[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. 
> 
>