UC sanction of Burma will hurt the innocent

EDITORIAL BOARD Editor in
Chief  Timothy Kudo

Managing Editor
 Michael Falcone

Viewpoint Editor
 Cuauhtemoc Ortega

Staff Representatives
Maegan Carberry 
Edward Chiao
Kelly Rayburn

  Unsigned editorials represent a majority opinion of
the Daily Bruin Editorial Board. All other columns, letters and
artwork represent the opinions of their authors.   All
submitted material must bear the author’s name, address, telephone
number, registration number, or affiliation with UCLA. Names will
not be withheld except in extreme cases.   The Bruin
complies with the Communication Board’s policy prohibiting the
publication of articles that perpetuate derogatory cultural or
ethnic stereotypes.   When multiple authors submit
material, some names may be kept on file rather than published with
the material. The Bruin reserves the right to edit submitted
material and to determine its placement in the paper. All
submissions become the property of The Bruin. The Communications
Board has a media grievance procedure for resolving complaints
against any of its publications. For a copy of the complete
procedure, contact the Publications office at 118 Kerckhoff Hall.
Daily Bruin 118 Kerckhoff Hall 308 Westwood Plaza Los Angeles, CA
90024 (310) 825-9898

Regardless of how many resolutions the Undergraduate Student
Association Council passes ““ the University of California
Regents cannot free Burma alone.

USAC’s Resolution Supporting UC Divestment from and
Democracy in Burma calls on the UC Regents to divest stocks from
corporations in the country as “a means to secure the
restoration of democracy, human rights, and civil liberties in
Burma.”

While USAC’s resolution advocates an important cause, only
a full-scale international effort will help eliminate Burma’s
real problem ““ the corrupt military regime known as the State
Peace and Development Council which tortures, imprisons, murders
and subjects thousands of Burmese citizens to human and civil
rights violations.

Burma’s abusive military government has a track record of
subjecting Burmese citizens to forced child labor, ethnic
cleansing, rape and religious persecution. It also has zero
tolerance for students, activists and monks who speak out against
their policies ““ like nationalizing businesses in the
country, exercising absolute control over the economy, and
concentrating the country’s wealth in their hands.

Superficially, it may make sense to divest from Burma: the less
money going into the government’s infrastructure, the more
they will be willing to heed international calls for human rights
as the size of their wallets decrease.

But this isn’t exactly the way totalitarian governments
work.

As with other attempts at using economic sanctions as a strategy
to create change in domestic policy, it’s usually the people,
not the government, who foot the bill.

The United States and United Nations instituted sanctions
against Iraq in 1990 ““ the result has been that by 1998, 1.5
million people died as a direct result of the sanctions; 750,000 of
these were children under 5 years of age. Saddam Hussein, by the
way, is still in power. And so is Fidel Castro, who has had
economic sanctions against his country, Cuba, since 1963.

Only one time in history have economic sanctions brought about
positive reform.

In 1977, the U.N. issued a mandatory arms embargo on South
Africa, asking to “cease forthwith any provision to South
Africa of arms and related materials of all types.” A
full-scale embargo was instituted against South Africa in the early
1980s. The vice placed around the South African government forced
them out of corruption and helped end apartheid in Africa.

At the time, the UC Regents did their part by divesting in
companies that did business in South Africa. And in due time, the
UC Regents should divest in companies like Halliburton, Proctor
& Gamble, Emerson Electric and Johnson & Johnson, who
currently operate in Burma. They can also, albeit exercising
judgment on a case by case basis, begin divesting from other
countries the international community defines as commuting crimes
against humanity.

But before they can do so, an international effort similar to
that taken against South Africa has to occur ““ otherwise, all
anyone who divests will do is take money from innocent people.

The situation is not as cut and dry as when the Regents voted to
divest from tobacco companies a year ago. By choosing to divest
later rather than sooner, the Regents will mirror their actions
during South African apartheid, instead of having Burmese children
fall to the same fate as those in Iraq.