A couple of years ago, my friend Susan and I spent three weeks in Burma (now Myanmar). Before we went, we discovered that the US Government has sanctions against the repressive Burmese government and that we would not be able to bring anything back from our trip. At best, any items that we purchased would be confiscated. At worst, we would be fined or even jailed.
During the trip, we really struggled with this injunction. We saw first-hand how the sanctions hurt the people at the lowest levels of the economy—the craftspeople, the tribal artisans, and the poor selling trinkets on the street. We questioned our government’s tactics which give the Burmese despots an easy target to blame for their country’s economic and social woes.
Without a doubt, the Burmese military government is frightening. We saw that when the hurricane hit there a couple of years ago and the government wouldn’t let foreign relief workers into the country. Yet, everywhere we went, people at the lower levels spoke to us about how evil and greedy their leaders are. I was surprised at their willingness to talk because I have aided Burmese political asylees in Phoenix who had to flee for their very lives for speaking out and who can never go home again or even contact their families in Burma for fear of endangering them.
Over and over Susan and I talked about which is the greater evil—breaking our government’s laws by smuggling into the US a few small souvenirs or, not sharing our abundance with the poor that need it so badly. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, “An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.” These words echoed in my mind all during the trip.
Susan is a lawyer. She opted for adhering to the law. I am a seminary student. I bought a couple of small things and smuggled them into the US. As an artist, I felt I had to give some support for local crafts people.
The irony of it all was that the customs agents in LA, who are notorious for being tough, didn’t even ask questions, didn’t search our luggage, and seemed bored with it all. We wondered what happened to the Americans we saw in Yangon (formerly Rangoon) who were buying lots of stuff. Probably they sailed through customs as we did.
What would you have done? Whose ethical position is right? Who is hurt most by our federal sanctions? Couldn’t there be a better way? One of the things we talked about in our first ethics class was how important it was to stay at the table and continue to talk even when we thought the other side was evil. Why is it so hard for our government to do that? Why are we always right and the other side always wrong. I have pictures of craftspeople working at sandalwood carving, basket making, and creating pottery. I wonder if they have had money for food today.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
In reading this I am immediately reminded of Desmond Tutu who begged for international economic sanctions against the apartheid South African government for years. He heard many of the same arguments against them but still thought they were one of the best "non-violent" means of bringing that governement to its knees. Just food for thought from someone who has lived through a similar situation.
ReplyDeleteJudy --
ReplyDeleteIf your main goal was to support the local artisans, couldn't you have made your purchases and then donated them somewhere locally before you left the country or just left them there? Of course, I am ignorant of the conditions and particular circumstances, so perhaps it would have been embarrassing and/or embarrassingly obvious. Certainly, you would prefer to have the items here, with you, but at least you would have been able to offer some means of support for the local artisans, without concern for breaking the law.
Patti, of course you're right. Disposal would have been tricky but not impossible. Maids in hotels, for instance, are not supposed to remove things from the trash but temptation is there. I chose to break the law because I believe the law is wrong. Jimmy McCarty said (above) that Desmond Tutu asked for sanctions. And yet, in country after country we've seen that sanctions don't necessarily hurt the wealthy rulers at the top of the government. Witness Cuba and Burma. Certainly Desmond Tutu is wiser and more worldly than I. But nevertheless, I disagree with him and I was willing to be publically disobedient as a result.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking as Christian I am reminded of the Jesus birth story. Because Mary was pregnant out of wedlock, Joseph had every right of the Law to stone her to death or to abandon her to the streets. God's love was exercised instead. So I agree with Judy and with Patti. There is way to circumvent the secular law to share God's love.
ReplyDeleteYou just have to want to!
There are more than a few issues brought to the table in this article. There are issues concerning the relationship between the U.S. and Burmese government, the economic structure of the Burmese people, the contribution U.S. tourist can make to Burmese people, and lastly the idea of justified lawbreakers. While I understand the message that Martin Luther King sent when he said, “ An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.” I do not see the connection between MLK’s comment and secretly smuggling products from Burma into the U.S. Martin Luther King’s actions were an attempt to hold the government accountable to a law that was already established and agreed upon by the American people, he wasn’t trying to break the law, he was trying to make sure that the law was implemented and applicable to all people. Also, he didn’t do it in secrete! He raised awareness. Smuggling artifacts from Burma is not an implementation of what MLK was talking about it was simply breaking the law. Nothing more nothing less.
ReplyDeleteJudy, thank you for your post. While reading this writing, I came up with Jesus’ saying that “The Sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27).”
ReplyDeleteJesus knew the law of the Old Testament well and observed it well. He went to the synagogue and taught about the Old Testament on the Sabbath. Keeping the Sabbath was the fourth one of the Ten Commandments. But Jesus was not restricted by that because He knew that people is more important than the law. So he cured those who suffer from diseases, breaking the Sabbath rule. Likewise, today’s law was also made for human, not human for the law. Of course, we should observe the law, but sometimes we may be faced with some situations in which we break the law for the people like Jesus. So, I understand your deed.
A very well written article. I have to say though I am a strong proponent of abiding by the law. With that said I must say I have mixed feelings about sanctions. Sanctions often punish the innocent population and not the regime. Iraq is a prime example.Sanctions should be very limited to essentials for the regime and not the people. Good question is who votes on these sanctions. The few and the elite who can veto any United Nations resolution?
ReplyDeleteThank you very much, Judy, for providing more information and raising our awareness of the Burmese situation. In reading your essay and the responses, I would also say that a discernment and clarification of your goal(s) was needed. If it was to simply the noble desire of sharing money, then, the previous response of buying the articles and then gifting them to others before departing the country would work fine. The drawback would be that the help would be limited. Of course, sometimes that is a simple fact of life; we can only help the person in front of us at the time. Finding and working with organizations seeking to help those in need in Myanmar would be a logical next step upon arrival back home.
ReplyDeleteIf the goal was to call attention to the situation in Burma, then you would need to break the law and have a very public arrest and prolonged outcry to call attention to your cause. Smuggling the articles in quietly wouldn’t do the trick. Also, even if you managed to get yourself arrested, from what you described, I’m not sure you would garner the needed publicity and support you’re seeking. Sadly, the plight of Myanmar just isn’t on the average American’s “radar” that much and is in competition for attention with a whole host of other issues, including the staggering economy. Again, working with activist groups seeking to help the people of Myanmar and change policy here would probably be more effective.
I wanted to applaud you for actions. I agree with what you did, I would probably have done the same thing. Even though there are many laws and rules out there does not mean they are correct.
ReplyDeleteYou felt that it was right to support the people of Burma who likely suffer the most because of its government. Most of the government in countries like that only look out for themselves and leave their people to live in poverty. By your actions if you were able to help one person eat for that day then you did the right thing in my opinion .