[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

29/10/99:BURMA INVEST.BAN--GOOD (Fo



Subject: Re: 29/10/99:BURMA INVEST.BAN--GOOD (For France!!!)

> Second, there are independent businesses, such as TOTAL/UNOCAL etc.
> These bussinesses have a law of their own. Unless the democracy movement
> can exercise our own power, these business will not become helpers of
> democracy movement.

this note hits dead center, thank you dr u ne oo for your concise essay
and guidance here. you should know that yesterday the TOTAL FINA ELF
crowd was buffeted, front page Le Monde oct 28 tall banner headline how
OCDE and Transparency International Report ranks France one of Europe's
most corrupt and corrupting countries-governement-State, and the
editorial in Le Monde (The France and the Corruption) what i have been
telling everyone for years, though a lot of people thought my
commentaries too cyncial. well, this says it, and so do the french.
"Corrupteur, notre pays est perçu aussi comme corrupu." And it cites the
Belge as worse. Belgium and France, two state goverments, both in TOTAL
FINA (FRANCE-BELGIUM). Yesterday, also, the MP Madame Aubert slammed
french foreign minister Vedrine, as did her colleague Noel Mamère for
Chirac's selfwilled prostitution of his bed to Jiang on recent visit,
saying it prostitutes all of france to please a dictator, and sell
Airbus airplanes. boycott and sanctions issues hot in the french
national assembly re Iran too on this weeks one hour presidential red
carpet visit by Iranian president Khatami, to sell one hundred alstom
locomotives, (they supply burma since the fifties).

all in all, hot here in france, (in the corruption report, reference to
total fina pushing the elf deal as elf weakened by corruption scandals)
thats a bit disinformation too, because they dont want to go after
Total. why not, both do the same corrupting style of business. so do you
wonder why the judges dont go after total? And why Desmarest hasnt yet
been put under legal questioning.....and also yesterday, total director
jerome monod's company suez lyonnais blocked in its fraudulent
undervalued tackeover absorption of the belgium company tractebel,
closely linked to total final because of the warburg bank report - not
paribas!! - quoting irregularities and undervalue assessment so minority
tractebel shareholders want to stop the OPE takeover, and stop monod and
co. corruption...

ds

so things are moving, as people realize they are not making any money
while the
big fat cats, the old, worn out, boring rich and dull types try to take
it all because no one cares. well, people here are beginning to care.
and get mad! and are doing things about it. 

it was especially encouraging to hear madame aubert slam french state
and government support of dictators pleasing them just to do business,
and the line of the french govt saying this is so, this is good, doing
business doesnt hurt but helps democratic change and all that other
nonsense. and the delegates in the parliament applauded the french
foreign minister, just like the shareholders in the general
assemblies!!!

Dr U Ne Oo wrote:
> 
> WRITTEN FRIDAY 29 OCT 99, 6:00AM
> 
> INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT BAN ON BURMA
> WILL BE GOOD FOR ASEAN ECONOMIC RECOVERY
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Of recent, there have been rather peculiar reports of 'economic bad
> news' on Burma disseminated by Xinhua news agency. It, of course, is
> nothing unusual about bad economic news on Burma: anyone can readily
> checkout these economic data in publications such as Economic
> Intelligence Unit Quarterly/Country reports. The peculiar aspect is  the
> way Xinhua news agency has come into featuring these economic data on
> Burma  that needs our careful examination.
> 
> XINHUA, ANOTHER OUTLET FOR NLM
> 
> We know that there have been numbers of reporters from Xinhua residing
> in Rangoon and they appears to work collaboratively with NLM(or OSS).
> Questions need to be asked as to why these 'economic bad news on Burma'
> being featured by Xinhua quite recently. For example, on 18 October, the
> Xinhua is reporting foreign investment in Burma to be 11.8 million USD
> for the first half of 1999, a 94% drop from last year (see report
> enclosed). The revenue from custom duties dropped to mere 400 million
> USD down about 50% to that of last year's. The income taxes drop was
> reported  on 27 October . A number of reports on downward trend in
> bilateral trade figures have also been presented (see following
> reports). The statistics put out by Xinhua may be as much accurate as it
> can be . The motive for Xinhua featuring these data, however, need some
> interpretation.
> 
> Firstly, by featuring  incredibly minuscule number of  foreign
> investment figure ($12 million in Six months) , Burmese junta is trying
> to soften our resolve to impose 'ban on new international investment'.
> This is also important for countries like China too: if we can get a UN
> imposed a ban on new investment on human rights ground, it may be
> setting a precedence. This way, Xinhua is serving for two bosses at the
> same time.
> 
> NO UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS
> 
> As  stated before, I personally do not like economic sanctions. However,
> the ban on new investment is something I can certainly support to for
> several reasons.
> 
> Firstly, in comparison to full economic sanctions, the ban on investment
> is much more easier to enforce for United Nations and international
> community. In contrast, to enforce total economic sanction -- which
> include import/export ban -- will require much more resources for UN and
> international community. Some people have rejected full economic
> sanctions even on ground of  impossibility to be able to enforce by the
> UN.  To monitor the ban on new investment will be a lot easier, and is
> entirely possible,  for the UN and international community. On the
> otherhand, the investment sanctions are not as savage in humanitarian
> view points: it theoretically does not taken away any privileges the
> population currently enjoying (n.b. population in Burma virtually enjoy
> nothing from military government, however).
> 
> Secondly, the ban on new investment on Burma will send a clear signal to
> junta that they will have no chance of resurrecting themselves
> economically. Currently, the EU and USA have bilaterally imposed
> investment ban and various other sanctions on Burma, which are renewed
> each year. The international ban will help stop the possible investment
> coming from ASEAN countries and China.
> 
> On suggesting the investment ban, I am in no illusion that economic
> sanctions of any form will necessarily bring down the military
> dictatorship. However, the sanction will weaken the junta, both
> economically and politically.
> 
> HOW SANCTION CAN HELP US POLITICALLY
> 
> Regarding economic sanction politically helping  the democracy movement,
> we can draw an example in early 1997.  It is noticeable that we, as a
> movement, encounter less attack from various sources in USA after
> President Clinton imposed investment ban on Burma. It can even notice
> that on Internet we have less disruption since that ban. The thing is
> that there will be some 'poke around' by the bussinesses to make money
> in Burma in long and short terms. It means there will be attacks on
> existing sanctions imposed by EU and US.  Such action by business will
> interrupt our campaign against the military junta. If we get the UN
> imposed investment ban, we can fight SLORC without much disruptions.
> 
> FREE-MARKET FORCES: FRIENDS AND FOES
> 
> We can roughly classify three distinct financial institutions that we
> encounter in our struggle. First, there are international financial
> institutions such as IMF, World Bank, Asian Development Bank etc. These
> institutions appears to operate in a more friendly fashion to the
> democracy movement.
> 
> Second, there are independent businesses, such as TOTAL/UNOCAL etc.
> These bussinesses have a law of their own. Unless the democracy movement
> can exercise our own power, these business will not become helpers of
> democracy movement.
> 
> Third, there are independent investors (fund managers etc). They are
> difficult to control and, mostly, unreliable to draw upon as useful
> political force for democracy movement. The effect of these independent
> investors have already been seen in recent years. In around 1994, these
> investors had poured their monies into Thai economy, in which Burmese
> military indirectly benefitted from it. By the end of 1996, and
> noticeably after Burma gain ASEAN membership in 97, these investors
> withdrawn their investments. The democratic changes in Thailand, South
> Korea and, recently, Indonesia (plus East Timor) can be undoubtely
> attributed to the panic suffered by these independent investors.
> 
> Without a doubt, that panic in the ASEAN financial market had been
> brought about by bigger players in the US markets. By looking back on
> those the events,  we can estimate financial power of these players. For
> example, Pregerine Investment Bank of Hong Kong, once mighty financial
> power house for Asia and staunch supporter to authoritarian regimes,
> went down in ASEAN financial crisis. All in all, we can be certain that
> the democracy movements are not without friends in these financial
> markets.
> 
> BURMA INVESTMENT BAN WILL BE GOOD FOR ASEAN
> 
> It will be in the interest of ASEAN countries and China to support the
> investment ban on Burma. This will isolate troublesome issue of Burma
> and ASEAN can rebuild its economy without disruption. The ASEAN
> countries can co-sponsor Burma resolution at this United Naitons General
> Assembly as first practical step towards their economic  recovery.
> 
> With best regards, U Ne Oo.
> 
> ***********************************************
> Foreign investment in Myanmar sharply drops
> 
> --
> HTTP://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~uneoo
> EMAILS: drunoo@xxxxxxxxxxxx, uneoo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> POSTMAIL: Dr U Ne Oo, 18 Shannon Place, Adelaide SA 5000, AUSTRALIA
> [http://freeburma.org/[http://www.angelfire.com/al/homepageas/index.htm]
> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =