided 
in May 1997 to stop new American foreign investments in the country, and 
the government of Norway has urged Norwegian companies to leave Burma. 
And although no binding sanctions exist, several major companies have 
decided to withdraw from the country. These are companies such as 
Levi?s, Pepsi, Carlsberg, Motorola and Shell. Anders Holmberg, for 
?Studio Ett?.
P1: Lars Ståhlberg from Ericsson, we heard that several major companies 
have left Burma, but not you?
LS: There are a number of examples of companies who have announced that 
they are leaving Burma, but there is are also a large number of 
companies who have joined in criticism of this kind of one-sided trade 
sanctions, and this is a much larger number of companies, who together 
with the EU commission and the European governments have objected to 
one-sided trade sanctions and mean that these are meaningless gestures. 
There are no less than 650 companies who have joined together in the 
United States, large and leading corporations which have a diametrically 
different opinion.
P1: You said earlier that you believe that the democracy movement 
perhaps on contrary benefits from your presence as they might gain 
access to mobile phones and faxes. Stefan Amér, how would you like to 
comment this statement?
SA: The previous background commentary speaks very much for itself. The 
situation is horrible, and it is very interesting to hear Lars Ståhlberg 
saying that one would promote democracy by selling mobile phones, when 
it is a fact that ordinary citizens in Burma has no right to possess 
neither mobile phones nor faxes or other equipment. This is all 
controlled by the military regime. Thus, this is a way to force back the 
democratic party.
Given that Ericsson now claims it wants to support the democracy 
movement with the help of these mobile phones, the best argument 
[according to their logic] would then be to intensify its business with 
Burma. One would instead sell even more mobile phones and increase one?s 
engagement, and this is a question I would like to ask Lars Ståhlberg: 
does he think that this is a good way to support the democracy movement 
in Burma?
P1: Let us ask Lars Ståhlberg this question.
LS: Yes, I think such a reasoning is valid. Our business involvement 
there is not so much about mobile phones primarily, but deals with 
infrastructure. We have, throughout the years, since the 1960s supplied 
19 000 telephone lines and then we have delivered a system for mobile 
telephones which today has a capacity of about 10 000 clients...
P1 (interrupting): So you will increase your business with Burma, is 
that what you are saying?
LS: That we actually do not see any opportunity for today...
P1 (interrupting): But if you try to answer the question...
LS (interrupting): I did answer your question. Strictly speaking, I 
think this is a correct reasoning, that we should do it [increase 
business with Burma]. Now, I do not see any commercial conditions for 
this today. But if one today has an infrastructure that is limited in 
scope, it is still enough developed to, by its pure existence, 
constitute a threat to the regime and to be a tool for democracy.
P1: We have also a representative from Amnesty International in the 
studio. Jan-Erik Lundeberg, you are Burma coordinator within Amnesty and 
involved with a group that is working on issues that has to do with 
economics and trade. Do you think that Ericsson should conduct business 
with Burma, or should one boycott Burma?
JEL: I would like to begin by saying that I do not think that anyone of 
the 10 000 mobile phones the could possibly have been delivered by 
Ericsson to Burma has come in the hands of the opposition or neutral 
people ? to the extent that there are any neutral people in Burma. If 
Ericsson has any information that tells the opposite [that the 
opposition are using the phones] it would be very nice to hear about 
that, and as long as one doesn?t have any information about this I think 
that...
P1 (interrupting): Should we let Lars Ståhlberg have a chance to answer? 
Do you have any proof?
LS: I just say that the prospect of controlling 30-40 000 
telecommunication connections is limited.
P1: There is a chance, you say. Then you are welcome to continue, 
Jan-Erik Lundeberg.
JEL: Tack you. Limited maybe, but in a completely controlled state such 
as Burma they will take every chance to control also communications. 
Extraordinarily modern and well equipped centers for that were set up in 
Rangoon about half a year ago...
P1 (interrupting): Jan-Erik Lundeberg, to pose a question this way: Lars 
Ståhlberg from Ericsson says that the democracy movement benefits from 
Ericsson?s presence in the country; Stefan Amér from the Burma Group 
says that it is the military dictatorship that benefits from their 
presence. Who should one trust?
JEL: If you ask me what I believe, I think that as long as Burma looks 
as it does today it is the regime that benefits.
P1: Then Ericsson should not be there, if I interpret you correctly.
JEL: That they have to judge for themselves. We can not tell anybody 
what they should do... It is up to the company to decide what they 
should do. What we can do is to demand that at least the activities of 
the company do not violate the human rights.
P1: But that you say they do, with these telephones getting into the 
hands of the military dictatorship and not the democracy movement. Then 
the implication should be that you think that Ericsson should not be in 
Burma?
JEL: Yes, personally I think so, but the policy of Amnesty in to not 
urge for boycotts, and what we are talking about now is a boycott, thus 
I have to keep to this point of view.
P1: Stefan Amér, why boycotts? 
SA: Well, I think that Lars Ståhlberg answers in a very clear way here. 
He means that Ericsson should be engaged in Burma, and that preferably 
they should increase this engagement. Then I don?t see any other way 
than that people stop buying [their products] and supporting this 
company. As a matter of fact, in many areas of the world there exist 
already boycotts of Ericsson precisely due to the position that Lars 
Ståhlberg shows very clearly here. In the United States many cities and 
states have chosen to stop doing business with Ericsson, and they have 
been excluded from several purchasing schemes because of their business 
with Burma. If Ericsson is completely deaf to any kind of moral 
argument, then I guess that the only way to make them listen is that 
people take their own responsibility as consumers.
P1: Is that what you do now? Boycott Ericsson, is that what you are 
saying?
SA: I regard it this way, that on the one hand Ericsson should 
themselves think about whether they can take any type of responsibility 
for their business apart from earning money at all costs even when this 
means that they are disregarding human rights. On the other hand, if the 
case is that Ericsson does not listen then I would...
P1 (interrupting): But you heard yourself that Lars Ståhlberg said that 
they would be happy to continue to do business with Burma. Do you then 
think that one should boycott Ericsson?
SA: Yes, consumers should think about whether they should buy from 
Ericsson, and I also think that the Swedish government could follow the 
appeal that the United States? government, that Canada?s government and 
that Norway?s government have done, to stop doing business with Burma.
P1: Stop doing business with Burma, you say. Stop doing business with 
Ericsson, you also say. Lars Ståhlberg, I will let you have the last 
word: will you stop doing business with Burma?
LS: I really think that was coarse. To say that we ignore human rights. 
I also think one should keep to the point. Neither the United States 
government, nor the Canadian government have urged for any stop of doing 
business with Burma. On contrary, except for the Norwegian special case 
there exists no such...
SA (interrupting): There is a special law in the United States which...
LS (interrupting and loud, keeping the others down): There is a special 
law in the United States which talks about sanctions against Burma. We 
do not break any regulation that is in force in any country regarding 
activities in Burma, and if one is to debate these important issues one 
at least need some knowledge and arguments based on facts.
P1: Lars Ståhlberg, let us discus the principle. Will Ericsson continue 
doing business with Burma?
LS: I can not answer this question today because I do not know what the 
commercial conditions are like. It is a very long time since we made any 
new business deals in Burma and we have practically no business there. 
We have no investments in the country and the commercial conditions are 
not particularly favorable. A one-sided trade boycott is a completely 
meaningless measure, completely disregarding that I do not have any 
other view of the situation and the human rights in Burma [last sentence 
not easily understood in Swedish either...].
P1: With that you had the last word, Lars Ståhlberg from Ericsson. 
Participating in this discussion were also Stefan Amér from the Burma 
Group in Uppsala and Jan-Erik Lundeberg from Amnesty International. 

END


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com