The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil,
but because of those who look on and do nothing. –Albert Einstein

Published November/December 2007

By Stuart M. Robertson, GG

In late August, Buddhist monks numbering in the hundreds, joined pro-democracy activists in protesting hardships faced by the greater population of Myanmar (herein after identified in this article by its proper name Burma) due to the government economic policies. The final straw appears to have been a reported 500% increase in fuel costs, levied against the impoverished population. By September, the demonstrations were more numerous and taking place in Burma’s major cities. The monks, dressed in traditional saffron colored robes, marched peacefully down streets lined with supporters. With each day the number of protestors grew, but so did concerns for their safety. Although the monks are revered in Burmese culture, the military junta headed by Senior General Than Shwe has demonstrated little tolerance for protests throughout the junta’s reign. Its violent suppression of democratic and humanitarian principles is well documented.

In 1988 demonstrations against the government culminated in a bloody crackdown that left thousands of protesters dead. Government forces, with bands of government paid thugs, began shooting and clubbing the demonstrators to stamp out the demonstrations. That incident is weighing heavily on the minds of international observers of the present day situation. Yet, the Burmese people take to the streets in protest motivated by a desire for an elusive freedom that many in the U.S. take for granted. Burma is a powder keg, waiting for the fuse to be lit.

The I-Net Age
In this age of internet enabled instant news access, it is increasingly difficult for despot governments like the military junta to deny their atrocities. In the past, the Burmese government could filter the news through the state run media. Today however, due in large part to the internet, private citizens can be “reporters.” Recently, cable news showed video footage of police beating and rounding up peaceful demonstrators. In a particularly haunting image, a man stood, his hands clenched tightly around his head and face as an officer clubbed him while other officers stood by with rifles drawn. Other incidents observed by amateur reporters described protestors including Monks being beaten and shot. Cell phone cameras clicked images of blood soaked sandals or a piece of cloth from a robe where protestors once marched. Other disturbing events were captured on video and released for the world to see.

An apprentice monk poses for a photograph near the ancient Burmese city of Bagan. Photo: Robert Weldon

On September 27, 2007, Japanese photojournalist Kenji Nagai was filming a protest near the Sule Pagoda in the capital city of Yangon (Rangoon) when soldiers descended on the group. As Nagai filmed the unrest, a soldier walked up to him and shot him at point blank range. The junta’s official version of the incident stated that Nagai was likely struck by a stray bullet. However, the official version was exposed when video filmed by another spectator, apparently taken using a cell phone camera, was uploaded to the internet. The video clearly showed a soldier walk up to Nagai and shoot him and then walked away leaving him to die in the street. Soon the footage was being viewed around the world as one more example of the repressive society, absent even the most basic human rights, in which the Burmese live.

After other incriminating videos of the crackdown surfaced, the junta cut internet and phone service within the nation. Hotels have been raided and foreigners suspected of being journalists or working with journalists have “disappeared.” At press time, the Burmese government put the death toll of the month-long protests at ten. However, on October 3, 2007, U.S. deputy assistant secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Scot Marciel, said in a statement before the Senate Foreign Relations committee that, “The exact number of causalties suffered over the past several days in Burma is not clear and unfortunately may never be known. The regime admits to only ten deaths. The true number of fatalities is likely many times that number.” Unofficial news accounts trickling out of Burma with the thousands of people fleeing to Thailand, report that thousands of monks and pro-democracy protesters have vanished. Witnesses state that troops have been raiding towns at night and rounding up people suspected of being part of the pro-democracy movement and hauling them away.

This was no surprise to me. My limited experience researching repressive dictatorships in central and south America told me that the early days of this protest–when Burmese forces seemed tolerant of the demonstrations–were merely an opportunity for government forces to identify and document the leadership of the protests for future retribution. If history is any indicator, many of the “organizers” of September’s pro-democracy demonstrations are now dead or worse, are being psychologically reprogrammed.

Political change, if and when it comes to Burma, will likely result from demonstrations within the country. External pressures may assist in this process but will not cause it. Civil war as we understand it is unlikely as the junta's security forces number 400,000, sufficient to repel an uprising of its people.

The illegal government of Burma operates with impunity. Today the global community raises objections as it has in the past, but too often this has amounted to little more than lip service. However, this time observers familiar with this decades-long struggle see hope. During his September 26, 2007 address to the United Nations General Assembly, President Bush expressed outrage over the crisis in Burma. The president vowed further action and continued support of humanitarian relief groups operating in that country. One action that is reportedly being eyed is the possibility of further tightening of sanctions against members of the junta and their financial backers.

Burma is also hearing from its neighbors. In stark contrast to past inaction, the ASEAN–Association of Southeast Asian Nations (of which Myanmar is a member) issued a statement critical of Myanmar’s political situation and calling on the junta to show restraint in dealing with protestors. These comments were viewed in Washington as a major indicator that ASEAN is quickly losing patience with Burma’s ruling hardliners. Burma’s main trading partners, China and India, have also criticized the junta, but have stopped short of imposing sanctions. Some feel that with Beijing, China hosting the Olympics in 2008, the time is right to pressure China to take a more active role in condemning Burma’s government. However, China’s continued involvement with other despot regimes including those in the Sudan suggest otherwise.

Traffic: Massive hikes in the cost of gasoline were the initial cause for the recent protests in Burma. Many people in rural areas still use primitive methods of transportation. Photo: Robert Weldon

Elections
In 1990, the ruling military junta allowed elections in Burma. But, when the votes were counted, the party of pro-democracy candidate and reformer Aung San Suu Kyi won in a landslide. The junta refused to relinquish power; instead Suu Kyi was arrested. Since then Suu Kyi has spent most of the past 16 years confined to house arrest or imprisoned, but never tried. Her peaceful protests for democracy and human rights have continued. In 1991 she was awarded the Noble Peace Prize. Today, like thousands of other Burmese political prisoners, she remains held in confinement.

Aung San Suu Kyi has asked the international community to boycott trade with Myanmar in an effort to encourage change toward democracy. The belief is that a boycott would help to starve the ruling junta to the negotiation table. Suu Kyi’s wish is to see accountability and transparency in the government–something that has not existed during the forty plus years of military government. International observers including the U.N. and Amnesty International have a long list of human rights violations that they hang on the junta, not the least of which is the use of an estimated eight to ten million men, women and children as forced laborers on construction projects and “hospitality” services in efforts to boost tourism and international trade in Burma.

Shades of Grey
In 2003, the Bush administration imposed economic sanctions against Burma. The move was highly symbolic as the U.S. does not really conduct much trade with Burma. That is with one notable exception–gemstones–and even that is not a clear-cut case as most Burmese gems have a layover in Thailand before the flight west. To the dismay of many in the human rights community as well as those working to promote the fledgling fair trade initiatives in the gemstone industry, large U.S. gem dealers and jewelry trade groups lobbied the U.S. Customs Service for exemptions to the embargo. Their desire was for materials originating in Burma but cut elsewhere to be excluded. This gave the appearance of sanctioning Burma, while in fact doing virtually nothing. For all practical purposes, the embargo was a toothless tiger at least for the gem trade.

Most but not all Burmese gems exported to the U.S. are cut and sold in Thailand. Last year dozens of American buyers attended Burma government-sponsored gem sales. They then transport the gems to Thailand where they are exported to the U.S. This may comply with the letter of the current U.S. law, but it clearly skirts around its spirit. Is America’s gem trade involvement with the politically connected friends of General Shwe’s repressive regime giving birth to a new trade issue–“blood ruby?”

A Burmese watermelo vendor and her daughter at a temple near Mandalay. Photo: Robert Weldon.

Sensing Blood
On October 5, 2007, CNN broadcast a story on Burma’s gem trade. The story referenced “blood rubies” and notes that Burma’s gem trade has put an unofficially estimated $750 million into the pockets of the ruling generals. Viewers were informed that the U.S. gem industry benefitted from a “loophole large enough to drive a truck through” that allows stones mined in Burma, but cut elsewhere, to be sold in the U.S. The story notes that some in Washington would like to close that loophole and ban gems mined in Burma regardless of where they are faceted.

Some retailers are not waiting for the government to close the loophole, they are closing it themselves. On October 5, 2007, famed jeweler Cartier issued a statement citing the current crisis in Burma as reason that they have suspended acquisition of all gems mined in Burma regardless of where cut or exported from. According to the statement, Cartier has instructed suppliers to confirm in writing that all gemstones provided to the firm are sourced outside Burma. The firm says it will randomly select gems to be analyzed to verify supplier claims of origin. This position is similar to the self-imposed embargo of gems mined in Burma that Tiffany & Co. has maintained as policy since 2003.

On October 9, 2007, Jewelers of America, a trade organization representing 11,000 member stores, issued an advisory statement to it members detailing its “deep concern about the current unrest in Burma and its military government longstanding human rights violation.” Among the recommendations outlined for its membership, JA has recommended that members request written assurances from suppliers that they will not knowingly supply gem products mined in Burma. The release quotes Jewelers of America CEO, Matthew A. Runci, “JA members believe it is their responsibility to support and respect the protection of international human rights within their sphere of influence and to make sure the sourcing of gemstones is not complicit in human rights abuses, in line with the commitments they assume as members of Jewelers of America. These commitments include adherence to the principles of U.N. Global Compact, which JA has agreed to support.” JA advocates that the Congress amend the Burmese Freedom & Democracy Act of 2003 to extend the Burma embargo to include gemstones mined in that country.

Further Sanctions
In the wake of media coverage of the struggles in Burma, Americans are being exposed to the plight of the Burmese people. One of the most outspoken voices on the crisis in Burma is the First Lady, Laura Bush. She is advocating the immediate end to human rights violations and recognition of the democratic process. The first lady, like a growing number of celebrities, is directing her message to the American people. It is the people that can wield a potent weapon in this effort, through their dual role as consumers. Consumer response will ultimately dictate trade actions. In 2005, Robert Weldon, then Senior Writer for Professional Jeweler, addressed this point in his article “Myanmar–The Whispering Land.” Weldon alluded to the fact that “educated consumers are increasingly concerned about buying gems that directly or indirectly support unsavory regimes, wars or terrorists.” Public pressure is mounting on Burma, as the atrocities continue today and may play out in the news in the coming months or even years.

Myanmar and the Gem Trade
Last year the sale of gemstones at the government sponsored gem emporiums totaled more than $225 million according to an unofficial tally posted on Palagems.com. (Most sources agree that the actual numbers are likely much higher.) In 2005 that number was about $77 million and in 2003, that number was just over $40 million. According to Burmese government statistics published by the Xinhua News Service for the year 2006, Burma produced 13,700 tons of jadeite and 14.5 million carats of gemstones during the first three quarters of the year. Gem mining is lucrative for the Burmese government which taxes sales and also has a partnership status in all licensed mines. Mining ventures are basically 50/50 partnerships between the government and, in many cases, politically connected private sector. These include jadeite and to a lesser extent ruby, sapphire, peridot, spinel, garnets, pearls, and topaz.

Critics of the embargo claim that ultimately sales of Burmese gems aid the anti-government rebels. That is true, but not to the extent that it was in the past. As stated earlier, the junta has a greater presence in the mining area. Independent jeweler Brian Leber, who has been active in addressing human rights issues that relate to the gemstone and jewelry industry, has been monitoring the situation in Burma for years. In 2002, Leber stopped dealing in any gem product mined in Burma. Brian told the GMN, “At present the Burmese military government holds a majority share in every gemstone mining project, issues all relevant licenses and permits, as well as runs the gem auctions held in Rangoon.” As for the claims that anti-government forces are the true beneficiaries of the gem trade, Leber responds, “As part of the regime’s wider goal of suppressing the ethnic minorities of Burma through efforts akin to ethnic cleaning, a significant focus has been made on the border regions to prevent the smuggling of precious gemstones by non-government parties.”

Longtime GemGuide advisor Bill Larson knows Burma. He believes that the government crackdown on the demonstrators will be its eventual undoing. Larson told GMN, “The junta committed public relations suicide when they attacked the Monks. It should bring them down sooner than later.” But Larson is concerned that the western gem trade, in its desire to condemn the generals for atrocities against the Burmese people, may be about to shoot ourselves in the foot. “The junta’s money derived from gems is 99.9% from jadeite rough sold to China. Their revenue from gems is a fraction of a percent. The sanctions have the potential to affect only the fraction of a percent represented by colored gemstones. It will have zero affect on the majority of revenue from the jade.” But the issue that Bill fears is being overlooked is this, “The more we try to stop Burmese gems from coming to the western world, larger looms the China influence there. Burma will become like Tibet, a Chinese province.” The GMN asked Larson about the perception that government controls all gem mining. He disputes that assessment of the trade. “The colored stone dealers tend to be pro-west capitalists. They are small scale producers, many of whom I know.”

Gem dealer Bear Williams of Bear Essentials agrees. “There are those in the country of Burma that are not associated with the junta who rely on the sale of their goods to keep their families, and entire villages going.” Bear does not believe that they are tied to the government. There would be no small scale mining if they were. Nor would they have the desire to risk everything traveling to Thailand with their goods. “Only the cream-of-the-crop goods are distributed through the generals ‘auctions,’ and those are mostly sold in the Middle East, Europe or upper echelon society here in the U.S.,” according to Williams.
Burma’s top exports are oil, timber and gemstones. China is the main consumer of the first two. Today, gem rough sold in Burma benefits the junta, but to what extent, I am not sure. Both Leber and Larson make compelling arguments in support of very different approaches to this issue. Can both be right? To a certain extent yes, we are dealing in shades of grey.

The old habit of smoking a "cheroot" remains strong among older Burmese women, such as this lady sitting in a doorway at a temple near Mandalay. Photo: Robert Weldon.

The True Value of Gems
For me at least, there are few careers as challenging and as rewarding as that of a gemologist. But that career is wasted if one spends all their time at a desk hunched over a microscope. Several years ago, my friend and colleague Richard Hughes gave me an invaluable piece of advice. It went something like this. “Go overseas. Go to the source, experience what this business is really about and maybe even see a stone or three.” Several overseas adventures later, I understand what he meant. In reality, diamonds, rubies or whatever kind of gem–it does not matter–are merely rocks. Yes, pretty rocks born of some really cool laws of chemistry and geology, but rocks nonetheless. Their value is not an absolute. It depends on the intangibles. The value is symbolic–it is based on people and cultures from once far away lands. It is the result of the centuries of lore, romance and cultural mystique that is forever intertwined with each country, each deposit, and each miner or cutter that was ever captivated by the stone’s intrigue. Destroy that connection and one destroys the true value. After all, did ivory stop being ivory when the national geographic started showing the horrors of entire elephants herds–mother and baby alike–being shot down in Africa just to harvest it? No, but its social and economic value did decline sharply in the U.S. and abroad. Ivory’s illusion of beauty was shattered by this ugly reality. Not convinced this is so? Well tell me, is harp seal fur on your gift list this year? Social and economic value is the foundation of the gem industry. That point is too often lost on people that handle these products, but do not realize what a privilege it is to do so.

Change
The situation in Burma is a tragic one. What can we as an industry do about that? Should the U.S. gem industry, or actually the world for that matter, boycott Burmese gems? To do so would certainly cut a huge chunk of revenue out from under the military junta. But it would also effect the bottom-line for many gemstone firms. Burma is a prolific producer of corundum. Nearly 90% of gem quality ruby is mined there. So, the question does affect more lives than those in Burma, lest we forget the Thai laborers that depend on income derived from cutting these stones.

Yet, it seems clear that this industry can make a difference. We no longer have the luxury of looking the other way on the plight of the culturally diverse population of Burma or any other gem producing nation. Tough actions today could help Burma and in such, enhance the trade of Burmese gems in the future. Public perception will ultimately dictate trade just as it has reshaped countless other industries including the fur and ivory trades.

Sure there will always be a segment of the population that is willing to deny the existence of these horrific events or spin them in a manner convenient to their financial needs. That is one of the frailties of human nature. But generosity is one of its virtues.

I wish I had the answer. But I do not. Each of us will have to check our own moral compass in deciding what action to take. However, I must admit I am still disturbed by the image of that man, arms up around his head, trying to deflect the officer blows. I can’t help but think that if a man is going to stand up to a heavily armed, corrupt, oppressive military regime while armed only with his faith and a desire to be free, he must not be allowed to stand alone.

Back to Previous Page