By Pratap Chatterjee
SAN FRANCISCO, May 5 1996 (IPS)

Cities across the United States are applying the strategies used to topple South Africa’s apartheid system to protest human rights abuses by the military government of Burma.

Starting soon, Pepsi will not be available at city-owned vending machines in San Francisco or Oakland.

Pepsi is one of the companies affected by decisions in city councils to stop doing business with companies with commercial interests in Burma. The decisions are intended to protest the massive human rights abuses by the miltiary dictatorship.

Other companies affected by the decisions include Apple computer, Arco, Unocal, United Parcel Service (UPS), Texaco, and Wilson Sporting Goods, according to a list compiled by the Investor Responsibility Research Centre in Washington.

Santa Monica in southern California, Ann Arbor in Michigan, and Madison in Wisconsin, have passed similar resolutions that are introduced by local activists. Measures are pending in Chicago, New York, and Seattle.

Oakland, on the eastern shore of the San Francisco bay, voted May 23 to prohibit the city from doing business with companies that have interests in both Burma and Nigeria. The city is also required to divest from any banks that conduct business in Burma.

The night before, the city of San Francisco enacted a similar ban, emulating the example set by Berkeley just over a year ago.

Human rights activists say the decisions are another salvo in an ongoing campaign to bring down the Burmese military government, known as the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC).

“SLORC killed over 3,000 students during a protest in 1988, burnt their bodies and dumped them in the lake,” says Jane Jerome, from the Bay Area Burma Roundtable, who helped table the resolutions in city councils.

“Villages have been torched, prisoners are held in cells meant to hold dogs, minorities are forced into virtual slavery to build an oil pipeline while the women working on the projects are routinely raped,” says Jerome.

“The democratically elected government of Burma, which has not been allowed to take office, has asked international companies not to invest money in their country because the money goes directly into the coffers of SLORC which uses it to buy arms from China,” she added.

During South Africa campaign, activists followed an organised strategy of tabling divestment decisions at city councils and targetting major institutions — from pension funds to the University of California — which held shares in companies doing business in South Africa.

The activists also tabled shareholder resolutions at companies’ annual meetings. More than 160 companies pulled out of South Africa.

This is the same tactic being used against Burma.

In 1994 and 1995, shareholders in the major oil company Unocal, voted on a Burma human rights resolution. Shareholders in Pepsi and Texaco were asked to vote on similar resolutions in 1995.

Shareholders in the three companies and in the oil services company, Halliburton, will be asked to vote on Burma-related issues during the current annual meeting season.

“Shareholder resolutions are a useful tool because they allow concerned individuals and groups to take matters directly to shareholders, management, and the board,” says Simon Billenness of Franklin Research, which advises its clients on social responsible investments.

Franklin Research in Boston is helping activists who are concerned about Burma to target companies and cities on the east coast of the United States while Progressive Assets Management in Oakland is assisting groups on the west coast of the country.

Billenness told IPS that the resolutions need to be part of a bigger strategy of consumer boycotts in order to become effective.

This is already happening. Students are building protest movements on campuses across the country. Stanford university recently denied a restaurant contract to Taco Bell, a subsidiary of Pepsi, after 2,000 students signed a petition to protest against the company. The university denies that the decision was based on the students’ letter.

Oil companies say that the protests are misguided.

“We believe it’s in the best interests of the people of Myanmar to develop economic infrastructure and improve living standards,” said Unocal spokesman David Garcia. His company has a 28 percent stake in an oil pipeline under construction in Burma. Activists say the pipeline is being built with slave labour.

Other companies condemn the use of slave labour but are careful not to say that they will pull out of Burma.

“We believe in a high respect for the individual and we provide essential social services like schools or hospitals, sometimes both, at our projects,” says Cynthia Michener of Texaco, which is currently exploring for oil off the coast of Burma.

“Unfortunately, unlike other industries, we cannot simply take our business elsewhere. The oil reserves are under the ground in these countries, and it is our job to extract these resources,” she said. “We do communicate our concerns about human rights abuses in these countries on our periodic meetings with the government.”

Kitty Borah, a Shell spokeswoman in Houston Texas, expressed confidence that the Nigeria resolution in Oakland would not affect their business.

“First of all, Shell does not do business in Nigeria. Our parent company Royal Dutch Shell is the one that works there,” she said. “Secondly, cancelling contracts with Shell will only hurt the local businesses in California that have franchises with us.”

Some companies have already publicly announced that they will not do business in Burma. They include Eddie Bauer, Levi Strauss, Liz Claiborne, and Macy’s.

Excerpt: