The European Union has publicly condemned the current Burmese regime, the State Peace and Development Council as well as its predecessor, the State Law and Order Restoration Council, formally expressing concern at the continuing violation of human rights in Burma and the absence of progress towards democratization. The EU has taken a number of diplomatic steps, including the suspension of all high-level governmental contacts with the current Burmese regime, withdrawal of tariff privileges formerly granted to Burma under the EU's Generalised System of Preferences (GSP), and suspension of non-humanitarian aid and development programs. See Regulation (EC) 552/97 of 24 March 1997 temporarily, withdrawing access to generalised tariff preferences from the Union of Myanmar, 1997 OJ (L85) 8 - Appendix 6 - and Common Position of 28 October 1996 on Burma/Myanmar, 1996 O.J. (L287) 1. Appendix 7.
The EU also is providing significant humanitarian assistance and financial support to promote democracy in Burma. In the last three years, the EU has provided over $20 million through the U.N. High Commission for Refugees and non-governmental organizations to support ethnic minorities living in Burma as well as refugees in neighboring countries.
Beyond its own actions, the EU has sought to coordinate policies on Burma internationally, in order to make the actions of all concerned countries more effective. These efforts have included extensive consultations with the Government of the United States aimed at coordinating efforts with respect to Burma, including a recent
February 10, 1997
His Excellency
Jacques Santer
President
European Union
200 Rue Deli
B1049, Brussels, Belgium
Dear Mr. President:
I am the chief sponsor of the Burma Selective Purchase Law which was adopted by the government of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts last year. I am deeply disturbed to learn about the recent comments by the European Commission regarding this law. Massachusetts now denies most state contracts to companies doing business in Myanmar for one reason-to pressure that country's illegal government to end its violations of the most basic democratic rights of its citizens.
I support good relations between Europe and the United States, and I believe a strong relationship is critical to the future of our nation. However, it is not appropriate for the European Union to involve itself in the internal affairs of Massachusetts when those affairs do not violate the Declaration of Human Rights or the fundamental democratic rights of our citizens. The union should not attempt to intimidate the Massachusetts state government into changing the standards it has established for doing business, nor should it attempt to place a chilling effect on other United States legislatures which are this year considering similar legislation. Therefore, I strongly urge the European Community to end its opposition to this law and not to proceed to any challenge of it under the World Trade Organization dispute settlement procedure.
I appreciate you immediate attention to this matter. Please reply to me directly or through the United States Department of State.
Yours truly,
Byron Rushing
cc: Ambassador Hugo Paemen
EUROPEAN UNION
DELEGATION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION
The European Commission presents its compliments to the Department of State with reference to the Act Regulating State Contracts with companies doing business with or in Burma (Myanmar) enacted on 25 June 1996 by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1996 Mass. ALS 130. 1996 Mass. Adv. Legis. Serv. 130: 1996 Mass. H.B. 2833)
This legislation forbids Massachusetts state agencies, state authorities, the House of Representatives or the State Senate to sign new contracts or renewals of existing contracts with companies doing business with or in Burma.
The European Community is of the opinion that the above mentioned legislation is a breach of the rules for procurement procedures as stipulated in the Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA). Firstly, it violates Article VIII(b) of the GPA given that it imposes conditions on a tendering company which are not essential to ensure the firm's capability to fulfil the contract. Secondly, it intringes Article X(3) of the GPA, because it imposes qualification criteria based on political, rather than economic considerations. Thirdly, it is in contradiction to Article XIlI ( 4 ) of the GPA to the extent that the statute allows the award of contracts to be based on political instead of economic considerations.
When concluding the GPA, the US accepted to cover the state of Massachusetts under its offer of sub-federal agencies in order to balance the EC's offer to the US. By limiting access of European suppliers to the procurement of Massachusetts state agencies, state authorities, the House of Representatives or the State Senate, the USA is reducing its GPA offer.
Furthermore, it appears that several other sub-federal authorities have adopted or are adopting legislation or ordinances with a similar effect. The state of Massacnhusetts is also considering similar measures with regard to another country besides Burma. We underline that these types of sub-federal actions reduce the L'S offer under the GPA or affect the way special or exclusive rights are attributed.
The European Community requests the US government to transmit its concern to the State of Massachusetts. The European Community also wishes to know what action, if any, the US Government intends to take in response to the Massachusetts measure. Futhermore, the European Community fully reserves is rights under the WTO dispute settlement procedure.
The European Commission avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Department of State the assurances of its highest consideration.
January 22, 1997
Department of State
Washington. DC 20520
| 30 March, 1998 |
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
House of Representatives
State House
Boston, MA 02133-1054
Dear Mr. Rushing,
Following a discussion of Burma at the EU-US Senior Level Group meeting and a letter I received from Prime-Minister in exile Dr. Seim Win, I thought it would be helpful if I wrote to you again in order to set out the EU's position. In particular, I would like to provide you with a full overview of measures the EU has taken in the last two years with the aim of restoring democracy and human rights in Burma. Let me underline that we share your concern as regards the present unsatisfactory situation in Burma and that I hope that the combined weight of the EU and the US will lead to the necessary changes. In this context I would like to thank you for your ideas on ways to promote democracy in Burma which you put forward at the meeting you had with European officials in February.
The EU has an unshakeable commitment to protecting and promoting human rights globally and uses strong pressure to influence events in Burma. It has undertaken the following steps:
- Following a European Commission investigation into human rights violations
in 1996, the EU adopted a Common Position on Burma on 28 October 1996 under
which all military personnel in the EU Member States were expelled. The
Common Position, which took effect on 29 October, also put an embargo on
arms, ammunitions and military equipment. With the exception of
humanitarian aid (see below), all other assistance programs were suspended.
- On 24 March 1997, the EU suspended EU tariff preferences for Burma because
of the ruling SLORC's failure to make progress towards advancing democracy
and human rights. The EU'S decision is in the form of a binding Regulation
and suspends Burma's access to the EU's Generalised System of Preferences
(GSP) for its exports of industrial (e.g. textiles) and agricultural (e.g.
tropical hardwood) goods. According to the terms of the regulation the
withdrawal of GSP, which affects potentially many tens of millions of
dollars of industrial goods, will remain suspended until such time as
democracy and respect for human rights are restored in Burma.
- On 20 October 1997, the EU renewed its sanctions against Burma as set out
in the 1996 Common Position on Burma. The 1997 version of the Common
Position reaffirms measures taken previously and introduces additional
measures: including a ban on entry visas for members of the SLORC and their
families; a ban on entry visas for members of the military/security forces
involved in policies that impede Burma's transition to democracy; and a
suspension of high-level bilateral governmental visits to Burma.
- The EU obtained from thirteen countries associated to the EU (Bulgaria,
Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Norway, Poland,
Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia) agreement to ensure that their respective
national policies conform to the Common Position.
- On 12 November 1997, the EU proceeded to an indefinite postponement of the
annual EU-ASEAN Joint Co-operation Council as a result of a dispute over
Burma's attendance at the meeting. The Joint Co-operation Council is the
institution set up for implementing the provisions of the EC-ASEAN
Cooperation Agreement. This demonstrates that despite the great importance
which the EU attaches to its relationship with ASEAN, it felt that its
concerns over the deplorable human rights situation in Burma should be
clearly communicated to its ASEAN partners. The Commission had already
made clear its disapproval of ASEAN's plans to accept Burma as a member,
for example during a high-level EU-ASEAN meeting of foreign ministers in
Singapore in February, 1997.
- The EU was instrumental in securing a United Nations General Assembly
resolution approved on 12 December, 1997, expressing grave concern about
the human rights situation in Burma. More widely, the EU uses every
opportunity to express publicly its disapproval of the SLORC regime,
through joint political statements, Council and European Parliament
resolutions or otherwise. For example, Manuel Marin, Vice-President of the
European Commission, strongly condemned the SLORC regime at the Plenary
Session of the European Parliament on 13 January 1998.
- The EU is contributing significantly to help the Burmese refugee
population. It has provided more than $20 million in the last three years
through UNHCR or Non-Governmental Organisations for the support of ethnic
minorities living in Burma as well as for refugees in the neighbouring
countries of Thailand and Bangladesh. For example, the EU contributed
approximately $ 9 million for a programme assisting Rohingya refugees in
Bangladesh and for repatriation assistance and small-scale re-integration
projects for returnees in Rakhine State. The interventions resulted in
improved education and health services, increased quantity and quality of
water sources and sanitation facilities and improved transportation
networks linking villages and markets. The EU has also funded a technical
co-ordination office in Chittagong for refugee programmes in Bangladesh.
- Furthermore, the European Commission is directly involved in providing
relief to the local population, particularly under its own humanitarian
assistance programme (ECHO). This year, it will spent nearly $ 1 million
to provide food and shelter.
- The EU is also contributing significantly to raising awareness about human
rights abuses in Burma and is providing technical and financial support to
facilitate the transition to a democratic and freely elected government.
For example, we have recently decided to provide more than $ 1 million for
a Europe-Burma liaison office in Brussels in order to foster co-operation
with the opposition.
- In addition, European Commission Vice-President Manuel Marin has recently
agreed in principle to increase further the support for the Burmese
democracy movement, in particular with regard to the ongoing study on
transition to democracy in Burma. We are presently awaiting proposals from
the democracy movement as to what form further assistance could take. We
are also exploring the setting-up of a scholarship fund for Burmese
students and academics with a view to forming future leaders and
facilitating transition. The Commission has regular contacts with the
opposition to support it in its cause.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any further help to you.
Head of Delegation
COMPANIES HEADQUARTERED IN MASSACHUSETTS
none
COMPANIES WITH SUBSIDIARIES, AFFILIATES, BRANCHES, ETC. IN MASSACHUSETTS
| Carlson Holdings Inc. Chase Manhattan Corp. (New) Johnson & Johnson Inc. Textron Inc. |
COMPANIES NOT ESTABLISHED IN MASSACHUSETTS
| Abercrombie and Kent (A&K) Intl Inc. American Vision Professional Angelina Hardwood sales Arvin Industries Inc. (s) Atlantic Richfield Co. (s) Caterpillar (s) China Resources Development Inc. Consolidated Stores Corp. Dean Hardwoods Inc. DHL Airways East Asia Gold Corp. Federal Express Corp. (s) First General Services Gaeltaryn Ltd. Halliburton Co. (s) HFS Inc. (s) Indo-China Express Inc Inland Water Transport Interdigital Communications Corp. Interpublic Group of Cos. (s) |
JCB (International) Credit
Card KMD Computer LTD. McDermott International (s) Northwest Airlines Ocean Cruise Line Inc. Pacific Architects & Engineers Pan American Enterprises Procter and Gamble Co. (s) Salmor Import Export Corp. Servcorp Showcase Entertainment Inc. Silver Sea Cruise Smith International Inc. (s) Teak imports International Texaco (s) Unocal Corp. (s) United Parcel Service United Technologies Corp. Zin International Zippo Manufacturing |
COMPANIES HEADQUARTERED IN MASSACHUSETTS
none
COMPANIES WITH SUBSIDIARIES, AFFILIATES, BRANCHES, ETC. IN MASSACHUSETTS
| Alcatel Aisthom SA Bell Metal Industries BMW (Bayerische Motorwerke) BOC Group PLC British Airways Burmah Castrol PLC Comfort Group Chemical Co. of Malaysia Bhd. (CCM) Daiwa Institute of Reasearch Daiwa Securities Co. Ltd. Deutsche Lufthansa AG Eagle (Myanmar) Co. Ltd Eagle Company Ltd? Gemco International B.V. Globe Industries GmbH HSBC Holdings PLC Hyundai Corp. Japan Air Lines Kajima Corp. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines Konica Co. Landmarks Bhd. Mackie International Group PLC M.O. Air System Inc. (M.O. Tourist) Marubeni Corp. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd Mazda Motor Corp. |
Mita Industrial Co. Ltd. Mitsubishi Construction Mitsubishi Corp. Mitsubishi Electric Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Mitsubishi Materials Mitsubishi Motors Corp. Nikko Shoji Co. Nova Corp. PSA Peugeot Citroen SA Sanwa Bank Seiko Corp. Shangri-La Hotels Ltd. Sharp Corp. Shell Transport & Trading Co. Plc. Schlumberger Ltd. (s) Siemens AG Singapore Airlines Ltd. Sony Corp. Sumitomo Corp. Telefonaktiebolaget LMEricsson Toshiba Corp. Toyota Motor Corp. Nova Corp. United Engineers Ltd. Yusen Air & Sea Service |
COMPANIES NOT ESTABLISHED IN MASSACHUSETTS
|
A & S International Co, Ltd. A.P.G. Technologies Pte. Ltd. ABB Asea Brown Bove, Ltd. ABN Amro Bank Ltd. Acer Inc. Adman Club Co. Ltd. AEA International Aeolus (Dong Feng) Trucks & Buses Ajinomoto Co. Inc. All Nippon Airways Co. Ltd. Bagan Hotel Co. Ltd. Baiyoke Kandawgyi Hotel Co. Ban Hock Hin Engineering Co. Pte. Ltd. Bangkok Bank of Commerce Bangkok Container Lines Bank of Ayudhya Bank of Commerce Malaysia Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi Ltd. Banque Francaise Du Commerce Exterieur Banque Indosuez Banque Nationale de Paris Berjaya Industrial Bhd. Berliner Bank Beta Funds Bionorica GmbH Bollinger Furniere Bousteadco Singapore Ltd. Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. C&P Holdings Pte. Ltd. C. Melchers GmbH & Co. CBM Corp. Central Floating Hotel Ltd. Chernapol Benelux B.V. Chiyoda Corp. Ciba-Geigy Ltd. Consolidated Spectra Ventures Ltd. Constance Carroll Holding Ltd. Costa Crociere S.p.A. Credit Agricole (Caisse Nationale du) Credit Commercial de France Croisieres Paquet Cycle and Carriage Daewoo Corp. Dai-Ichi Kangyo Bank Dalhoff Larsen & Hornemann (DHL) Det Ostasiatiske Kompagni A/S Deutsche Bank Deutsche Telekom Development Bank of Singapore Ltd. DHL International Ltd. Diplomatic Business Pte. Ltd. Diversified Mineral Resources Ltd. Dong Feng Motor Industry Corp. Dopharma International B.V. DP Intertrade Earth Industrial PLC East Asiatic Co. SA Eastern & Oriental Express Emerald Rose Garden Co. Ltd. Koor Industries Korea Exchange Bank Krong Sombat Co. Ltd. Krung Thai Bank Co. Ltd. Kunming Heavy Machinery Plant Kunming Int'l economic and tech Kuok Singapore Ltd. Kuoni AG Laboratories Biocodex Lao Aviation Co. Leeward Capital Lion Nathan International Co. Ltd. Lon greach Gold Oil Ltd. Loxly Public Co. Ltd. L.P. Holding Co. Ltd. Malayan Banking Berhad Malaysia Airline System Bhd. (MAS) Mamee-Double Decker (M) Bhd. MAN AG Mario Bernucci SpA MASA Telecom lnc. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd. Meiwa Marine and Industrial Pte. Ltd. Michelin, Cie Generale des Establissements Milesluck Co. Ltd. Mindoro Resources Ltd. (MDRO/CDN) Mitsui & Co. Ltd. Mitsui Construction Co. Ltd. Myanmar Hotels International Ltd. Myanmar Macau International Myanmar MCG Corp. Myanmar Swan Investment Ltd National Machinery Import and Export Corp. Nestle S.A. Newscom Pte. Ltd. Nichimen Corp. Nikken Rentacom Co. Ltd. Nippon Investment & Finance Co. Ltd. Nippon Kokan Kaisha (NKK Corp.) Nippon Oil Nissan Motor Co. Nissho lwai Corp. Nouveau Marketing Co. Ltd Nutricia Nutricia N.V. Northern Telekom Ltd Overseas Union Bank Pacific Arc Exploration United Info Summit (UIS) UPSA Laboratories Venice Simplon Orient Express Victoria Garment Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Victoria Group Wing Tai Holdings Ltd. Wo Kee Hong Holdings Ltd. |
Allied Container Services Altius Houtagenturen B.V. Amara International Singapore Amer Group Ltd. Andre Hesse & Co. GmbH Antares Trading GmbH Arnold Otto Meyer Asia Associates Bangkok Ltd. Atlantic Outline Myanmar Co. Ltd. B.A.T. Industries PLC Empire Oil Co. (Pacific) Ltd. EPG Travel Co. Ltd Europ Continents Evian Exe Design Co. Ltd. Exe Sakura Co. Ltd. Export Import Bank of Korea Export Import Bank of Thailand Fidelio Software Co. Ltd. First Automotive works (FAW) First Dynasty Mines Ltd. Fraser & Neave Ltd. Fritz Anders GmbH & Co. Fuji Bank Ltd. Fuji Photo Film Co. Ltd. Fujita Corp. Fulbrim (s) Pte. Ltd. Gainwell Medimart Golden Shell Co. Ltd. Guinness PLC Hakuhodo Inc. Hanako Hazama Corp. Health Corp. of Singapore (HCS) Heinrich Feldmeyer GmbH & Co. K.G. Honda Motor Co. Hotel Properties Ltd. Hunting PLC Idris Hydraulic Bhd. Indian Airlines Ltd. Indochina Goldfields Ltd. Informatics Holding Ltd. ING Bank International International Panorama Resources Corp. Invest-Import Yusoslavia Isizu Motors Ltd. Italian-Thai Development lvanhoe Capital Corp. Jade Entreprise Japan Trade Service lnc. JCB International (Canada) Ltd. Johannes Schuback & Sohne GmbH JVC Victor Co. of Japan Ltd. Kailis (M.C.) Holdings PLC Karl Danzer Furnierwerke GmbH Kelang Port Management Kemayan Corp. Bhd. Keppel Bank Keppel Corp. Ltd. Pakistan International Airlines Pelegrine Investment Holdings Peter Cremer GmbH & Co. Petrofina Petroleum National Behard (Petronas) Platinum Private Ltd. Pohang Iron and Steel Pokka Corp. Premier Oil PLC Prime Utilities Bhd. PT Asia Cellular Satelite Systems (ACeS) PT Astra International PT Cumawis Puukeskus Oy Richemont, Co. Finaciere Rolls-Royce PLC Royal Bruei Airlines Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. Royal Lake Hotel Co. Ltd. Samsung Corp. Sanwa Trading Co. Ltd. Sea Containers Ltd. Segye Corp. Siam City Bank Siam Syntech Construction Co. Singapore Technologies Industrial Corp. Ltd. Ssangyong Group Standard Chartered Bank Straits Steamship Land Ltd. Sum Cheong International Ltd. Sy Cip Gorres Veayo and Co. System-Built Myanmar Ltd. Taiga Consultants Ltd. Taisei Corp. Tamasu Co. Ltd. Telrad Telecom. & Electronic Industries Temasek Holdings Ltd. Thai Airways International PLC Thai Farmers Bank Ltd. Thai Military Bank Ltd. Til Ltd. Total S.A. Traders Yangon Co. Ltd. Trafalgar House PLC Trevi SpA UCB S.A. Uniking Enterprises Union Chimique Beige (UCB) S.A. United Comminications Industry Public Co. Wo(r)ldcare Travel Insurance Wong Yin Chong Pue. Lzd. Yangon Wood Industries Ltd. YTL Corp. Bhd. Yunnan Machinery Import & Export Corp. YWIL |
of 24 March 1997
temporarily withdrawing access to generalized tariff preferences from the Union of Myanmar
|
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to the Council Regulation (EC) No 3281/94 of 19 December 1994 applying a four-year scheme of generalized tariff preferences (1995 to 1998) in respect of certain industrial products originating in developing countries (1), and in particular Article 12 (3) thereof, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1256/96 of 20 June 1996 applying multiannual schemes of gen- eralized tariff preferences from 1 July 1996 to 30 June 1999 in respect of certain agricultural products originating in developing countries (2) and in particular Article 12 (3) thereof, Having regard to the proposals from the Commission (3) Having regard to the opinion of the European Par-liament (4), Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (5), Whereas pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 3281/94 and Regulation (EC) No 1256/96 the Union of Myanmar (hereafter referred to as 'Myanmar') is a beneficiary of generalized tariff preferences; Whereas Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 3281/94 and Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1256/96 provide that the preferences in question may be temporarily withdrawn in whole or in part in circumstances including the practice of any form of forced labour as defined in the Geneva Conventions of 25 September 1926 and 7 September 1956 and International Labour Organization (ILO) Conventions Nos 29 and 105; Whereas on 7 June 1995 the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) made a joint complaint to the Commission under Article 9 of Regulation (EC) (1) OJ No L 348, 31. 12. 1994, p 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2948/95 (OJ No L 308, 21. 12. 1995, p.32). (2) OJ No L 160, 29.6. 1996, p 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2448/96 (OJ No L 333, 21.12 1996, p.12). (3) OJ No C 35, 4. 2. 1997, p.14 and OJ No C 80, 13. 3. 1997, p.18. (4) Opinion delivered on 14 March 1997 (not yet published in the Official Journal). (5) Opinion delivered on 27 February 1997 (not yet published in the Official Journal). |
No 3281/94 and called for Myanmar to be temporarily withdrawn from the Community
scheme of generalized tariff preferences because of its use of forced
labour. Whereas on 2 January 1997 the ICFTU and the ETUC notified the Commission that they were extending the scope of the joint complaint lodged under Regulation (EC) No 3281/94, with a view to obtaining the withdrawal of Myanmar's preferential entitlement also under Regulation (EC) No 1256/96; Whereas the Commission examined the complaint of 7 June 1995 in consultation with the Generalized Pre-ferences Committee; whereas the evidence put forward by the complainants was judged sufficient to justify the opening of an investigation, and whereas the Commission decided by a Notice of 16 January 1996 (6) that an investigation should take place; Whereas the Myanmar authorities were formally notified of the opening of the investigation; whereas they denied that the practices referred to in the complaint constituted forced labour, citing the exceptions in Article 2(2) of ILO Convention No 29, and claiming that those exceptions covered the 1907 Town Act and the 1908 Village Act, which allow the population to be made to carry out works and services; whereas that interpretation has been challenged by the ILO, whose competent bodies have called for the immediate repeal of the laws in question in order to ensure compliance with the letter and the spirit of Convention No 29; Whereas the written and oral statements collected by the Commission during the course of the investigation conducted in consultation with the Generalized Preferences Committee corroborate the allegations contained in the complaint; whereas it has emerged that the authorities in Myanmar have routinely used forced labour, not only for military operations but also for civilian and military infrastructure building projects, backed by coercion and frequently violent reprisals; Whereas, seeking to add to the information it had gathered during the investigation, the Commission requested the authorities of Myanmar to cooperate with that investigation by allowing a fact-finding team into the country; whereas this request was denied and since the conditions in Article 11 (5) of Regulation (EC) No 3281/94 are thus fulfilled the findings of the investi-gation could be based on the information available;
(6) OJ No C 15, 20. 1. 1996, p. 3. |
|
Whereas the evidence gathered during the Commission's investigation of the
initial complaint by the ICFTU and FTUC and the resulting conclusions are
broad enough in hope to provide a valid basis for examining the extended
complaint lodged by those organizations on 2 January 1997, thus rendering a
specific investigation of the agricultural sector unnecessary; whereas the
requirements of Article 9 (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1256/96 have thus been
met and the conditions laid down in Article 11 (5) of that Regulation have
been fulfllled; Whereas the information available thus provides sufficient grounds to conclude that withdrawal of Myanmar's access to the scheme of generalized preferences for which it is eligible is justified; Whereas the findings of the investigation have been reported to the Generalized Preferences Committee in accordance with Article 12 (1) of Regulation (EC) No 3281/94; Whereas the fact that the practices condemned have been routine and widespread means that a complete withdrawal of access to the arrangements is warranted; Whereas in the light of the foregoing, the generalized tariff preferences applicable to indusutrial and agricultural products originating in Myanmar should be temporarily withdrawn until it has been established that the practices in question have been brought to an end; Whereas goods in shipment to the European Community should be excluded from this withdrawal of preferences, provided that they were dispatched before the date of entry into force of this Regulation,
|
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
The Union of Myanmar's access to the tariff preferences granted by Regulation (EC) No 3281/94 and Regulation (EC) No 1256/96 is hereby temporarily withdrawn.
The Council, acting by qualified majority, on a proposal from the Commission, shall bring the application of this Regulation to an end in the light of a Commission report on forced labour in Myanmar, showing that the practices mentioned in Article 9 (1), first indent of Regulation (EC) No 3281/94 and Article 9 (1), first indent of Regulation (EC) No 1256/96 which have caused the withdrawal of access to generalized tariff preferences from Myanmar no longer exist.
This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. It shall not apply to products proven to have been dispatched to the European Community before that date.
|
| This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. | |
| Done at Brussels, 24 March 1997. |
COMMON POSITION
of 28 October 1996
defined by the Council on the basis of Article J.2 of the Treaty on European Union on Burma / Myanmar
(96/635/CFSP)
|
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article J.2 thereof, HAS DEFINED THE FOLLOWING COMMON POSITION: 1. The European Union, considering the recent discussions with Burma/Myanmar at meetings in Jakarta and New York, is disappointed at the unwillingness of the State Law and Order Restoration Council (Slare) to enter into a meaningful dialogue with it. The European Union reaffirms its determination to resume such dialogue at any time. 2. The European Union is concerned at the absence of progress rewards democratisation and at the continuing violation of human rights in Burma/Myanmar. It deplores, in particular, the practice of torture, summary and arbitrary executions, forced labour, abuse of women, political arrests, forced displacement of the population and restrictions on the fundamental rights of freedom of speech, movement and assembly. It condemns the detentions in May and September 1996 of members and supporters of the National League for Democracy (NLD). It calls for the immediate and unconditional release of all detained political prisoners. The NLD and other legitimate political parties, including those from ethnic minorities, should be allowed to pursue freely their normal activ ities. It calls on the Slore to enter into meaningful dialogue with pro-democracy groups with a view to bringing about national reconciliation. 3. The European Union recalls its great concern at the failure of the Slore to respect the results of the May 1990 sections and the subsequent maintenance of the military rule. It notes that the military regime has yet to demonstrate convincingly its intention to establish civilian democratic rule, within a credible time-frame. In addition, the European Union notes the failure of the Slore to demonstrate any willingness to respond to the |
concerns of the United Nations General Assembly and the European Union. 4. The European Union recalls that it has already requested the Special Working Group on arbitrary detention and imprisonment to visit Burma/Myanmar, the UN High Commissioner for human rights to take action against Burma/Myanmar, and the Special Rapporteur on Burma/Myanmar to investigate the circumstances leading up to, and surrounding, the death of Mr James Leander Nichols. 5. With a view to promoting progress towards democratisation and securing the immediate and unconditional release of detained political prisoners, the European Union: (a) reaffirms the following measures already adopted:
(1) The aforementioned embargo covers weapons design........ kill and their ammunition, weapon platforms, non-wea....... platforms and artillary eqipment. The embargo also ...spare parts, repairs, maintenance and transfer of....technology. Contracts entered into prior to the date of....into force of the embargo are not effected by this ....position. |
|
(b) introduces the following, additional measures:
|
In the case of a substantial improvement of the overall situation in
Burma/Myanmar, not only the suspension of the aforementioned
measures, but also the gradual resumption of
cooperation with Burma/Myanmar will be considered, after careful assessment
of developments by the Council. 7. This Common Position shall take effect or 29 October 1996 for a renewable six months period. 8. This Common Position shall be published in the Official Journal.
Done at Luxembourg, 28 October 1996.
|
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon the following counsel, this 6 day of July, 1998, addressed as follows:
Thomas A. Barnico, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
One Ashburton Place
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
(617) 727-2200
(617) 727-5785 (FAX)
Attorney for Defendants Charles D. Baker
and Philmore Anderson III
Timothy B. Dyk
Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue
1450 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-2088
(202) 879-3939
Attorney for Plaintiff
National Foreign Trade Council
Home |
About Us |
Resources |
Press Releases |
Federal Activity & Legislation
State & Local Activity |
NFTC Lawsuit |
Contact Us |
Site Map