[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
A case for Investment in Burma
- Subject: A case for Investment in Burma
- From: nin@xxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 00:53:00
A Case for Investment in Burma
==============================
by Marilyn van der Heyden
The International Herald Tribune
6 Feb. 1997
Let s face it. The problem of Burma is really much deeper,
less simple and more international than most people assume.
Bypassing the superficial and simplistic levels, constructive
engagement has been tried (in good faith?) and has failed.
It is now badly discredited and has been called increasingly
bizarre .
It is generally accepted that the Slorc is reprehensible and
change and peace are necessary. The debate between human rights
and Slorc's violent intransigence (condoned by its apologists)
begins to seem like a dispute between intelligent, sensible
compassion and senseless, stupid brutality. But there s another,
more thoughtful debate: Pro-democracy human rights groups
demand to isolate Burma and pressure the international pariah
Slorc to step down, or at least open a dialog with NLD and
insurgents (NN. so-called). But more conservative businessmen
insist: Sincere friendship and promises of rewards will encourage
the Myanmar government to change and open up. Isolation is
counter-productive and may make Slorc worse. Good business
and economic progress will help and result in political development,
democracy and prosperity for (almost) all. ASEAN to the rescue, but
politically, we will not interfere.
Interfere is A SMEAR WORD! contrived to associate human rights
issues with rude, intrusive violation of privacy, knowing how
offensive it is to east Asian Values . Isolation evokes
memory of unworldly folly that failed before WWII. Unocal,
Total and Mitsubishi are major investors in Slorc and promote
this propaganda to resist international pressure and criticism.
They even have professional lawyers composing articulate, fortified,
anti-sanction, pro-investment arguments. Sanctions are
counterproductive. They hurt people, not regimes. Consider nearly
four decades of failed U.S. sanctions against Cuba and other
countries [i.e. Libya, Vietnam, Iran, Iraq]....their leaders
remain entrenched, *says a lawyerly article signed by Unocal's
president.
Aside from the question of what use constructive engagement is,
THE COMPARISON with BURMA does not apply. None of these regimes has
A STRONG!, ACTIVE!, ORGANIZED!, INTERNAL POSITION!, an internationally
famous, charismatic, courageous opposition leader like AUNG SAN SUU
KYI, Nobel Peace Prize laureate and DIPLOMATIC GENIUS!, daughter
of the LATE ANTI_FASCIST MARYR Gen. AUNG SAN.
Historically, sanctions are essentially seiges and most sieges were
successful. Recent examples of successful sanctions are Nepal and
South Africa. (Not to say the declining old Nelson Mandela still
stands by his previous noble principals. He's changed to a fatigued
and mercenary resignation in his crumbling years.) Lately, the Slorc
has been extremely insecure. But however unpopular, unwanted and
hated, they are very actively supported in secret by their allies
in China, Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia.
"ASEAN really means birds of a feather... ." The dictators Suharto
and Ne Win are very close friends and clearly act like regional
godfathers. Slorc also avoids early bankrupcy by its highly evident
involvement in the drug trade. Khun Sa and other war lords live in
luxury, impunity and safety, while illicit money laundering accounts
for a large part of Slorc s mysteriously large income, and 45%(NN: keep
rising to reach 65%) of the national budget goes to the military. To
call the problems mere national, internal affairs is another
ABSURD MYTH!. International sanctions will thwart Slorc's survival
tactics and are an alternative to "open warfare". It is the only way to
teach Slorc lessons in civilized conduct.