[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
WHO ARE HURT BY US SANCTIONS AGAINS (r)
Subject: Re: WHO ARE HURT BY US SANCTIONS AGAINST BURMA?
Is this the same Dobbs-Higginson named in the Peregrine suit against
Miriam Marshall Siegel? I know that she lost a judgement for several
million dollars. What about Dobbs-Higginson? Does anyone have an update
on this case?
LD
On 9 May 1997 moe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: moe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Julien Moe)
> Subject: WHO ARE HURT BY US SANCTIONS AGAINST BURMA?
>
> Who are hurt by US sanctions against Myanmar
>
>
> By M. S. Dobbs-Higginson
>
> BY IMPOSING sanctions on any new investment in Myanmar by American
> corporations, the United States government has made yet another
> bumbling attempt to
> take the high moral ground.
>
> Myanmar's military government will not be cowed. Whereas previously, it was
> concerned about US views and made some effort to take them into
> account, with this
> action, the US has lost all its leverage and will now largely be ignored.
>
> What is the story behind these sanctions?
>
> Early last year, Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican Senator for
> Kentucky, in an
> attempt to embarrass President Bill Clinton for being too soft on
> countries with human
> rights abuses (for example, China) and to develop a stronger profile
> with the human
> rights and liberal voters, put forward a very harsh Bill for sanctions
> against Myanmar.
>
> This was rejected subsequently in favour of a much watered down Bill,
> put forward
> jointly by Mr William Cohen, then the Republican Senator for Maine,
> (now Secretary
> of Defence) and Ms Diana Fienstein, Democratic Senator for California.
>
> This Bill was signed into law on Oct 1 last year, after the Clinton
> administration revised
> it so that it could only be activated if there was a material increase
> in the Myanmar
> government's "level of repression".
>
> Recently, Mr Clinton staked a great deal in getting the Chemical Weapon
> Ban Treaty
> approved. There was considerable initial opposition in the Senate
> concerning a number
> of loopholes, particularly Article 10.
>
> Given this and given the McConnell/Clinton power confrontation,
> Secretary of State
> Madeleine Albright made a surprise announcement on April 22, saying
> that sanctions
> would be imposed on Myanmar and that the relevant Executive Order would be
> forthcoming shortly.
>
> This was done in order to send a message to Mr McConnell and his allies
> before they
> participated in the Senate debate on this treaty on the same Tuesday
> evening.
>
> That this was the case is supported by the fact that it is highly
> unusual to announce
> something of this magnitude without having all the details worked out
> and the Executive
> Order prepared for the President to sign at the same time. In the
> event, the Senate
> voted to ratify the treaty.
>
> Where does this lead?
>
> In my view, it leads to real economic sanctions being imposed on the
> American people
> instead -- through the US business community, now being deprived of
> participation in
> the last economic opportunity in Asia of any meaningful dimension.
>
> This could lead to a more inward looking US and, in turn and by
> extension, a lessening
> of the important and welcome US involvement in the security issues of
> the Asian Pacific
> region.
>
> Most US voters have little clue about where Myanmar actually is
> geographically, let
> alone have any direct knowledge of what is happening there.
>
> Thus, the US administration can, with effective impunity, make Myanmar
> a sacrificial
> lamb for its own ends.
>
> It justifies its actions with such statements as "dangerous and
> disappointing direction of
> large-scale repression" without feeling the need to show any hard and
> substantial
> evidence.
>
> While it also correctly states that the Myanmar government "has closed
> political party
> offices (which were inciting civil disturbances) arrested demonstrators
> (despite laws
> prohibiting demonstrations), and harassed and intimidated those
> expressing democratic
> principles, it conveniently ignores the fact that most of the world's
> countries are guilty of
> such actions, many on a much larger scale.
>
> Where are the sanctions against such countries? Overall, the result is
> to make the US
> government look foolish, incompetent, inconsistent and bullying --
> hardly the
> superpower role model it wishes to offer the rest of the world.
>
> The considerable energy and cost expended by the various human rights
> and liberal
> groups in the US could be re-directed more usefully towards resolving
> some of the US'
> domestic problems -- such as crime.
>
> According to a 1996 US Justice Department report, the "price of
> violence and crime"
> in the US cost the US taxpayers an estimated US$500 billion (S$700
> billion) in 1995.
>
> The US business community could also usefully take its own government
> to task over
> its constantly vacillating for eign policy.
>
> With this confusion, it is not surprising that special interest groups
> have a field day
> exploiting it.
>
> State and municipal governments are setting their own foreign policy.
> For instance, the
> state of Massachusetts refused to award contracts to any company
> (national or
> international) doing business with Myanmar and is now considering
> including Indonesia.
>
> All this is exacerbated by the US government's attempts to extend
> internationally the
> territorial reach of its domestic laws, as in the Helms-Burton Act
> which, in certain
> circumstances, punishes foreign companies and executives for doing
> business with
> Cuba.
>
> This, in turn, results in the rest of the world becoming increasingly
> concerned about
> having US businesses involved in their countries and of having business
> assets in the
> US.
>
> In this latter regard, a US judge has just given leave to a US human
> rights group to sue
> Total S. A., a major French oil company, in the US courts for being
> partly responsible
> for its partner's (the Myanmar government) alleged human rights abuses
> in providing
> labour to help build the Total pipeline in Myanmar.
>
> What could be more ludicrous!
>
> Fortunately, in the real world of the Asia-Pacific region, where
> countries have now
> learnt to live with each other with a degree of mutual respect and
> comfort, they have
> developed realistic, common protocols on how to govern their
> inter-country relations
> for the greater good of the regional whole, including non-interference
> in the other
> countries' domestic affairs.
>
> In this context, it is not surprising that Asean's current rotating
> chairman, Prime Minister
> Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia, announced on April 23 that Asean "is
> going to work
> very hard to get Myanmar into Asean" and that Malaysia, together with
> other Asean
> ministers, would determine the grouping's response to these sanctions.
>
> Meanwhile, both Japan and Australia have announced, sensibly, that they
> will not
> accede to the US government's request that they support the sanctions.
>
> The US and its people have many admirable qualities. They continue to
> provide in
> many ways a source of inspiration for, and support to, the rest of the
> world.
>
> But it is tragic that the US should squander its moral high ground and
> goodwill in this
> way, particularly as, given its real and obviously selfish motives,
> which are clear to the
> rest of the world, it loses, not gains, by this type of action.
>
> And, in the process, it causes great damage to the people of Myanmar.
> The writer is
> author of Asia Pacific: Its Role in the New World Disorder and a former
> chairman of
> Merrill Lynch, Asia-Pacific region.
>
>