[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

Free Burma!! (r)



/* Written  3:55 pm  Feb 20, 1994 by wcsbeau@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx in igc:soc.cult.burma */
/* ---------- "Free Burma!!" ---------- */
In article <761469371.AA01208@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Alan Dawson <alan.dawson@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>O>Did anyone suggest SLORC would collapse if PetroCan left Burma?  No,
>O>merely that SLORC would have less money to buy arms & pay off
>
>SLORC has *enough* money to buy arms and buy loyalty. With or without
>PetroCan. This we know. Is there any reason to believe a Pepsico
>pullout would change *enough* into *not enough*? If not, is there a
>list of companies to go after one by one, and at the end of that
>process do we (you) believe *enough* will have changed into *not
>enough*?
>
>Those aren't rhetorical questions. I'm interested in the answers.

Does SLORC have enough money without foreign investment?  That is the
question - that campaigns have to target specific businesses should
not make us lose sight of the fact that we are ultimately hoping to
discourage investment in Burma in general.  PetroCan alone would not
be enough, but PetroCan's departure gives SLORC that much less
money, and hurts their bargaining position against other oil firms;
PetroCan's departure is part of a bigger picture and a bigger plan.

The news reports I've read over the last few years have consistently
suggested that Western investment plays an important role in keeping
SLORC in power - not just through money, but through legitimizing
SLORC's claim that it's dictatorship is needed to secure Burma's
prosperity.  Most recently, the *Globe and Mail* ran an editorial on
Feb.16 which said, in part: "Having all but run out of teak and gems
to sell, the government is seeking new revenues in the form of foreign
investment and trade.  This gives the international community some
influence."

According to one item which ran soon after PepsiCo arrived in Burma:
"While the motives of the multi-nationals are undoubtedly economic,
some Western political analysts believe that a spate of joint ventures
has given the military the cash it needs to strengthen its firm grip
on opposition factions.
          "'In 1988, Burma had only about US$20 million... in foreign
reserves and a $4 billion overseas debt.  But yes, it does seem to
have a lot more money available to it now,' admitted a Rangoon
diplomat." [*South China Morning Post*, "Big Business Bankrolls
Rangoon", May 1990]

Perhaps I should mail you one of those info-packs after all, since 
part of it is devoted to the argument for corporate withdrawal and
boycotts.  Others have argued this issue far better than I can - they,
after all, work on Burmese issues full time.


>To tell the truth, I'm fairly close to Burma geographically, I read
>the papers every day, I'm fairly but semi-interested in SLORC's Burma
>as kind of a worst-case, nearby dictatorship, and I get roughly an
>inch of clippings on Burma from a wide variety of sources including
>Rangoon Radio every month. I WRITE about SLORC's horribleness in very
>public (and dare I say influential?) places, although my name doesn't
>appear on those articles. Despite that, I'd never heard PetroCan was
>in, or that PetroCan had got out of, Burma. Nor had the editors (who
>get the credit/blame for my great/awful writing) who I talk to about
>what to write, and when to write it.

Given that PetroCan is a (relatively) small oil firm which limits its 
marketing to Canada and which is owned by the Cdn govt, the lack of 
coverage outside Canada is not surprising.  In Canada, however,
PetroCan's departure got Burma a lot of coverage; it was
through that campaign that I - like many here - first heard any
detailed information about Burma's present struggle.

[snip]
>O>I think it was Flesch who first wrote about "hopefully" being an
>O>adaptation of the German word "hoffentlich"; he was talking about
>O>English's flexibility.  (No, I can't be bothered to look for a cite.)
>
>A minor joke, and semi-attempt at some mild levity. My apologies if
>it came across seriously. I don't flame people on their grammar in
>serious discussions. Except serious discussions about grammar of
>course. '-)

Remember, on the Net, no one can hear you smile.


Reid Cooper