[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