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

A case for Investment in Burma



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.