|
December 24, 1999
Advocates Muster to Support Massachusetts Burma Law
As the deadline for filing a brief of support with the Supreme Court approaches, human rights
advocates urge their local and federal representatives to sign on.
SocialFunds.com --
In early January 2000, the Massachusetts Attorney General will file his brief with the U.S. Supreme
Court supporting the so-called Massachusetts Burma Law that prevents state agencies from doing
business with companies that support Burma's military dictatorship. Constituents from across the
U.S. are urging their representatives to sign on to a supporting brief, concerned about the fate of
sanctions by dozens of states, counties, and municipalities that have similar laws.
 The Massachusetts Burma selective purchasing law adds a
10 percent surcharge onto bids by companies that also do business with the military government of
the southeast Asian country, also called Myanmar, which is accused of drug trafficking, slave
labor, and torture. Modeled after similar anti-apartheid statutes in the 1980s, the 1996 Burma Law
represents the efforts of citizens of Massachusetts to bring broad attention to human rights
violations, part of the foundation of socially responsible investing.
Last June, the
Massachusetts Burma Law was struck down in federal appeals court in a case brought up by the
National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC), an organization which represents the interests of major
multinational corporations. Thirty-four of the group's members were on the state's "restricted
purchase" list. The NFTC claimed that the law is unconstitutional, because it interferes with the
federal government's exclusive power to set foreign policy and regulate foreign commerce
"This decision, if it stands, would greatly restrict our ability as citizens to direct how our
elected officials spend our tax money," said Simon Billenness, Research Analyst at Trillium Asset
Management, the oldest independent financial management firm devoted to socially responsible
investing in the U.S. "Had the courts struck down similar South Africa-related laws in the 1980's,
Nelson Mandela might still be in prison today."
Judge Lynch of the appeals court ruled
that the Burma law attempts to regulate the flow of
commerce with countries, an activity that
is the responsibility of the federal government under the foreign commerce clause of the
Constitution. She drew attention to the potential for cacophony among the foreign policies of
39,000 state and local governments, and asserted that federal trade sanctions against Burma,
adopted three months later, preempted the Massachusetts law.
But the State of
Massachusetts, in its appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, disagreed, arguing that "not one
constitutional grant, prohibition or command requires the states to trade with dictators." On
November 29th, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the case, which they will hear in April,
with a decision due by the end of June.
Massachusetts was supported by 14 other states in
its appeal, as well as 44 nonprofit organizations, 55 Members of Congress, and a number of cities
with similar laws. It is hoped that these and many more supporters will again sign briefs in
support of Massachusetts' case. The supporting lawmakers asserted that Congress has consistently
refused to preempt state and local selective purchasing laws, including the Massachusetts law.
When the Massachusetts Attorney General, Thomas Reilly, files his brief in January arguing that
the law is indeed constitutional, other state attorney generals, city attorneys, and Members of
Congress will file amicus - or friend of the court - briefs in support of Massachusetts. The
deadline for signing on to the amicus brief is January 7th, so networks of concerned citizens,
including social investors, are mobilizing throughout the holiday season to urge their
representatives in favor of signing.
If the U.S. Supreme Court finds the Massachusetts
Burma Law unconstitutional, it could also affect the fate of more than two dozen similar laws with
regard to Burma, Northern Ireland, Nigeria, Tibet, East Timor, and other sites of human rights
abuses, as well as laws that restrict state and local purchases of old-growth or rainforest wood.
It would basically roll back a decade of gains in socially responsible local laws in the interest
of federalist and corporate agendas.
"How Massachusetts--or any state--spends its tax
dollars is a matter for the citizens of Massachusetts and their elected officials to decide," said
Billenness. "It is a violation of state sovereignty and local democracy for the federal government
or corporations to try to micro-manage state or local spending."
Aung San Suu Kyi, the
Nobel Peace Prize laureate and leader of the Burmese democracy movement, has called for economic
sanctions on Burma to press the ruling military junta to restore democracy to the country. She has
also described selective purchasing laws - such as the Massachusetts Burma Law - as an effective
way of supporting the Burmese democracy movement.
In the current era of expanding
corporate globalization, issues of human rights are sure to be on the minds of many constituents,
consumers, and investors. The Supreme Court decision on the Massachusetts Burma Law next year, and
the support shown in briefs to the court in January, could be a turning point for how people can
influence positive social change in foreign countries.
©
SRI World Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Top
|
