Ericsson and Burma: Transcript of S

[burmagruppen@xxxxxxxxxxx]

The debate on Ericsson's involvement in Burma is still a hot issue in 
Sweden. Here follows a transcript of a debate that was broadcasted in 
Swedish television. Please use it in any way you think is appropriate to 
put pressure on Ericsson to move out of the country.

The Burma Group in Uppsala, Sweden
--------------

Transcript of feature on Ericsson?s involvement in Burma broadcasted in 
?Åtta dagar? (?Eight Days?), Swedish Television, Channel 2 on Sunday 18 
January, 1998.
Translated from Swedish to English.
Interviewer: Erik Anér, ?8 dagar? [EA]
Lars Stålberg, Senior vice president, corporate relations, Ericsson [LS]

EA: Boycott Ericsson. Ericsson out of the military dictatorship of 
Burma. In the United States and in Australia, but also at home in 
Sweden, a campaign against the company?s business with the military 
dictatorship in Burma is growing. A background to this appeal is, among 
other things, this:
<10 minute long movie from inside Burma, partly filmed in secret by a 
women pretending she wants to do business with the regime. Also shots 
from the pipeline construction site of workers in chains and interviews 
with victims who have managed to escape the military.>
EA: Lars Stålberg, Senior vice president, corporate relations at 
Ericsson, why is it important for Ericsson to do business with the 
regime of one of the world?s most opressive countries?
LS: I can not claim that it is important, but of course we need to ask 
ourselves what it means doing business in a country such as Burma, 
especially since there are action groups which work for human rights 
issues and who would like to see us withdraw. Now, the situation in 
complicated as can be seen in this movie. There are action groups which 
insist on boycotts of Burma, but a fact is that there are also action 
groups which want us to stop doing business with more than half of the 
130 countries where we are active... 
EA: If we however concentrate on Burma; I ask you why it is this 
important [for you to do business there] and then you seem to say that 
it is not particularly important.
LS: It isn?t...
EA: But why then are you continuing?
LS: There are expectations on us, and we also have our own opinion on 
this matter, so we need to base [our position] on something other than 
the fact that there happens to exist certain action groups.
EA: What would that be, then?
LS: Well, there are two things. First of all, given that we are a global 
company active in the whole world, it is important to look into what 
laws and regulations and sanction the international community has 
decided should apply. And when it comes to Burma today, the most 
far-reaching [initiatives] on this planet are the sanctions that the 
Americans have introduced, which cover new investments. Ericson does not 
have any investments and does not have any plans to make any 
investments.
EA: How does Ericsson?s trade with Burma look like?
LS: We trade with Burma, we have been a supplier of telecommunications 
equippment for more than 50 years and our business there is now very 
modest due to the commercial conditions.
EA: But you sell mobile phones and fax machines?
LS: We do not sell any mobile phones directly, and no faxes. THOSE WE 
DON?T SELL AT ALL. Rather, we are selling infrastructure for 
telecommunication, just as we do everywhere else in the world. Let me 
continue here and say that we are of course on the first [????] when it 
comes to what sanctions exist, we comply with the them and will continue 
to do so. But I also think that we as a company need to ask ourselves 
the question: what does it mean that we do business. Are we actually 
supporting a military regime, or...
EA: If you sell telecommunications equipment to a regime that has total 
control of the country, it is of course the regime that you are selling 
to. It is also said in the television feature we just saw that it is 
impossible to do business with Burma without dealing with the regime 
centrally.
LS: One does deal with the regime, because even if our client, as usual, 
is the Ministry for Telecommunications, they are of course controlled by 
the government. BUT WHAT WE BUILD UP IN OUR PROJECTS OUT IN THE 
COUNTRYSIDE ARE CONTACTS WITH PEOPLE, AND WE CREATE THE CONDITIONS FOR 
COMMUNICATION AMONG PEOPLE IN THE COUNTRY. And I have a very difficult 
time believing that this would strenghened the regime. I think that, and 
this we have many examples of - from communist dictatorships to other 
other dictatorships...
EA: Do you mean that this could in fact strengthen the democracy 
movement?
LS: Yes, I actually mean that. I belive that there is nothing that is as 
risky for an authoritarian regime as the possibility for people to 
communicate with each other. 
EA: but...
LS: Even if there is control, they have so many telephone connections 
and the more we build there, the better the conditions will become.
EA: But if we agree that the regime has complete control, how can you 
then believe that you would be able to support the democracy movement? 
And do you have any proof of this?
LS: I don?t think one can have full control over anything other than the 
actual contract and the deal when it comes to the use...
EA:You do not have any proof that Ericsson supports the democracy 
movement?
LS: I mean that we have two[arguments]. First of all, the sheer number 
of telephone connections makes it rather unprobable that it would be 
possible to control every telephone conversation. I think that because 
of this, we are making a positive contribution there. Secondly, we have 
the exact same high norms and standards and ethical guiding principles 
when it comes to our own activities,[and or as?] our conduct towards the 
people we are in contact with in the country.
EA: Evidently, many people do not think this way. There is a growing 
campaign against Ericsson. Is it worth it to take up the fight when it 
is all about so little money? Basically, this is just pocket money for 
Ericsson.
LS: Yes, that?s correct, but there is also another side of the coin. As 
came out in the movie, there are democratically elected governments in 
the region who believe that the right thing to do is to constructively 
engage in trade with Burma. There are also organisations which work for 
human rights: Amnesty does not recommend sanctions or boycotts; they 
recommend that one should behave in ethically correct ways but be 
present in the country. The catholic church does not recommend trade 
boycotts, so these other actors are not the only voice. Ther are many 
different [groups] that work to protect human rights and that is a 
problem that we also have to confront within Ericsson.
EA: They are not the only ones, that is correct, but this campaign is 
growing, particularly in the United States, which could potentially be 
harmful for you in a longer perspective. I mean, there are a good number 
of companies which have left Burma because they were afraid of losing 
market shares on the American market.
LS: Yes, there are... Of course, on this issue we have to adapt to the 
views of our conusmers globally, and ultimately to our owners.
EA: So, if the pressure becomes to hard and you risk losing market 
shares, then you could consider leaving this...
LS: I?m completely convinced that by then, the Security Council of the 
United Nations would have received a political basis enabling them to 
decide on trade sanctions against Burma, but I don?t see any sign that 
these contradictory views today of what is the most appropriate way to 
act when it comes to the human rights situation in Burma would lead to 
the conclusion that one-sided boycott actions would gain most support.
EA: But do you not in fact take refuge behind the United Nations, the 
Security Council and decisions on sanctions. There are a many other 
large companies which have left Burma all by themselves. 
LS: Yes, but there is a much larger group of companies, not the least in 
the US, which are actively disputing the sensibility of single, 
one-sided boycotts. Furthermore, the EU commission has taken up the 
issue on trade sanctions and one-sided trade sanctions by the United 
States in a critical way. And these groups, which for example often 
demand boycotts of Burma are the same people who want the boycott of 
Cuba to end. So, this is not so very easy.
EA: Now, you have 20 seconds to answer this question: do you agree with 
the businessman in the short movie we just saw who says that business 
and politics should not be mixed?
LS: No, I think that I have elaborated on this. Really, we make an 
independent assessment as a company of the effects of our activites, and 
have come to the conclusion that it is positive.

END


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