The situation surrounding the acquisition
and trade of Burmese rubies directly mirrors the situation in Sierra Leone during the 1990s. During the early to mid 2000s, news of the human rights
abuses in Burma surrounding the trade of rubies and jadeite peaked when in 2008
the Bush administration signed the Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE (Junta’s
Anti-Democratic Efforts) Act (Human Rights Watch). For decades, the precious
and rare varieties of rubies were flowing out of Burma, making the government
wealthy, but the average citizens were suffering. Burmese rubies were not as
sensationalized as the Blood Diamonds that were coming out from the mines
of Sierra Leone; but the people in Burma were fairing no better than their
counterparts on the west coast of Africa. The Burmese government was controlled
by a military junta termed the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), who
were notorious for their “abysmal human rights record” (Human Rights Watch). It seems as if there is a pattern (not a
rule), that in countries with large amounts of resources, political corruption
and human rights abuses seem to be magnetized to these areas.
Similar to what we saw in Sierra
Leone, in Burma the SPDC controlled all the ruby mines and were heavily involved
in the business that move the rubies to other countries for refinement and
jewelry making. The inhabitants in Burma, even including the owners of the gem
dispensaries, were not benefitting from the money they were bringing into their
country. The SPDC received most if not all of the money and instead of spending
it to build up infrastructure, improve education, or to improve the healthcare
system, the military dictators used the money to consolidate their power and
control over Burma. This corruption only got worse after large global powers
like the US and the EU ushered in sanctions and embargoes against the import of
Burmese rubies. In many ways, the sanctions imposed on the ruby trade were
somewhat successful, but these sanctions did not in any way end the corruption
of the SPDC and their involvement in the ruby trade. Journalist Dan McDougall
notes that during an undercover examination of Burma and the ruby trade, post
sanctions, the “trade in rubies is, in fact, as strong as ever – and in the
full glare of the international community stones are being sold at auction in
the Burmese capital, Yangon, to raise desperately needed hard currency for the
military establishment”. Of course, we cannot assume that the observations of
one journalist paint the entire picture, but based on what we know about these
types of situations in places like Sierra Leone, McDougall’s observations seem
very plausible. The SPDC and how the leaders governed their county and
resources, illuminates the fact that in countries beaming with precious
resources, corruption can often be soon to follow.
The next important yet disheartening
reality of the Burmese gem trade is the long list of human rights abuses which had
roots in how the SPDC controlled Burma’s resources. Human Rights Watch reports: “deplorable
conditions at the mines reportedly include rampant land confiscation,
extortion, forced labor, child labor, environmental pollution, and unsafe
working conditions…HIV/AIDS, drug resistant malaria, and tuberculosis are
increasingly common in mining areas”. The people of Burma were subject to
unthinkable abuse by the SPDC whose main focus was staying in power, not
providing Burmese citizens with the resources they deserved from the many
millions their labor provided to the government. The government did little to
nothing to regulate mining conditions, and they had no problem with young
children working in mines or utilizing them in the sex trade. Many struggling
locals often resorted to illegal mining activities; often performed by children
who could been seen “scraping through clay-filled hollows and fissures in the
crystalline limestone…[with] hands [that] are calloused and bloody. At the entrance
lookouts keep a constant vigil for soldiers” who would have most likely dealt
out harsh punishments for the illegal mining (Dan McDougall). This observation
illuminates the idea of a black market which locals had attempted to create as
a way to earn some extra money to try and escape their life of harsh labor in
Burma. Another enormous obstacle for the mining population was the spread of
disease which killed numerous people of all ages. People were dying from
diseases that could be treated if there was any semblance of a healthcare
system, but as previously stated, healthcare was far from a top priority for
the SPDC.
Unfortunately, places like Sierra
Leone and Burma, have suffered the curses of their land’s own bounty. Without
proper governance, these locations can quickly turn into hotbeds of corruption
and human rights abuses. I recognize that there are definitely locations rich
in resources which do not turn into countries like Burma and Sierra Leone, but I
believe that without good leadership, that path is always present. It is
evident that during the past few years, conditions in Burma have greatly
improved under the leadership of Myanmar's
(Burma’s) de facto leader Aung San Suu Kyi. She even met with President Obama
in 2016, during which Obama lifted the ban on Burmese gems coming into the US.
Hopefully things will keep improving in Burma, but it is important to remember
what happened in places like Sierra Leone and Burma and be more aware as to
where that gemstone on your ring originated.
I think that your discussion was very well organized, detailed, and thought out. It was interesting to learn about the Bermese gem trade in comparison to the Sierra Leone blood diamonds. I think a big problem with the Burmese case is that it is less publicly known that the blood diamond situation. I, myself, had never heard of it before this year, while the Sierra Leone conflict was much more familiar. It is interesting to me why such a conflict arose. While rubies are very precious and valuable, it does not seem (at least to me) that the demand for them is as high as the demand for diamonds. Given what we talked about in class, the fact that demand seemed to really spur the conflict in Sierra Leone, I wonder if there were other factors driving the conflict over rubies in Burma or whether their is still a high demand for rubies, just less of a publicized demand for them.
ReplyDeleteYou did a great job on this post through your details about the situation and you comparison between the Sierra Leone Blood Diamond case and the Burmese gem trade. I find it really interesting to study the effects of national resources as both a positive and a negative in the economic effects that they hold. In unstable environments or states like that of Sierre Leone and Burma, it's obvious that these natural resources were more of a curse than a blessing. I agree with your argument that the growth of political governance and stability can affect positive change on these types of situations.
ReplyDeleteYour analysis is excellent when comparing Burma to Sierra Leone. I like how you encapsulate how some of these underdeveloped nations, rich with resources, are susceptible to political corruption and human rights abuses. I think this point is key in understanding rubies with Burmese and blood diamonds with Sierra Leone. You state, "it seems as if there is a pattern (not a rule), that in countries with large amounts of resources, political corruption and human rights abuses seem to be magnetized to these areas." This is true that business deals and economic transfers of power are more crucial to these nations than the protection of the individual. Fairness and equitable resources for all are not upheld. It almost seems like a race to the finish or a competition for resources. This quest is unmatched as both Sierra Leonean and Burmese civilians are undermined and murdered; something not seen in the West. Is it the fault of a poor government? I would think so. This leads to more democratic institutions from the West and NGOs taking action in order to instill democratic measures and to prevent further human rights abuses. Maybe this is something you could explore further, the role of democracy in strengthening governments of the periphery?
ReplyDelete