Heineken and Burma - the whole scandal
(Robert West, 04-13-98)

The Burmese military dictatorship of the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) has caused headlines as one of the most oppressive regimes in the world: In 1988 the military shoots on unarmed demonstrators. In 1989 the democratic oppositional politician Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the National League for Democracy (NDL), is placed in house arrest, in 1990 her party wins the last elections with a majority of 82%; the result is, however, ignored by SLORC. In 1991 Suu Kyi obtains the Nobel Peace Prize. In 1995 she is released from house arrest, but SLORC furtherly tightened its grip on power. Meantime Burma, which had been renamed into Myanmar, had changed their once isolationist policies by opening up to foreign investment. By the foreign currency, however, no strong middle class was created, the money rather supports the regime: Few people get extremely rich, the biggest part of the population becomes poorer and poorer yet.
Adducted by this problem, Suu Kyi demanded that companies do not invest in Burma anymore.
As the European beer market is saturated and as future lies in Asia, brewing giants such as Heineken and Carlsberg have been operating in Burma. Due to the big pressure of Danish gouvernment Carlsberg pulled out of Burma soon: A 65-year-old Danish consul had died in a Burmese prison. - He had been jailed for the illegal possession of a fax. But Heineken remained persistent: Myanmar Brewery Ltd. in Rangoon, a joint venture of Asia Pacific Breweries Ltd. (42,5% belong to Heineken) and UMEHL, a holding of the military, was planned to be completed by September 1996.
Western population, particularly of the USA, Canada and the Netherlands, wanted to help the Burmese people to get free of SLORC oppression by boycotting such companies. Many people did not drink Heineken Beer anymore, in the USA six cities and the state of Massachusetts banned contracts with firms, doing business in Burma. The campaign "Heineken out of Burma!" was started in Holland. A dialogue was held with Heineken, which stated that their presence in Burma would lead to more wealth, would create new jobs and would help to promote democracy. At the end of the conversation they seemed to become insecure, for they asked whether they could be put in contact with Suu Kyi. The initiators of the campaign replied: "No. The opposition in Burma is easy to get in touch with and you should have done that long before. We are starting our campaign now. Goodbye."
And it kicked off very well: Press reported ("Heineken trades with dictators"), politicians were interviewed. One of them got so interested that he started a debate in parliament, insisting that policies towards Burma be changed by creating more pressure instead of promoting trade.
On July 11, 1996, Heineken finally announced it would cease all its operations in Burma, not due to human rights, though: "Public opinion and issues surrounding this market have changed to a degree that could have an advers affect on our brand and corporate reputation", said Heineken.
But then this news: Myanmar Brewery Ltd. had been sold to Fraser & Neave by Asia Pacific Breweries Ltd. (APBL). Fraser & Neave is a Singapore based company which has a 50% share in APBL. They have been cooperating with Heineken for 65 years. The APBL brand Tiger Beer is going to be brewed despite of the sale - as already planned before. Is Heineken hypocritical?

(Source: A SEED aseedeur@antenna.nl)