WHO ARE HURT BY US SANCTIONS AGAINS

[moe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

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.