October 31, 2007

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE JEWELRY INDUSTRY REGARDING THE BURMA GEM BOYCOTT

Mogok, Burma. All photos courtesy of Federico Barlocher.

Dear Industry Friends,

I am writing you to express my own personal misgivings and ambivalence about the growing Burma gem boycott. These doubts and questions arise after having discussed the gem boycott with European gem dealers who spend the majority of their time in Burma, then investigating the facts they give in support of far different resistance tactics than the ones we are using. Talking to men who know Burma intimately and checking out for myself the realities of Burmese life as they describe it has made me wonder if our attempt to do good might not actually do more harm. Please hear me out.

A Burmese ruby smuggler "putting his money where his mouth is."

If I understand Burmese internal affairs, the only gem from which the generals profit handsomely—at least $100 million per annum—is jade. That gem is definitely the general's cash crop (or should I say outcropping?). The reason is simple: It's hard to smuggle boulders out of a country; it's easy to smuggle out gem chips and slivers (see the photograph of the Burmese smuggler who has literally put his money—in the form of ruby rough—where his mouth is). So, in the case of jade, which is an easily controlled commodity, I can see the logic of a global boycott. However, since America is the epicenter of the gem boycott, and jade is principally an Asian delight, the boycott is, I’m afraid, all bark and no bite.

JADED APPETITES

Of course, miracles could happen. Trade pressure on China could ‘persuade’ that country’s numerous jade fetishists to stop buying this coveted gem. But let’s get serious. Jade is the gemological equivalent of crack cocaine in the Far East. That’s why China has long been accepting this gem in lieu of cash for repayment of Burma's enormous debt to its treasury. Anybody want to prod China into an embargo on jade? And shouldn’t such a campaign have preceded calls for an embargo? If the trade had threatened China with real sanctions such as shifting manufacturing to other countries, then, it strikes me, China would already be a boycott participant. And Chinese participation would do terrifically tangible good by starving the beast rather than its victims. Foregoing ruby, sapphire, spinel, peridot and moonstone purchases will do far less direct damage to the real enemy, the junta - other than increasing the misery of those it already has made miserable.

THE REAL RUBY CULPRITS

According to U.S. Customs and Irrawaddy, an influential on-line publication that focuses on Burma, America imports around $300 million worth of ruby annually. Most of it comes from Thailand, which is the main conduit for Burmese ruby. Keep in mind that at least 70% of all Burmese ruby is low-grade material gathered at Mongshu and sold for very little money to Thai dealers who then send it for gemological reclamation. This consists of putting borax-coated stones in furnaces which melt this powder and fill numerous cracks in the material with a hybrid substance that is part-glass and part-corundum. Voila, opaque and translucent stones become transparent stones. At the same time, oven cooking bakes out the stones' blue color core and leaves them a lovely purplish-red.

Panning for ruby and gems in Burma.

In short, it is rehabilitation in Thailand that gives Burmese ruby most of its value. Burmese gem smugglers, who would have to pay a 20% duty on stones if declared in their own country, know the only buyers for their goods are those with access to the alchemy that converts it from junk to gem. Of course, they are not paid based on the potential of stones to be transformed from ugly ducklings into swans. They are paid far less than they deserve—but far more than they would make in Burma. Now if the purpose of a boycott is to punish exploitative Thai dealers, then I'm all for it. But if the purpose is to hurt the military government of Burma, ceasing to buy ruby will only hurt those that the government subjugates—not the subjugators. To me, the idea that refusing to buy smuggled ruby strikes a blow against the generals shows just how misguided our understanding of Burma is. I think I could make a very persuasive case that buying from the smugglers, who risk life and limb to sell in Thailand, represents a significant show of support for one of the few successful forms of economic resistance in Burma. We certainly thought that way about buying lapis lazuli from Afghani smugglers during the Russian siege of that country. As a colleague with whom I discussed this letter put it, “The Burmese black market is sticking it to the Man.”

Okay, so how does the gem trade strike a meaningful blow to the generals? It’s simple. Pledge zero attendance at the Burma Gem Emporium jade auctions and other government-sponsored sales. A massive no-show will deprive the generals of at least $100 million a year. (This, I am told, is way too conservative a figure, especially since the Burmese government is upping the number of annual jade auctions.) If no one comes to the auctions, the figure could plunge to zero. But it will take planning and coordination on an international scale. So far, that has not happened. Until it does, the gem boycott cannot succeed. Here’s what I’d like to see happen.

If, as I hope, most Asian dealers belong to regional trade organizations, why not petition those organizations to encourage members to cease buying jade from Burma—at least for the time being. That would cause pain to people—mostly fat-cat generals in the jade business—who deserve to feel it. Depriving Burma’s military regime of the hundreds of millions of jade dollars it has long counted on for subsidy, if not survival, would deal a resounding blow while ruby abstinence at best would deal a slight pinch. One thing for sure, without undermining jade sales, the boycott is doomed.

But trade sanctions against jade are only the beginning of a campaign that could bring the Burmese generals to their knees. Let’s go one big, bold step farther with our boycott planning—and link up with other industries to create a cross-corporate web of resistance and solidarity.

Although $100 million is a hefty sum, it is far less than the estimated $200 to $450 million that Total, the French oil company which is the world’s fourth largest, pays the generals in annual royalty and concession costs to pump oil and gas out of Burma. After the partnership deal was signed in 1992, the generals used their first payment to buy 10 MIG fighters from Russia. In return, the generals supplied the French with slave labor to build a pipeline, conscripting local villagers for this work, and, ever since, have provided ongoing pipeline security. If you think Blackwater ‘Pinkertons’ in Iraq are brutal, check the record of the Burmese Army thugs who have been acting as Total’s private goon squad. It is precisely this kind of corporate behavior that encourages complacency among the Burmese generals—and indignation among France’s EU neighbors. Yet each time the EU tries to bring sanctions against Burma, the French government vetoed them.

In 2005, a massive corporate and consumer campaign against Total began in Europe. Dozens of banks and pension funds sold their stock in Total. Thousands of consumers refuse to gas up at Total stations. Slowly but surely, this campaign is meeting with success. Indeed, Unocal, Total’s U.S. Burma pipeline partner, has already settled out of court in a case brought against it for human rights violations in Burma. It is this kind of action that should be the model for a gem boycott. As things stand, I fear a gem boycott will have no other effect than to make us feel good. But is feeling good the same as doing good? Curiously, I see very little publicity given to this campaign against Total here in America.

Look, I feel as helpless and angry as every other person with a conscience about massive, unrelenting repression of human rights. I especially don't like shooting into crowds of chanting, unarmed Buddhist monks. Do you know that the military surrounded several major monasteries, raided them and beat hundreds of monks bloody, senseless and, in some cases, unconscious? Did you also know that when soldiers refused to take part in the beatings, they themselves were beaten by their commanders? It took acts like this to finally incense large masses of other Asians. There is talk in Thailand of making serious protests. Now comes the big question: What forms do those protests take?

Here in America, we have been asked to protest by not buying Burmese gems—primarily rubies. The symbolism of refraining from the purchase of blood-red rubies is delicious, no? But ruby, report dealers who regularly buy in Burma, is one of the most uncontrolled commodities in that country. That means the generals don't get anywhere near the normal share of the proceeds from commerce in this item. So not buying rubies seems to me counterproductive. We are asking working class people to starve for the goal of attaining freedom. Wouldn't it be better to say no to jade, which is under near-total government control? Unfortunately, that means organizing gem boycotts in places like Hong Kong and Singapore. Will the jewelry industry there join such actions? Don't hold your breath.

As a strong believer in the teaching power of history, let me tell you a cautionary tale about what happened when the U.S. government set the stage for the current ruby ban in 2003. As you'll remember, Congress passed a ban on imports of Burmese products, which Customs later weakened by allowing gems cut elsewhere to be regarded as exports from the processing country. Do you know what happened? The Thai dealers to whom the Burmese sell their gems told them they would have to give them less money for their stones because the Americans had banned Burmese gems and that would make it a lot harder to sell them. So all our ban did was to squeeze the peasant a little harder than before. That, I fear, is what the current ban will do--just provide the Thai, Chinese and Indian dealers who will rush to take the place of Americans a new excuse to pay less.

Can you understand now why I am rethinking my personal support of the Burma gem ban? Ordinarily, editors are not supposed to become advocates. But since there has been no real informed debate on a movement as momentous as the Burma Gem Boycott, I feel I have to start that process. Let me assure you that as Editor-in-Chief of Colored Stone it will remain my duty to report on the ban from BOTH sides. I'll continue to do my level-headed best to present the full reality and complexity of this situation. But new nuances of understanding, based on deeper inspection of the Burmese political and economic situation, lead me to suspect that the gem ban asks the wrong people—at both ends of the distribution chain—to make needless sacrifices: miners and consumers.

I think it would be far better to identify the corporations and companies who most benefit from dealings with the generals and force every pension fund, brokerage house and equity seller to stop trading in their stock; in conjunction with this, we could get consumer groups to blacklist their products and services. That would humble and hobble the military regime. Each time someone divests themselves of Total stock, the Burma regime takes a big kidney punch. And each time a car with its gas gauge on empty passes a Total gas pump, Total feels a tightening hammer lock. Now that's a boycott.

Splendid Jade.

Aung San Suu Kyi, Burma's elected president under house arrest since the early 1990s, supports gem boycotts. She sees them as part of a rightful moral remonstrance. So do I. But I think we must be more selective about the gems we decide not to buy. Start with jade. In fact, stigmatize the gem for its important role in sustaining Burma’s military junta. Next, get the auction houses to stop offering it in Hong Kong and elsewhere (even if stones predate the junta). Once the auction houses join the boycott, it has a real chance of succeeding.

But boycotting rubies no longer makes sense to me.

In talking with Burma travelers and traders, I have reached new conclusions about ruby supply. Yes, the lion's share of material comes from Mongshu in Burma. But the recent influx of lead glass-filled ruby suggests that East Africa and Madagascar are playing major roles in supplying the market. And since pinpointing origin is costly and time-consuming, and the results often questionable, I don't think we can effectively segregate Burmese from African goods. That means a ruby boycott would have to be comprehensive. So Africans as well as Burmese get hurt. They’re already hurting enough. They don’t need the final straw of a right-hearted but wrong-minded boycott to add to their pain.

If we want to stand up for Burma, we need to stand up to the corporations which make deals with the government to control Burmese commodities. This has as much to do with capitalism as conscience. You don't fight fire-breathing dragons with blankets or even swords. You fight them with fire hoses. We can put this fire out once and for all. The best weapon is sanctions voluntarily imposed by financial markets.

Well, I've had my say. Now it's your turn. Comments and rebuttals are welcome. If nothing else, let constructive and informed dialogue begin. Colored Stone will facilitate any kind of truly comprehensive and representative forum.

Respectfully,

David Federman, Editor-in-Chief
Colored Stone

This was also sent out to our Colored Stone E-News mailing list members as an e-mail news blast. Want to receive the latest up-to-date information on the gemstone industry? Sign up for our Colored Stone E-News mailing list here.

November/December 2007 • Doctored Emeralds Raise Questions • An Open Letter Jewelry Industry Regarding the Burma Gem Boycott • Jewelry Industry Boycott of Burmese Gems Gains Momentum • Update on Irradiated Blue Topaz: Now What?