The BurmaNet News - 30 January, 199

[strider@xxxxxxxxxxx]

------------------------------ BurmaNet -----------------------------
"Appropriate Information Technologies, Practical Strategies
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The BurmaNet News, 30 January, 1998
Issue #924

Noted in passing:

"I would like to begin by saying that I do not think that any one of 
the 10 000 mobile phones that have been delivered by Ericsson to Burma 
have come into the hands of the opposition or neutral people?" - Jan-Erik 
Lundeberg, Burma coordinator, Amnesty International - Sweden
(see SWEDISH RADIO, CHANNEL 1, 'STUDIO ETT') 

HEADLINES:
==========
THE NATION: BURMA NOT TO ATTEND ASEM
BKK POST: TOTAL AIMS TO INCREASE GULF OF THAILAND

World Activism Special --
SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE: TRADE GROUP USES 'P.C.'
THE HINDUSTAN TIMES: TRADE WITH MYANMAR LANDS
THE BURMA GROUP IN UPPSALA, SWEDEN: CAMPAIGN
SWEDISH RADIO, CHANNEL 1, 'STUDIO ETT': DEBATE ON
SWEDISH TELEVISION, CHANNEL 2: FEATURE ON ERICSSON'S
PETROLEUM INTELLIGENCE WEEKLY: WITH TEXACO OUT,
RANGOON POST: DEMONSTRATORS DENOUNCE THE SPDC'S

World Activism Announcements --
SOUTH AFRICAN STUDENT TEAM LEAVES FOR BANGKOK TO
NORWAY: BURMESE TEAK CAMPAIGN
RAINFOREST RELIEF: INTERNATIONAL TEAK WEEK OF ACTION
VALPARAISO UNIVERSITY: FOCUS ON BURMESE STRUGGLE TO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE NATION: BURMA NOT TO ATTEND ASEM
29 January, 1998

LONDON - Burma will not be invited to the second Asia-Europe
Meeting (Asem) in London in April, a British foreign minister and
European Union (EU) presidency representative said on Tuesday.

Derek Fatchett said that European and Asian countries have
decided to stick with the seven members of the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) that constituted Asean at the
time of the first Asem summit in 1996, rather than include the
two latest Asean members, Burma and Laos.

The British minister stressed there was "no suggestion that
anyone has been excluded from the party that is Asem II," 
emphasising that Asem II attendance was determined at the earlier
stage of Asem I.  

**********************************************************

BKK POST: TOTAL AIMS TO INCREASE GULF OF THAILAND 
ACTIVITY
28 January, 1998 [abridged]
by Boonsong Kositchotethana

LOCAL GAS SUPPLIES FAVOURED OVER IMPORTS

Envisaging a robust Thai economy in the medium to long term, the
French oil giant Total says it is looking at opportunities to
increase its petroleum prospecting and production ventures.

"We are pretty determined to increase our business in Thailand,"
Daniel Valot, president of Total Exploration and Production, said
in an  interview.

Total now has a 30% stake in Bongkot, Thailand's largest gas
field (about 600 kilometres south of Bangkok in the Gulf of
Thailand) which has already cost about US$1 billion to develop.
It is also a co-coneessionaire in two exploration blocks in the
Andaman Sea.

Mr Valot said the company was looking at more exploration blocks
in the Gulf of Thailand as part of the strategy to increase, 
hydrocarbons reserves in the country in particular, and Asia in
general.

Several factors support Total's current natural gas development
activities in Thailand, as well as additional ventures in the
pipeline.

Mr Valot cited the government's recent decision to suspend plans
to import liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Oman and natural gas
from Indonesia's huge Natuna field, because of the slowdown in
demand. This has reduced competition for domestic energy
suppliers such as Total for up to a decade, he said.

In light of its economic difficulties the country can be expected
to favour domestic sources of energy over imported resources, he
said.

But Mr Valot  acknowledged a slowdown in gas demand in the next
two years because of the economic turmoil.

He said Total's gas \ production projects in Thailand and Burma-
the Bongkot and Yadana fields were protected against the 
economic crunch because they have been assured of outlets under
long-term gas supply contracts with the Petroleum Authority of
Thailand (PTT). 

"As a company operating in Thailand and Burma, we think we are
well positioned, better than people coming out of the blue . . .
like Natuna and wherever." he said

*****************************************************

WORLD ACTIVISM SPECIAL

SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE: TRADE GROUP USES `P.C.' 
BERKELEY AS SCARE TACTIC 
26 January, 1998
by Charles Burress

It successfully halts Seattle's Burma boycott 

The popular pastime of painting Berkeley as a bugbear of political
correctness has attracted a powerful new player -- the trade council
representing Microsoft, Boeing, Weyerhauser and other international
heavyweights headquartered in the state of Washington. 

The trade group recently held Berkeley up as a scarecrow in its successful
campaign to beat back a proposal before the Seattle City Council to boycott
firms that do business with Burma. 

Seattle could be trapped in the "impossible snarls" that hamper Berkeley in
buying basic items like gas and computers, said the Washington Council on
International Trade in a letter to the panel. 

The sponsor of the Burma law, then-council President Jan Drago, withdrew
the proposal last month after receiving the letter. 

Berkeley Councilwoman Linda Maio responded by sending a letter to the
Seattle council denouncing the "false claims," pointing out that Berkeley's
government buys high-quality gas and other goods and called on the trade
group to apologize. 

Drago's aide said she won't change her mind again, but some members of 
the Seattle council are wondering which side to believe -- Maio and other
Berkeley officials, or the trade group and its lobbyist. 

In 1995, Berkeley became the first city to adopt sanctions focusing on
Burma's repressive military regime. Sixteen other cities, Alameda County
and Massachusetts have followed suit. But Berkeley is on the hot seat
because it was the first and because it has several such laws that restrict
city purchases from firms involved in certain activities, such as building
nuclear weapons, or certain other countries, such as Nigeria and Tibet. 

As a result, the trade group said, "Berkeley cannot purchase IBM or 
Compaq computers; it must replace Motorola cell phones; it cannot buy 
gasoline from major companies, and is thus relegated to low-grade gas 
which damages equipment and possibly pollutes the air." What's more, the 
trade council said, "The Berkeley sanctions . . . are in fact being
challenged 
by the European Union" before the World Trade Organization. 

Maio's reply was stern. "The Seattle City Council has been victimized by
the false claims of a paid lobbyist," she wrote, referring to Patricia
Davis, president of the trade group and co-author of the letter along with
the group's chairman, Karl Ege. Davis and Ege did not return calls for
comment. 

"We in Berkeley have become used to criticism, and in fact endured similar
barbs when we pioneered municipal efforts against apartheid," Maio wrote 
in her January 8 letter. "We draw the line, however, when others use 
incorrect information to malign us."

In fact, Maio said, Berkeley can still buy from IBM, is not replacing
Motorola equipment, and gets excellent gasoline from large companies like
Tosco. Moreover, Berkeley is not being challenged by the European Union.
(Massachusetts' Burma law is being challenged, however.) 

Berkeley's purchasing manager, Janice Hansen, confirmed Maio's 
statements.

IBM is involved with nuclear weapons, but waivers are permitted when no
"reasonable alternative" exists, Hansen said. Using a waiver, the city
bought an IBM mini-frame computer, she said. 

The contention that Berkeley "must replace Motorola cell phones" is also
false, Hansen said. "We have never had Motorola cell phones in the city,"
she said. She said police use radios from Motorola, another firm linked to
nuclear weapons, but that a waiver permits police to buy and replace them,
she said. 

And the city definitely has no problem obtaining high-quality gasoline from
its distributor, even if it can't buy from giants like Arco, Chevron,
Exxon, Mobil, Shell and Texaco, she said. No city equipment has been
damaged as a result, Hansen said. 

"It's become an urban legend now -- that Berkeley can't buy gas," said
Simon Billenness, a senior analyst with a Boston-based socially responsible
investment firm, Franklin Research and Development Corp., and the prime
proponent of the Massachusetts law on Burma. 

"It's interesting how a story like this goes around the world and the truth
about it comes up in a place like Seattle," Billenness said while visiting
his firm's San Francisco office last week. 

The story about Berkeley's alleged gasoline problem has appeared in several
publications nationally, most recently in the current issue of the Utne
Reader under the headline, "Berkeley's Oil Strike." It quotes Berkeley City
Councilwoman Polly Armstrong as saying, "In the end, we're going to have 
to look for mineral rights under the city of Berkeley."

Armstrong said last week that she was "just being silly." Armstrong, who
always withholds her support from council actions related to foreign
affairs, said the gas story was "overblown."

Billenness said the "distorted story" began before the Berkeley council
voted last summer to boycott firms doing business in Nigeria. Contrary to a
tentative warning from city staff at the time, Berkeley found ample sources
of good gas. 

The gas scare also failed to take into account the waiver provision that
permits the city to buy from banned companies in a pinch, said Deputy City
Manager Phil Kamlarz. 

According to Billenness, the flurry of stories gained momentum because 
they were "easily sensationalized" to fit a "crazy, wacko" stereotype of
Berkeley as a "city that's tied itself in knots with all this political
correctness." The stories were also used by corporate interests "who wanted
to discredit purchasing laws by discrediting Berkeley," he said. 

Will Maio's attempt to set the record straight have any effect on the
Seattle council? 

Drago's aide, Dan McGrady, said the information about Berkeley will not
affect the councilwoman's belief that the Burma law is "not appropriate and
not effective."

The trade group argued that such boycotts are ineffective and should be
replaced by constructive engagement with undemocratic regimes and
liberalizing economic growth. 

It also said such sanctions are costly to the city in staff time and red
tape, one assertion that Berkeley officials can agree with. 

Sally Clark, aide to Seattle Councilwoman Tina Podladowski, said the
council is divided over how to balance the welfare of the city with human
rights and the city's role in foreign affairs. 

Podladowski "wants to know if the city can spend its money effectively,"
Clark said. "She wants to know if we can buy IBM computers or if we can
purchase fuel." 

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

THE HINDUSTAN TIMES: TRADE WITH MYANMAR LANDS 
ERICSSON IN SOUP
January 15, 1998

STOCKHOLM: JAN. 14 (IANS)
Swedish telecommunications giant Ericsson has become the target of an
international hate campaign for its continued business links with
Myanmar.

Despite concern voiced in the Swedish media over the violation of
democratic rights in the Asian country and wide sympathy in this nation
for the struggle of Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, many Swedish firms
continue to do business with Myanmar.

But the outcry against Ericsson has been the most intense. Apart from
criticism in the Swedish press, the company has been receiving flak from
international human rights as well.

"Torture, heroin and slavery: Three reasons for boycotting the Ericssion
mobile telephones"   that was the introduction to a boycott campaign
against the company being spread via the Internet by a human rights
group of the US.

The campaign is channellised through reputed American Universities like
Berkeley, Stanford, Harvard and Santa Cruz. Also waging protests in
solidarity with them are cities in the US, Canada, Japan, France, Norway
and Denmark.

The company however justifies its presence there saying that the largest
economic grouping of the region   the Association of South- East Asian
Nations (ASEAN)   calls for " constructive engagement " of Myanmar.
Trade with Myanmar has become a highly sensitive issue in the US since
the protest movement was launched a couple of years ago. Action began as
consumer protest in Massachusetts which brought about an embargo on
trade with Myanmar and against Myanmarese products. The campaign has
since spread across the US and Western Europe.

Fear of losing markets in the US has compelled many   including Levis,
Pepsi, Tekaco, Heineken, Carlsberg, Motorola, Macy's, Reebok, Hewlett
Packard, Apple, Eastman Kodak, Seagram's and Shell   to cease operating
in Myanmar.

Beside Ericsson , other Swedish companies operating in Myanmar are
Sandvik, Atlas Copco, Volvo and electroluk, albeit in a less active
manner.

Ericsson's recent loss of a $ 43 million contract in San Francisco to
Motorola was, reportedly, the fallout its business links with Myanmar. "
It could be that or there could also be other factors." Ericsson
information director Lars Stalberg said.

Moreover, he added, the Swedish Government had not announced any
sanction against Myanmar.

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

THE BURMA GROUP IN UPPSALA, SWEDEN: CAMPAIGN 
AGAINST ERICSSON IN BURMA
19 January, 1998

In recent weeks, Ericsson's involvement in Burma has received a 
lot of attention in the 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 couple 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. 

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

SWEDISH RADIO, CHANNEL 1, 'STUDIO ETT': DEBATE ON 
BUSINESS AND MORALS - THE CASE OF ERICSSON'S 
INVOLVEMENT IN BURMA
12 January, 1998 [broadcast live, translated from Swedish]

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 morals. 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 any one of 
the 10 000 mobile phones that 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: Thank 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 discuss 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. 

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

SWEDISH TELEVISION, CHANNEL 2: FEATURE ON ERICSSON'S 
INVOLVEMENT IN BURMA broadcast on 'Åtta dagar' ('Eight Days')
18 January, 1998 [translated from Swedish]

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 oppressive countries?

LS: I cannot 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 strengthened the regime. I think that, and this we have many 
examples of - from communist dictatorships to other dictatorships...

EA: Do you mean that this could in fact strengthen the democracy 
movement?

LS: Yes, I actually mean that. I believe 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 improbable 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. There 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 consumers 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 activities, and 
have come to the conclusion that it is positive.

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

PETROLEUM INTELLIGENCE WEEKLY: WITH TEXACO OUT,
MYANMAR LOBBY HONES IN ON ARCO
8 December, 1997

NEW YORK - Arco has become the plat du jour for the thriving and
US movement opposing investment in Myanmar, following Texaco's
withdrawal from its Yetagun gas project and Unocal's resale of
its US gasoline stations and refineries.

Under siege, Arco has been seeking buyers for its promising acreage near
Yetagun. It has found none so far, but is likely to make a move in the near 
future so it can focus undisturbed on less controversial developments, 
such as the Tannguh liquefied natural gas project in Indonesia. 

If Arco does pull out, it will be another striking testament to the growing
influence of human rights and environment activists on oil company 
strategy. At an October conference of the Free Burma Movement in 
Los Angeles, over 100 US universities sent chapters, and a unified 
protest strategy was molded. Brimming with confidence after Texaco's
sale of 42.6% in Yetagun to Malaysian state Petronas and UK Premier,
the movement resolved to target  Arco. Since then, there's been growing
union agitation, demonstrations at Arco service stations in many US 
states, and a relentless flow of mail to Arco board members.

The December 8 issue of Petroleum Intelligence Weekly reports that
Although protest movements against energy companies are hardly a
new phenomenon, their success in altering policies is apparently
spreading quickly to international investment.

If Texaco's and Arco's response is any indication, these movements
could drastically affect future strategic planning. Demonstrations in 
Los Angeles have included a "heroin overdose die-in" at Arco 
headquarters, as Myanmar is known as a source for much of the 
world's opium. Simultaneously, Greenpeace has been floating 
banners down the side of Arco's headquarters regarding the treatment 
of polar bears in Alaska.

Arco has looked at several buyers for part or all of its Myanmar acreage.
Company officials recently met in Rangoon with Myanmar government
representatives, and with the president of China National Offshore Oil 
Corp., which has 6% of Arco's Myanmar exploration acreage. Since the
blocks are hardly core for Arco - Indonesia, China, and Qatar are much
higher priorities - a sale is likely. Some insiders suggest that the CNOOC
meeting could presage a deal in which Arco would swap offshore assets in
China for Yetagun. Arco is already a major field and gas pipeline operator
offshore China and is eager to build gas-fired power plants in the country.

It is also deeply concerned that unsubstantiated rumors of money 
laundering for drug cartels by Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise, the 
state oil and gas company, may feed a boycott movement along the US 
West Coast. Some 17 US cities have restrictions on purchasing goods 
from companies that invest in Myanmar, including several at the heart
of Arco's lucrative West Coast gasoline market.

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

RANGOON POST: DEMONSTRATORS DENOUNCE THE SPDC'S 
DINNER BANQUET IN WASHINGTON, D.C.
9 January, 1998

Demonstrators from many Burmese ethnic backgrounds as well as Japanese 
and Americans strategically set themselves to demonstrate against the 
SPDC's (formerly the SLORC) dinner celebration at the Washington, D.C. 
Hilton's Jefferson Room.    About 30 protestors demonstrated outside in 
freezing winter weather to express their views and concerns to the visiting 
diplomats.  The diplomats walking and driving in were always greeted with 
posters such as "Closed schools means a poor and stupid country" and a 
loundly chanted  "Shame, Shame, Shame on You!".

The protesters demonstrated for 2 hours from 5:30 to 7:30 in winter 
weather, the SPDC was spending their time in the warm Jefferson banquet 
room on the concourse level.  The SPDC apparently did not have enough 
money for tables and food since their 200 + visitors were standing packed 
together. 

The dinner by the NCGUB, the 'elected' Prime Minister, and other Burmese 
groups had 250 to 300 visitors, tables, food, and traditional entertainment, 
including the usual comedy group making jokes about Ohn Kyaw and 
others.

***********************************************************

WORLD ACTIVISM ANNOUNCEMENTS:

SOUTH AFRICAN STUDENT TEAM LEAVES FOR BANGKOK TO 
SUPPORT BURMESE DEMOCRATIC STRUGGLE
21 January, 1998 [abridged, English slightly corrected]

Students from the University of Durban Westville, led by Kiru Naidoo, left 
for Bangkok on Saturday, 18 January 1998 from South Africa. The student 
team will meet  with All Burma Student Democratic Front (ABSDF) and 
visit the camps at the Burma-Thailand border.

Kiru Naidoo was the lecturer of Department of Political Sciences,
University of Durban Westville and he is a conveyer of Free Burma 
Campaign (SA). He is also an Asia expert, at present he is a Director of 
Public Relations at the same University.

The Burmese community from South Africa showed their support for the 
student team by seeing them off at the airport and presenting T-shirts 
printed with Aung San Suu Kyi's picture.  Probably, in South Africa and 
Burma students' history, this is the very first time there has been a visit
to 
Bangkok by a South African student team to give support to the Burmese 
democratic struggle.

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

NORWAY: BURMESE TEAK CAMPAIGN
28 January, 1998 [abridged]

This is briefly the state of affairs right now when it comes to
Burmese teak in Norway:

Norwatch and the Norwegian Rainforest Foundation has conducted a quite
successful campaign this autumn against companies selling teak from 
Burma. In the latest issue of Norwatch magazine (January 1998), two of the 
larger Norwegian furniture stores declare that they will stop selling 
Burmese teak (Ide Skeidar and Det Norske Møbelsenter). 

The government, led by Mr. Bondevik (former chairperson of PD Burma), 
and the Minister of Human Rights and Development stated in December 
that they would write to every Norwegian company dealing with Burma to 
ask them to refrain from doing this. They were stopped by their own 
administration though, that didn't want to give the Ministries such detailed 
information on the grounds that this is confidential for business purposes,
so 
in the end, they had to write to the branch organisations instead.

The issue of the refusal of the administration is being followed up by 
politicians though (I guess they will bring it up in Parliament if nothing 
happens) as it was also said to be a wrong interpretation of the law. The
first 
figures for 1998 will come in April, so it's going to be interesting to see 
whether the figures for import/export are really going down.

Arve Varleite, owner of Scansia Myanmar, a factory for the production of
teak furniture, based in Rangoon, that Norwatch and several other 
Norwegian newspapers have written about earlier, seems to be the biggest 
loser in the Norwatch/RF campaign. He is said to be the major supplier to 
those two furniture stores (in Norwatch, and, I believe, by the stores 
themselves), even though (if I remember well) he denies this himself. He is 
the best known among Norwegian businessmen involved in Burma and is a 
spokesman for engagement in Burma, with very much pro-SLORC/SPDC 
arguments.

To politicians we have been in touch with, he has told that if Norway 
decides for a law to boycott Burma, he will ridicule it by claiming most of 
the trade will continue from third countries. I don't think he will manage to 
stop the tendency here though, and, paradoxically, he can become quite 
useful in raising the awareness here, I think, because he enables us to
"point 
out" an "enemy" within Norway, so that all the "bad guys" don't turn out to 
be only foreigners.

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

RAINFOREST RELIEF: INTERNATIONAL TEAK WEEK OF ACTION 
FOR 1998

Rainforest Relief is planning for a second International Teak Week of
Action for 1998. You can participate by targeting furniture stores selling
teak, yacht and boat builders or sellers, flooring companies or
distributors, and/or wood wholesalers. We have not yet picked a date for
the week(s). I was hoping to get input from all of you as to what dates
might be best (and perhaps have some special significance in Burma or to
the Burmese -- i.e., is there any kind of celebration of nature or trees,
etc. in Burma?).

Please let me know of your interest in participating and let's coordinate
actions around the world against the use of teak from Burma!

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

VALPARAISO UNIVERSITY: FOCUS ON BURMESE STRUGGLE TO 
CELEBRATE MARTIN LUTHER KING DAY
19 January, 1998 [abridged, English slightly corrected]
Email: Zaw.Hlaing@xxxxxxxxx

Dear all

As you all know today is Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. 
People will be honoring this great man throughout the country.

My University is also commemorating MLK Day today.
I'll be participating in a seminar, representing the Burmese students, and 
our struggle for the restoration of Democracy and Peace. 

It is great to participate and represent Burma in such an authentic
program. The topic will be "Current Political Situation in Burma". 
Although it is MLK Day, the organizing committee wanted me to 
talk about Burma since very few people know about Burma here
on our campus. There will also be a documentary shown about
forced labor and human rights violations.  I'll try my best to get the 
attention of American students, as well as international students on my 
campus.

Zaw Hlaing
Valparaiso University

*******************************************************