A Case for Restraint On Trade Sanct (r)

[suantak@xxxxxx]

The United States of America is championing democracy and human rights. We
can not expect the US to act as the World's democracy and human rights
enforcer. However, the US has to make a point. We can not expect every
action to be successful. The most important point the US is saying it has a
policy. I agree fully the analysis by Mr. Hufbauer, but if everybody look
for money and profits where will the world be? Burma became an independent
nation not because the Burmese were winning the British at the battle field,
but because rather the British would face international condemnation.  And
that fact forced the British to give independence to Burma.

The US trade sanction and the European Union's actions have effected the
Junta's movements. Their pillars of support has dwindled. Even Singaporeans
are reluctant to invest in Burma because without Europeans and Americans
trade investment in Burma is bound to be a failure. A free market economy
has to be supported by a regulated and honest government regulation and a
market oriented system. Where officials enriched themselves by corrupt
methods a free market economy can not prosper.   The US might loose a hugh
sum of money by closing its doors to regimes that contradict the basic
principles of human beings, she still has the admiration of the majority of
the planet population's  approval. And that is all what matters. Trade
sanction does not mean to force the regimes to change its way of life but it
just mean that they are not in the same boat. These policies should not to
be judged by the success or the change in the regimes' further actions but
by the value of its human decency.
-----Original Message-----
To: Recipients of burmanet-l <burmanet-l@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Saturday, March 14, 1998 2:47 AM
Subject: A Case for Restraint On Trade Sanctions


>A Case for Restraint On Trade Sanctions
> Sunday, March 8, 1998
>
>AMOXICILLIN can be hard to find in Karbala to treat a youngster's painful
>infection. Rice and cooking oil are scarce in Basra unless a buyer can pay
>the high price. Engineers and professors drive cabs in Baghdad to earn a
>meager wage. These are the side-effects of tough sanctions lowered on Iraq
>by the U.S. and the United Nations.
>
>Behind the bombs-away rhetoric on dealing with Iraq is a debate over
>sanctions designed to undercut Saddam Hussein's lawless behavior by
>hamstringing his country's economy. Should the cork be kept tight on Iraq's
>commerce with the outside world? Or does this blockade miss the point by
>punishing the average Iraqi while Saddam's entourage remains unscathed? The
>discussion points up a new reality in modern-day diplomacy. Sanctions are
>growing in numbers with the United States a major player.
>
>American sanctions circle the globe. They range from a recently lifted ban
>on the sale of fighter jets to Latin America to a deep-freeze ostracism
>against age-old foe North Korea. The sanctions can be the result of
>peacekeeping missions (Serbia and Haiti), drug interdiction (Pakistan),
>human rights campaigns (Burma and Nigeria), anti-terrorism (Iran) and Cold
>War history (Cuba). They can be a politician's delight because the get-
>tough measures pacify a persistent voting bloc, but they are a diplomat's
>nightmare because sanctions can be impossible to lift and hard to peddle to
>allies. By one count, of 140 international sanctions launched this century,
>110 were U.S.-sponsored. Economist Gary Hufbauer, co-author on a major
study
>on sanctions, lists 38 measures of varying scope still in place.
>
>The real test is whether they work, and the answer is mixed. Examples
abound
>for almost any theory. North Korea remains an outcast nation, but its
people
>are starving. Cuba is still led by Fidel Castro although the island failed
>to export its Communist economy to South America. An American-led boycott
of
>Libya creates friction with oil-needy Italy. The world of sanctions can
>become a puzzle palace with evidence to support or knock down any argument.
>
>Hufbauer estimates sanctions cost American business $20 billion per year
for
>a smallish result. ``We don't find zero bang, but the trend has been
>distinctly downward in terms of changing a country's foreign policy,'' he
>said. Fighting in Bosnia ended with the Dayton peace accords, achieved at
>the point of sanctions against trade with Serbia, he noted. South Africa
>changed from apartheid to multiracial democracy after worldwide sanctions.
>But proposed heavy sanctions against the People's Republic of China by the
>United States would be a disaster if other nations swooped in to land
>business contracts, he said.
>
>For Hufbauer and other policy experts, sanctions work when the targeted
>government is weighing which way to go. South Africa was a success story
>because its leaders were open to change. But Burma and Nigeria showcase the
>opposite situation. ``Nobody in those places is listening,'' he said.
>Hufbauer favors targeting tyrants for prosecution such as the seizure of
>foreign assets or arrest if they leave their own country.
>
>The current wave of sanctions has peculiar origins. The end of the Cold War
>makes it easier to impose the punishments because the target country cannot
>run to the Soviet Union. American politics are well-suited to activist
>groups such as Cuban emigres or Chinese dissidents who can pressure
Congress
>and the White House for help. Also, the moralist or flag-waver has always
>played a major role in American foreign policy, and the present era of U.S.
>super-strength has enlarged this personality trait.
>
>Sanctions are also a blunt weapon. The Duvalier family in Haiti parked
their
>money in Swiss accounts, shopped in New York boutiques and drove down the
>island's dirt roads in BMWs, unhindered by a U.S. sanctions. Meanwhile, the
>average Haitian suffered shortages of food and medicine. The collapse
>finally came, but everyone in Haiti paid the price for the sins of a few.
>
>The crazy quilt of restrictions and barriers are subject to the laws of
>unintended consequences. America's boycott of Cuba, dating back to 1960,
>settled into an exercise in Cuban emigre politics until Congress approved
>the Helms-Burton law. The measure, unenforced so far, punishes other
>countries who make use of property such as land or factories once owned by
>Americans. The law has infuriated down-the-line U.S. allies such as Canada
>who are not caught up in the anti-Castro obsession of American politics. To
>be effective, sanctions need to be carefully chosen with reasonable goals
>plainly stated. With Iraq, the constant testing by Saddam needs the reality
>check that sanctions and containment provide. Human suffering could be
>alleviated if the U.N. could provide food. This instance should underscore
>tough resolve by sanctioning country or world body, but it needs full
>cooperation and support to succeed.
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>
>
>
>THE TARGETED COUNTRIES
>
>
>These are the countries that are currently under some form of active
>foreign-policy sanctions by the United States government.
>
>
>ANGOLA
>AZERBAIJAN
>BURMA
>CAMBODIA
>CAMEROON
>CHINA
>CUBA
>GAMBIA
>HAITI
>INDONESIA
>IRAN
>IRAQ
>LIBERIA
>SUDAN
>LIBYA
>NIGER
>NIGERIA
>NORTH KOREA
>PAKISTAN
>SYRIA
>VIETNAM
>REPUBLICS OF EX-YUGOSLAVIA
>ZAMBIA
>
>
>Chronicle Graphic
>
>
>  Get a printer-friendly version of this article
>ON THE GATE
>
>Wire up, plug in, and log on: Technology on The Gate.
> ©1998 San Francisco Chronicle
>
>