The boycott trumped ( Boulder Daily Camera, CO ) December 8, 2002

The boycott trumped

Boulder Daily Camera, CO -December 8, 2002

Boulder is the only city in Colorado with its own foreign policy. So goes the popular, if not wholly accurate, joke.

Indeed, the city has sometimes taken stands on political issues apparently far from typically municipal concerns. Some have long argued that the city should confine its endeavors to those things over which the city actually exercises power — streets, cops, parks and the like.

But there are times when the city can exercise real power in global matters, and, at the urging of the citizenry, should.

Such is the case with Burma. In 1996, Boulder adopted an ordinance that prohibited any purchase by the city of property and services from firms doing business in Burma. The city manager could allow the purchase such goods or services if they were necessary for the efficient operation of the city or the health and safety of its citizens, and if no similar product or service were available for another source.

The ordinance listed companies known to have direct investments or employees in Burma, including Atlantic Richfield, Avis Inc., Halliburton Co., Texaco and Unocal Corp.

The city therefore observed a hallowed American tradition: exercising its right not to trade with those it finds objectionable. And Burma, also known as Myanmar, is certainly objectionable.

For four decades, Burma has been ruled by a ruthless military dictatorship that illegally ignored democratic elections of 1990. Considered one of the world's most brutal regimes, the Burmese government is reported to have systematically raped, tortured and killed political activists.

Boulder was one of at least 19 municipal governments to boycott Burma. Also in 1996, the state of Massachusetts enacted its own boycott.

But the National Foreign Trade Council sued Massachusetts, arguing that the state law was pre-empted by a federal law. Two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the trade council. The court concluded that Congress delegated to the president the authority to control economic sanctions against Burma.

The Massachusetts law undermined the president's authority because it was broader than the federal law, the court said. Further, the court held, the state law interfered with the congressional aim that the president alone represent the United States on the thorny question of Burma.

The court did not invalidate all local boycotts of foreign investments; its ruling applies only to the specific case of the law governing economic sanctions against Burma. In this case, the court ruled, Congress wanted the United States to speak with one voice.

Because the high court rendered the Boulder ordinance illegal, and because Congress seems little inclined to allow such ordinances and statutes to exist, the Boulder City Council last week repealed its ordinance on purchases from Burma. The council replaced the ordinance with a resolution urging Congress to legalize state and local boycotts.

The Boulder council was right to enact the Burma boycott in 1996, and, given the legal mandates, the council was right to rescind it last week. The council was further correct in urging Congress to relent.

The simple fact is that the United States does not speak with one voice on foreign policy. The nation is not of one mind on foreign policy. In the 1980s, cities, states and universities (including Boulder) divested their holdings from companies doing business in South Africa, which was then ruled by a brutally racist government.

The federal government was then taking a much softer line on South Africa. But economic pressure, much of which contradicted official U.S. policy, helped topple that regime. Cities, states and universities were right to exercise their freedom then. They should be granted the freedom to use their power now.

Burma Today do not take any responsibility for news content. Copyrights of news articles remain with the respective news agencies or reporter[s].