BRITISH BETRAY FREE BURMA ON SANCTI

[dawnstar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Subject: BRITISH BETRAY FREE BURMA ON SANCTIONS-TOTAL FINA/Pemier/Unocal

Did he ever care to go back to the refugee camps last September before
rushing to East Timor crisis? 


THE BURMA CAMPAIGN: ROBIN COOK ASKS HIGH COURT TO TIE HIS HANDS ON
ETHICAL
FOREIGN POLICY
26 November, 1999 

In an extraordinary move, the Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, will next
Thursday, December 2, ask the High Court to rule that the UK Government
cannot impose financial (investment) sanctions on other countries
without
UN or EU backing or a specific Act of Parliament. If he wins, the
Government's much-criticised ethical foreign policy will be weakened yet
further.

The Burma Campaign (TBC) has launched a judicial review against Mr Cook
over his attitude to sanctions against the military regime in Burma, one
of
the most brutal in the world.

The Government accepts that the human rights situation in Burma is
appalling. Under EU law, the UK can impose a ban on investment by
British
companies in Burma if the situation there is 'urgent'. The Government
says
it is not urgent, because it has been so bad for such a long time. TBC
argue that a situation is 'urgent' if it needs addressing quickly, as
that
in Burma clearly does. The long history of repression does not detract
from
the urgency but rather adds to it.

However, in an attempt to have the case thrown out, the Government is
now
arguing that, even if the situation is 'urgent', it does not have the
power
to impose sanctions against Burma because there is no Act of Parliament
allowing it to do so. If this were correct, it would apply not just to
Burma but to every other brutal regime throughout the world - until or
unless the UN or EU could be persuaded to impose sanctions, which is
usually very difficult. It has not been possible with Burma, despite
near-universal condemnation of the regime.

In 1990, Burma's military ignored the election which gave an
overwhelming
victory to Nobel Peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for
Democracy (NLD). In a statement given to TBC for the case, Aung San Suu
Kyi
strongly supports financial sanctions against her country.

John Jackson, a TBC director said:  "We are frankly very surprised and
disappointed that the Government is trying to stop our case coming to
court. The UK can, it seems, carpet-bomb Yugoslavia without UN backing
but
cannot impose financial sanctions on Burma.

How much suffering do Burma's people have to endure before their
situation
is deemed 'urgent'? The Government's position on this lacks credibility,
particularly since ministers accept that human rights abuses in Burma
are
getting worse".

Notes

1. On November 12 the United Nations General Assembly condemned Burma's
junta for its widespread use of torture and other forms of repression.
The
International Labour Organisation recently accused it of a 'crime
against
humanity' -  the most serious breach of international law - for its
systematic use of forced labour of millions of people (including women
and
children). Hundreds of thousands have fled to Thailand and other
neighbouring countries, posing a threat to regional stability and peace.
In
addition, Burma is the world's largest exporter of heroin - Robin Cook
has
accused the regime of directly benefiting from its trafficking.

2. The EC Treaty provision in question is Article 60.2 (added by the
Maastricht Treaty), which allows member states to impose financial
sanctions unilaterally if there are 'serious political reasons and on
grounds of urgency'. The Government does not dispute that serious
political
reasons exist. The issue centres around the meaning of 'urgency'. The
Government argues that a situation is not urgent if it has not
deteriorated
(but at the same time accepts that the situation in Burma has
deteriorated!).

3. The Government, having argued for 18 months that Article 60.2 cannot
be
used - because the situation in Burma is not 'urgent' - is now arguing
that
it is irrelevant anyway. It is arguing - it is thought for the first
time
in history - that the UK needs specific authority from Parliament to
impose
sanctions in peacetime without the backing of the UN or EU. It has
always
been assumed that this could be done under the royal prerogative, which
enables the Government to do all manner of things in the foreign policy
field. TBC argue that the issue is irrelevant anyway to these
proceedings -
even if the Government is right, the court still needs to rule whether,
under Article 60.2, Parliament could legislate for sanctions.

4. The Government has unilaterally imposed measures short of sanctions
on
Burma, such as withdrawing support for trade missions. It discourages
tourism. It therefore clearly believes economic pressure is justified
and
potentially effective. Indeed, Mr Cook, in his Labour Conference speech
this year, said that a policy of isolating Burma was justified given its
appalling human rights record, and castigated the Conservatives for not
backing sanctions against apartheid South Africa. Twice this year, Mr
Cook
has publicly urged Premier Oil (see below) not to proceed with its
investment in Burma.

5. Premier has a 27% stake in the Yetagun gas pipeline which will supply
Burmese gas to Thailand. The pipeline costs well over $700m. There are
well-documented human rights abuses associated with the Yetagun pipeline
area and the construction of a parallel pipeline by TOTALFINA and
Unocal. The
military benefit hugely from major infrastructure projects of this sort,
while the people of Burma get progressively poorer. The people of Burma,
a
country rich in natural resources, remain near the bottom end of human
development tables.

6. In 1997 President Clinton banned new investment by US companies in
Burma.

For further information contact:

John Jackson            tel: 0171 281 7377      mobile: 0961 357 391

Yvette Mahon            tel: 0171 281 7377      mobile: 07957 301 346