According to a report in The Sydney Morning Herald, a big Australian fashion company that owns iconic brands including Millers and Katies has stopped sourcing products from Burma in response to Australian Council of Trade Unions/Burma Campaign Australia pressure. The relevant press release is available here. Trumpeting this success, Burma Campaign Australia spokesperson, Zetty Brake, argued that, “Corporate Australia needs to put people before profits and do the right thing by the people of Burma and withdraw”. As part of the “Don’t deal with Burma” campaign they are suggesting a range of steps for heaping further pressure on Australian companies that continue to do business in the country.
I remain unpersuaded that such a sanctions push, particularly at this late hour, does anything but reinforce the “limited, Western, symbolic” character of so much of our Burma policy.
According to its 2009 Annual Report, Specialty Fashion Group (the owner of Millers, Katies, etc.) had revenue of over half a billion dollars in each of the past two years. That is a proverbial truckload of “multi-branded women’s apparel”. I would be fascinated to learn what proportion of this revenue came from the sale of products made in Burma. If any New Mandala readers can point to some numbers I would be very appreciative. I think we should try to find out –is this step from Specialty Fashion Group anything but symbolic?
And if it isn’t, if there is, in fact, some practical value in this move; then how many Burmese Mums and Dads will be looking for work in the months ahead? Are their factories going to fall on even harder times now that Australian consumers aren’t buying their products? We must remember that they didn’t vote for the Burmese military government either.
Success in a pro-sanctions campaign of this sort is, dare I say, hard to measure.
8 responses so far ↓
1 Bamar // Oct 13, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Nicholas Farrelly is looking for tangible and measurable results of the sanctions. Thanks to the Sharon Burrows and Zetty Brakes whose action keeps the junta on notice that the international community is incensed with them and they still need to reform. It is no doubt at a great price to the Burmese mums and dads who need to earn a living to survive but their actions help as a leverage on the negotiating table. This pressure is so needed now, when there seems a glimmer of hope that the junta may be yielding. Psychologically, the junta may not fear so much if the threat as suggested by NF is measurable and tangible, the very fact that the fear is immeasurable and unknown makes it very effective. I had previously believed that Burrow & Brake should keep quiet, now I believe the louder the din, the keener the hearer would be to hear the melody of a sweet song.
2 David Brown // Oct 13, 2009 at 10:05 pm
I assume that, for most impact on the junta personally and organisationally with least impact on “ordinary” Burmese, sanctions would best be applied to high value industries and products with relatively low labour content.
Such as the recent gas sales to Thailand and China (?) and I suppose the junta gained healthy overseas bank balances and revenues for their own benefit from weapons purchases, drugs, gems, US anti-communist and anti-terrorism funding, Chinese project kickbacks, etc, etc.
Boycotts of relatively high labour content products such as textiles (fashion is an interesting elitist term in this context I would believe) seem less well targetted and the history of the junta indicates their immunity to symbols (such as democracy and human rights and other philosophic twaddle).
3 Kyaw Kyaw // Oct 13, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Reminds me of a recent article, which quoted a garment worker who lost her job after the US banned imports of Myanmar-made garments.
“Where are our human rights?” the worker asked.
It’s a pertinent question. About 80,000 (mostly) women employed in the sector lost their jobs within a few months of those sanctions being put in place. Many soon found work in the local sex trade instead.
4 soe thane // Oct 13, 2009 at 11:54 pm
This is a really shameful decision. When the US imposed sanctions on the garment industry in 1997, an estimated 70,000-150,000 people, almost all young women, lost their jobs. Many were looking after their families. Many ended up as illegal workers in Thailand, perhaps (though there’s no exact information on this) as sex workers.
Why can’t Western companies realize that they need to remain engaged in Burma, help improve labour standards, and provide jobs?
This decision means another few hundred young women out on the streets. Hoping for a handout from the military government that will never come.
Change Burma by being in Burma, not by leaving the Burmese people. PLEASE
5 Bamar // Oct 14, 2009 at 1:41 pm
The “success” of the Burrow/Blake campaigm does mean more suffering for the downtrodden and desperate Burmese mums & dads. As the down-trodden starve to death, the ruling generals gorge themselves in opulance. I encourage Burrow/Blake to make the din ear-shattering, but not to the extent of hurting the livelihood of the poor.
6 phoenix // Oct 14, 2009 at 6:27 pm
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2009/10/12/amanpour.burma.cnn
7 Kyaw Kyaw // Oct 15, 2009 at 1:47 pm
I have recently written a post for New Matilda which contains, among other things, figures for garment exports from Myanmar to Australia. You can check it out at http://newmatilda.com/2009/10/15/why-boycott-burma
8 Srithanonchai // Oct 17, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Here is an interesting collection of articles on Burma:
http://ui.se/pdf/SIIA_papers_4.pdf
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.