[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
New York Times Responses To Editori
- Subject: New York Times Responses To Editori
- From: burma1un@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 14:21:00
Subject: New York Times Responses To Editorial
Following are letters that appeared in The New York Times December 19, 1996
ISOLATING MYANMAR WOULD ONLY CAUSE HARDSHIP FOR ITS PEOPLE
To the Editor:
The logic of "Doing Business in Myanmar' (editorial, Dec 16) and its
call for Unocal to withdraw from Myanmar escapes me. If history has
shown us anything, it is that economic isolation only causes chaos,
suffering and hardship for the people it is intended to help. It does
nothing to improve the living standards, promote democracy or advance
human rights.
But the Yadana natural gas pipeline project between Myanmar and
Thailand is doing just that. It is creating jobs, new industries
and new opportunities for the 35,000 people who live in the pipeline
area, an extremely poor and undeveloped region of Myanmar. Unocal and
its project partners are providing improved medical care, new and
refurbished schools, electrical power and agricultural development
programs.
The project - a joint venture of Unocal, Total of France, Thailand's
PTT and Myanmar's MOGE - has adhered to strict standards on employment
practices. Contrary to some reports, there has been no forced or
conscripted labor on our project. You imply that a railroad has been
built by conscripted labor to "transport Government troops to protect
the pipeline." But there is no connection between this railroad and
construction of the Yadana pipeline. The railroad right-of-way runs
perpendicular to the pipeline, and the railway itself will not be
completed until long after the pipeline is up and running.
Unocal's withdrawal from the project would reduce United States
influence in Myanmar. It would also further marginalize American
influence with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and other
Asian countries that have commercial and diplomatic contact with Myanmar. Our departure would certainly not foster democracy or improve human rights. The best way for America to advance Myanmar's transition to democracy is to remain involved in the natio
n's economic development.
Roger C. Beach
Chairman and Chief Executive
Unocal Corporation
El Segundo, Calif., Dec. 17, 1996
FORGET SANCTIONS
To the Editor:
"Doing Business in Myanmar" (editorial, Dec. 16) was reckless in its
disregard of not only the impact of unilateral sanctions on American
companies, but also the impact on the targeted governments. Foreign
manufacturers are more than willing to fill the void left when American
companies are not allowed to export to, or invest in, some of the
fastest-growing economies in the world.
The National Association of Manufacturers recently commissioned a
study cataloguing United States economic sanctions for foreign policy
objectives. A preliminary analysis of the data reveals that from 1993
to 1996, more than 50 American laws or executive decisions were adopted
imposing unilateral sanctions. An astonishing 31 countries were
specifically targeted during this four-year period, together
representing more than 60 percent of the world's population, 20
percent of the world's gross domestic product and 22 percent of the
world's export markets.
It is often asked, "Does American business support human rights?" The
more appropriate question is whether or not denying American
manufacturers the ability to export is an appropriate and effective
response to human rights violations abroad. It is clear that United
States sanctions outside a multilateral framework simply lead to lost
American exports and jobs, with little or no impact on the targeted
governments.
Marino Marcich
Director, International Investment & Finance
National Association of Manufacturers
Washington
December 18, 1996
CORPORATE STONEWALL
To the Editor:
Re "Doing Business in Myanmar" (editorial, Dec. 16): At the Unocal
shareholders' meeting on June 3, Roger C. Beach, chairman of Unocal,
agreed to work with a group of shareholders to have a neutral human
rights organization inspect the company's pipeline project in Burma.
As one responsible for setting up such an organization, I have been
stonewalled by management's failure to respond to my mail, faxes and
phone calls. The excuses blocking me from meeting face to face with
Mr. Beach and the corporate secretary last week would have been comical
had not the human rights violations of those suffering in Burma been
the issue.
(Rev.) Joseph P. La Mar
Maryknoll
New York
Dec. 16, 1996