My Opinion
Burma, South Africa: the constructive engagement myth

The international Burma solidarity movement is gaining momentum, even here in State College. This past Friday, the Collegian ran a front page article describing the controversies surrounding Pepsico's economic ties to Burma's military dictatorship, known as the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC). And the Collegian's editorial boldly supported the Burmese democratic movement's demands to boycott Pepsico till it divests from Burma. Such local coverage of this vital issue helps raise our awareness of the relations between our responsibility as concerned citizens and the movement for democracy throughout the world.

The front page article also raised some serious questions about divestment from Burma. Parris Chang, professor of political science at Penn State, strongly argued against corporate divestment and economic sanctions. Claiming such acts would do more harm than good, Dr.Chang stated that intense political and economic pressure would put Burma in a siege, and make the people in power feel insecure, and not willing to open up.

In addressing this important issue, one must recall who started the divestment campaign. It is the Burmese people themselves who have asked for international corporate divestment and economic sanctions. The Pepsico boycott was specifically launched by the democratic students' movement in Burma after SLORC crushed the democratic movement and massacred its supporters. And imprisoned Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Aung San Syu Kyi, leader of the National League for democracy which swept the 1990 elections, has publically called for corporate divestment to pressure the military junta. When the legitimate representatives of the Burmese people overwhelmingly call for corporate withdrawal and a boycott of Pepsico, we shouldn't sit around contemplating how insecure Burma's dictators would feel. Rather, we should support the democratic movement's calls for solidarity with the struggling people of Burma.

Dr. Chang further claims that foreign investment could benefit Burma in the long run, depending on whether businesses are concerned and take an interest in human rights. While the hypothetical impact of concerned businesses is debatable, such companies simply do not exist in Burma. None of the major American corporations in Burma (Pepsico, Texaco, Unocal) have publically criticized the junta for its dictatorial rule and called for democracy. Instead, these companies' conspicuous silence about the military's rampant abuses of human rights gives tacit approval for the junta's actions, and gives legitimacy to the military dictatorship. Furthermore, foreign business dealings provide SLORC with the crucial financial means to perpetuate their tyrannical rule.

Professor Chang's argument for the reforming effect of economic ties to authoritarian regimes is a common one, and is typically termed the case for constructive engagement. Pepsico, Texaco, and Unocal presently use this identical argument to justify its profit-seeking in Burma, claiming that trade is a positive force for change. Similarly, the Reagan administration and numerous companies that traded with apartheid South Africa argued along the same lines, urging a conciliatory stance towards the racist white government. According to this line of thought, by continuing to talk and trade with such regimes, the despots will be exposed to our noble Western ideals and supposedly have a gradual change of heart.

But the track record of constructive engagement in promoting democratic change is downright abysmal. In South Africa, decades of conciliatory politics failed to persuade the apartheid regime to make more than cosmetic changes. It was only after an international solidarity movement pushed for sanctions and divestment from South Africa that the genuine moves toward democracy started to take place.

Similarly, constructive engagement with the Burmese dictators have failed to produce any substantial democratic changes. Even after corporations have poured millions of dollars into the SLORC-dominated economy, the junta continues its reign of terror. Torture and political killings continue at a nightmarish pace, and the regime still refuses to release Nobel Laureate Suu Kyi. Recent human rights reports indicate that the military has actually been increasing its extensive use of slave labor. As fellow Nobel Peace Laureate and South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu claims, years of constructive engagement has only given the SLORC the confidence to maintain its repressive rule.

In supporting Burma's democratic movement, Desmond Tutu stated that International pressure can change the situation in Burma. Tough sanctions, not constructive engagement, finally brought the release of Nelson Mandela and the dawn of a new era in my country. This is the language that must be spoken with tyrants - for, sadly, it is the only language they understand.

American companies still constitute Burma's second largest foreign investor. It is time that concerned citizens make these corporations respect the legitimate democratic aspirations of Burma's people and divest from Burma.