By Marc Purcell
In May, the clothing manufacturer Levi Strauss announced that, because of gross human rights violations, the company would cease all operations in Burma.
The All Burma Student Democratic Front and the dissident Federation of Trade Unions of Burma have called for a moratorium on foreign investment and particularly that of Pepsi.
Students and unions have fared particularly badly under the military regime, the SLORC (State Law and Order Council) which brutally crushed the 1988 pro-democracy uprising, killing some 8000 people. They work in conjunction with ethnic insurgents in the border regions and MPs from Aung San Suu Kyi's banned National League for Democracy, who won 82% of the vote in elections in 1990.
The unions and students have targeted Pepsi Cola and called upon Western unions to boycott Pepsi products because Pepsi was one of several multinational companies to enter Burma when the SLORC, desperate to boost its foreign reserves, opened the economy in 1989.
Like Levi Strauss, its products are associated particularly with youth: the "Pepsi generation". Ironically, it is the youth of Burma who have led the opposition to the military government and borne the brunt of incarceration and torture.
Pepsi denies that its joint venture has anything to do with the military, but this is incorrect for several reasons. For 30 years, the economy had been controlled exclusively by the military, who commanded 22 "people's corporations" which distributed everything from soap and rice to car engines. Only the military have been in a position to accumulate wealth. Any partners that Pepsi and other companies are able to deal with are either current or retired military personnel.
With the SLORC's drive to lure foreign investment came a massive military build-up funded by entrance fees and taxes on foreign investors like Pepsi. The SLORC has purchased $1.2 billion of Chinese military hardware and is well on its way to achieving its target of a 500,000 strong army. Burma faces no external threats.
Pepsi also defends its presence in Burma on the grounds that business "builds bridges of understanding between people". According to William W. Wilson, Pepsi's Australian managing director, an example of this would be Pepsi's presence in Eastern Europe.
A massive slaughter occurred when Burmese citizens attempted to assert their rights in 1988. Perhaps it was the lack of the presence of the positive force of Pepsi that failed to swing the SLORC? Yet in 1990, after Pepsi and other Western business had entered Burma, the military didn't seem any more inclined to hand over power to citizens who had voted overwhelmingly against the military.
Clearly, foreign business is not making a positive impact on a firmly entrenched military. As for "bridges of communication", the message representatives of the people are delivering is "Stay away" until human rights are respected, as Levi Strauss' decision demonstrated.
For Australian unionists concerned with raising awareness about human rights abuses, the Levi Strauss decision has provided a new avenue to explore in lobbying and boycotting companies to dissuade them from dealing with brutal regimes. The impact of foreign disinvestment may have more immediate effect on repressive governments than the timid noises of our own government.
People who want to assist the boycott are urged to write a message along these lines: "I call on Pepsi Co to cease business dealings with the SLORC military regime of Burma which is responsible for persistent and gross human rights violations. I will not be purchasing any Pepsi Co or Pizza Hut products until Pepsi ceases dealing with the military regime of Burma." The statement should be sent to William W. Wilson, Managing Director, Pepsi Co Bottlers, GPO Box 4234, Sydney 2001.