UK: ARTICLE 60.2/ EUROPEAN SANCTION

[dawnstar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Subject: UK: ARTICLE 60.2/ EUROPEAN SANCTIONS-TOTAL FINA/Pemier/Unocal

ARTICLE 60.2

There has been very little OPEN discussions about this Article and
Treaty. Perhaps there should be. Is there a drive in FRANCE on this
Article, or is that too now too now back door quiet diplomacy as NO
EUROPEAN COUNTRY HAS DECLARED ECONOMIC SANCTIONS. Why hasnt Norway, for
that matter, Finland, or Sweden? 

And what about the Belgium Parlement with their pronounced support for
the CRRP. A paper tiger? Or will they, can they, are they going to back
their support with substantial and serious economic power. Or are the
Belgiums merely going to use their economic influence and privilege to
continue to support the dictatorship. The money is in the bank, and so
is the proof of their committment to democracy in Burma. Total Fina is
making a lot of  money for the franco-Belge company and its
partners-shareholders...

After the tragic death of Leo Nichols ans since. Not calling the
situation urgent, encorages the junta. Calling the situation urgent and
not imposing sanctions shows cowardice and hypocrisy, and encourages the
junta further, and makes matters even worse. Isnt it odd that the so
called democracies, do nothing, and support the dictatorship. People
here in France, laugh, cynically, at the French government in domestic
and foreign scandals, and sneer at the so called French "democracy" yet
polls continually show Jospin and Chirac now near 60% populularity. If
people do not exercise choice, than that right and freedom is useless,
and polls and procedures only endorse the powerful leaders while the
people cheer and do nothing about changing the status quo. The people in
Burma donot have choice, the french and people in the UK do, and not
using it makes them appear more pathetic than those masters of diplomacy
in western Parlements, with their military authorities in Rangoon.

The key here is choice and political will. The UK issue is now bringing
this to a test case for all european western democratic parlements. 

And while they British government has turned its back on James Mawdsley,
have you? What can you do for him today? Send a letter to the British
Embassy, Rangoon... 

The Government, having argued for 18 months that Article 60.2 cannot
be
used - because the situation in Burma is not 'urgent' - is now arguing
that
it is irrelevant anyway. It is arguing - it is thought for the first
time
in history - that the UK needs specific authority from Parliament to
impose
sanctions in peacetime without the backing of the UN or EU. It has
always
been assumed that this could be done under the royal prerogative, which
enables the Government to do all manner of things in the foreign policy
field. TBC argue that the issue is irrelevant anyway to these
proceedings -
even if the Government is right, the court still needs to rule whether,
under Article 60.2, Parliament could legislate for sanctions

Dawn Star wrote:
> 
> Did he ever care to go back to the refugee camps last September before
> rushing to East Timor crisis?
> 
> THE BURMA CAMPAIGN: ROBIN COOK ASKS HIGH COURT TO TIE HIS HANDS ON
> ETHICAL
> FOREIGN POLICY
> 26 November, 1999
> 
> In an extraordinary move, the Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, will next
> Thursday, December 2, ask the High Court to rule that the UK Government
> cannot impose financial (investment) sanctions on other countries
> without
> UN or EU backing or a specific Act of Parliament. If he wins, the
> Government's much-criticised ethical foreign policy will be weakened yet
> further.
> 
> The Burma Campaign (TBC) has launched a judicial review against Mr Cook
> over his attitude to sanctions against the military regime in Burma, one
> of
> the most brutal in the world.
> 
> The Government accepts that the human rights situation in Burma is
> appalling. Under EU law, the UK can impose a ban on investment by
> British
> companies in Burma if the situation there is 'urgent'. The Government
> says
> it is not urgent, because it has been so bad for such a long time. TBC
> argue that a situation is 'urgent' if it needs addressing quickly, as
> that
> in Burma clearly does. The long history of repression does not detract
> from
> the urgency but rather adds to it.
> 
> However, in an attempt to have the case thrown out, the Government is
> now
> arguing that, even if the situation is 'urgent', it does not have the
> power
> to impose sanctions against Burma because there is no Act of Parliament
> allowing it to do so. If this were correct, it would apply not just to
> Burma but to every other brutal regime throughout the world - until or
> unless the UN or EU could be persuaded to impose sanctions, which is
> usually very difficult. It has not been possible with Burma, despite
> near-universal condemnation of the regime.
> 
> In 1990, Burma's military ignored the election which gave an
> overwhelming
> victory to Nobel Peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for
> Democracy (NLD). In a statement given to TBC for the case, Aung San Suu
> Kyi
> strongly supports financial sanctions against her country.
> 
> John Jackson, a TBC director said:  "We are frankly very surprised and
> disappointed that the Government is trying to stop our case coming to
> court. The UK can, it seems, carpet-bomb Yugoslavia without UN backing
> but
> cannot impose financial sanctions on Burma.
> 
> How much suffering do Burma's people have to endure before their
> situation
> is deemed 'urgent'? The Government's position on this lacks credibility,
> particularly since ministers accept that human rights abuses in Burma
> are
> getting worse".
> 
> Notes
> 
> 1. On November 12 the United Nations General Assembly condemned Burma's
> junta for its widespread use of torture and other forms of repression.
> The
> International Labour Organisation recently accused it of a 'crime
> against
> humanity' -  the most serious breach of international law - for its
> systematic use of forced labour of millions of people (including women
> and
> children). Hundreds of thousands have fled to Thailand and other
> neighbouring countries, posing a threat to regional stability and peace.
> In
> addition, Burma is the world's largest exporter of heroin - Robin Cook
> has
> accused the regime of directly benefiting from its trafficking.
> 
> 2. The EC Treaty provision in question is Article 60.2 (added by the
> Maastricht Treaty), which allows member states to impose financial
> sanctions unilaterally if there are 'serious political reasons and on
> grounds of urgency'. The Government does not dispute that serious
> political
> reasons exist. The issue centres around the meaning of 'urgency'. The
> Government argues that a situation is not urgent if it has not
> deteriorated
> (but at the same time accepts that the situation in Burma has
> deteriorated!).
> 
> 3. The Government, having argued for 18 months that Article 60.2 cannot
> be
> used - because the situation in Burma is not 'urgent' - is now arguing
> that
> it is irrelevant anyway. It is arguing - it is thought for the first
> time
> in history - that the UK needs specific authority from Parliament to
> impose
> sanctions in peacetime without the backing of the UN or EU. It has
> always
> been assumed that this could be done under the royal prerogative, which
> enables the Government to do all manner of things in the foreign policy
> field. TBC argue that the issue is irrelevant anyway to these
> proceedings -
> even if the Government is right, the court still needs to rule whether,
> under Article 60.2, Parliament could legislate for sanctions.
> 
> 4. The Government has unilaterally imposed measures short of sanctions
> on
> Burma, such as withdrawing support for trade missions. It discourages
> tourism. It therefore clearly believes economic pressure is justified
> and
> potentially effective. Indeed, Mr Cook, in his Labour Conference speech
> this year, said that a policy of isolating Burma was justified given its
> appalling human rights record, and castigated the Conservatives for not
> backing sanctions against apartheid South Africa. Twice this year, Mr
> Cook
> has publicly urged Premier Oil (see below) not to proceed with its
> investment in Burma.
> 
> 5. Premier has a 27% stake in the Yetagun gas pipeline which will supply
> Burmese gas to Thailand. The pipeline costs well over $700m. There are
> well-documented human rights abuses associated with the Yetagun pipeline
> area and the construction of a parallel pipeline by TOTALFINA and
> Unocal. The
> military benefit hugely from major infrastructure projects of this sort,
> while the people of Burma get progressively poorer. The people of Burma,
> a
> country rich in natural resources, remain near the bottom end of human
> development tables.
> 
> 6. In 1997 President Clinton banned new investment by US companies in
> Burma.
> 
> For further information contact:
> 
> John Jackson            tel: 0171 281 7377      mobile: 0961 357 391
> 
> Yvette Mahon            tel: 0171 281 7377      mobile: 07957 301 346