Posted by: “Edith Mirante” maje@hevanet.com   emirante
Tue Jan 6, 2009 10:04 am (PST)

January 5, The Nation (Thailand)
Understanding new Thai policy towards Burma – Kavi Chongkittavorn

AFTER EIGHT YEARS, it will not be easy to undo the Thai foreign policy towards Burma initiated by the Thaksin-led government and its nominees. A complete overhaul of the Burma policy is out of the question. However, some major shifts by the current government could be forthcoming that would firm up bilateral ties and strengthen Bangkok’s voice on Burma within Asean. Additional principled guidelines, drawing from the Asean Charter, are imperative aimed at supporting the international community’s effort to promote an open society there.

Gone quickly would be the preponderance of one-man decisions on key policies, especially those dealing with cross-border security, investment and trade cooperation.

In the past few years, Thailand has been rather compromising in its security considerations in exchange for economic benefits, which often went to individuals rather than the country as a whole. In particular,
from 2001 to 2006, the Thai side allowed the Burmese side greater leeway along the 2004-km border such as issues related to Burmese migrant workers, illegal cross-border activities and harassment of minorities and Burmese exiles.

Picking up the pieces of Burmese policy where the Democrat-led government left off in early 2001, this time around the Thai foreign policy will be decided in a transparent way without any hanky panky as in the past. Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya said succinctly that from now on, Thailand will deal with Burma in a straightforward manner without any dubious deals or transactions based on “four-eye meetings”, which was the trademark of Thaksin’s personalised diplomacy.

Prior to the return of the Democrat-led government, Thai-Burmese relations were very superficially closed, representing no real national agenda.  Thai leaders were myopic, deluded in thinking that defending the Burmese regime within Asean and the international community would help them win favours from the junta leaders and subsequently secure the country’s future energy and natural resources need. Indeed, the energy dependence on Burma was exaggerated to justify Thailand’s closer ties with Burma, including its passivity.

Throughout the year 1999-2000, before Thaksin came to power, the Burmese people’s struggle for democracy and open society was at its peak with all the support of the international community. Asean was far more united as far as peer pressure on Burma was concerned. Thailand dutifully played the leading role on Burma throughout by bringing in the international community. Former foreign minister Surin Pitsuwan, currently the Asean secretary-general, pushed Asean to engage in enhanced dialogue with Burma as well as emerging transnational issues affecting the region.

However, soon after the arrival of the Thaksin-led government in early 2001, Thai policy towards Burma turned upside down. After a few weeks of border tension and tough talks on Burma’s role on cross-border illegal drugs trade, former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra unexpectedly softened his Burmese policy, much to the chagrin of the international community. Since then, Thailand’s credibility on Burma has disappeared.

During the Cambodian conflict, Thailand’s role in Asean as a frontline state was well recognised as it was pursued based on the region’s interest, not tempered with vested personal interests. Asean helped to
internationalise the conflict playing out at the UN continuously for nearly a decade, which gave Asean an international voice, before the Paris peace agreement in 1989. In Burma’s case, it was the opposite. Thailand failed miserably to assert itself in the Asean overall approaches albeit it was the most affected by the Burmese growing oppression. Bangkok’s willingness to play second fiddle to Burma further divided Asean and stymied broader cooperation with international community.

Subsequent revelations by Surakiart Sathiratai, foreign minister in the Thaksin government, showed that investment and commercial deals with Burma at that time were not honest as they were coaxed with conflict of interest.

The scandal over the Export and Import Bank of Thailand’s Bt4-billion loan to the junta was just one example. Like rubbing more salt into the wounds, former prime ministers Samak Sundravej and Somchai Wongsawat made ridiculous remarks defending Burma.

Samak was the most embarrassing as he praised the military junta leaders as peace-loving leaders and boasted about their closed friendship. Under the Surayud Chulanont government (2006-7), Thailand maintained a strict policy of no new contacts or improvement of existing ties.

Burma could have made a transition to democracy if the Thai governments in question had not indulged in personalising, nationalising and making the Burmese problem bilateral. The leader’s personal and group interests linked to Burma weakened not only Thai credibility, it also belittled Bangkok’s voice within Asean. That helps explain why in the absence of a Thai role, Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia have become more pro-active in shaping the grouping’s views and positions on Burma.

Coming to power at this juncture poses serious challenges to both Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and Foreign Minister Kasit on Burmese policy. They have to revitalise and synergise the role of Thailand, Asean and the international community to move the situation in Burma forward.

At present, the Asean Charter, imperfect as it is, will serve as a useful tool to encourage reluctant Asean countries to get more involved on issues of human rights and democracy. The rumblings over the charter’s ratification in Indonesia and Philippines were indicative of the strong desire for such endeavour.

As the Asean chair, Thai leaders will adopt a comprehensive strategy on Burma that put together various parts and needs from within region. Furthermore, this strategy must also work in tandem with the current
international efforts, especially through the offices of the United Nations and related agencies and its special envoy.

After all, the Burmese quagmire is not the problem of any particular country or regional community. It must be kept at the multilateral level so that all stakeholders can work together to end the current impasse and sufferings.

 

Chevron’s hypocritical ad campaign

By JOHN P. GAMBOA

The Daily Aztec

San Diego State University newspaper

Issue date: 10/8/07 Section: State of Mind

A new TV commercial includes shots of oceans, blue skies, loving
families, cuddly animals, rising suns, people of all nationalities and
amputees running sprints.

What could it be for?

Greenpeace? No.

Life insurance? No.

It’s an advertisement for the multi-national mega corporation Chevron.
Its new two-and-a-half-minute TV spot, part of its “Power of Human
Energy” campaign and shot and directed by the cinematographer of “Lost
in Translation” and “Being John Malkovich,” boasts that Chevron is not
a “corporate titan” but “human beings doing our share.”

The ad first aired during a break for “60 Minutes” on CBS and gave the
distinct impression that Chevron cares for every living person on Earth
and that it’s committed to helping everyone’s needs.

This couldn’t be further from the truth.

Chevron is one of the few remaining corporations with ties to the
deadly regime behind Burma (also referred to as Myanmar), thereby
indirectly aiding the killing of Buddhist monks, reporters and
civilians.

In 1997, the Clinton Administration barred all new investments in the
junta-run nation. However, companies already investing inside the
country were exempted because of a grandfather clause. Chevron is one
of the companies that was exempted by the clause and continues business
in the country and pays taxes to the government.

By doing so, they are supporting the human rights violations of the
Texas-sized nation in the last few weeks and its military buildup of
the last few years. Natural gas, an important part of Chevron’s
operations in Burma, brought $2.16 billion to the military regime of
Burma through taxes and operation fees, according to the Human Rights
Watch.

It is imperative that this San Ramon-based corporation get out of Burma
if it wants to continue to call itself an American corporation. The
government is threatening the freedom of millions of people, which is
something that no citizen or user of gas should stand for.

Without the oil pipelines that run from Burma to Thailand, the military
government would not be able to have money to kill civilians.

Chevron should be the first to stop business in Burma because of the
murders of pro-Democracy protesters. Chevron should stand up for the
political ideology that allowed it to become a multi-national
corporation based in the United States.

In order to stop having an American corporation’s oil flow through
pipelines, the U.S. government needs to force Chevron out of Burma,
given its human rights violations. If the United States is willing to
go to war for freedom of itself and others, the least it could do is
prevent a U.S. corporation from financially supporting a freedom-hating
regime.

If it doesn’t want to leave, major restrictions should be imposed on
its ability to sell petroleum inside the United States until its
policies are changed.

Chevron leaving Burma, however, will not stop the violence in the
region. Thai and Chinese petroleum companies will only go in and take
over the void left by the American company, not changing the
socio-political dynamics of the region. It’s more important, though,
that an American company take responsibility to leave an embattled
region if it wants to call itself a corporation, an entity that is made
up of “human beings doing our share” for the rest of humanity.

Even if Chevron chooses to be anti-American and stay in Burma, the
least it could do is stop airing its misleading ad campaign,
championing itself as the “Power of Human Energy.”

Sadly, unless the government steps up – which is unlikely – Chevron
will not change its policies. Chevron will continue to do business how
it wants because one of its former board of directors is now the
Secretary of State of the United States: the corporate-friendly
Condoleezza Rice.

As record-high profits continue to drive the company, there is no
reason to change.

In its ad, Chevron says that humans have an ever increasing demand for
energy, and they plan to be there to help fulfill the need. If
anything, people need to decrease their need for energy, not have the
world’s 14th largest energy corporation tell them that we need to use
more.

Chevron may claim that it cares about the world and its needs, but it
only cares about its own needs: making money. As long as it continues
to spend $63 million in advertising – like it did in 2006, according to
Brandweek – it will be able to convince people that Chevron does care,
which is a very scary thought.

Because it’s unlikely that the U.S. government will step in, Americans
must help in the only way they can: Stop pumping gas at Chevron gas
stations.

-John P. Gamboa is a pre-journalism junior.
Published on Monday, October 8, 2007 by The Daily Camera (Boulder,
Colorado)

 

Report from U.S. Campaign for Burma

Dear Annie ,

Usually we use this email list to share specific things you can do to help the struggle for human rights in Burma or ask for your financial help.

This time, we are sending you a message to let you know how we have used your support.

The U.S. Campaign for Burma and the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners just completed a major research study on political prisoners in Burma.  We found that the Burmese military regime has nearly doubled the number of political prisoners in Burma over the past 15 months, in direct defiance of the United Nations.

The report — and the thousands of emails you have sent to the UN Secretary General — have caused a stir at the United Nations.  Yesterday, the Secretary General called for the release of all political prisoners in Burma, and threatened to cancel his December trip to Burma if the Burmese junta doesn’t make progress on this issue.

Also, the report received quite a bit of media attention.  Here are just a few links:

- Report: Number of political prisoners in Myanmar rising

- Call for Burmese prisoners to be freed

- Political prisoners nearly double in Burma: activists

- Myanmar junta raises suppression, says opposition

We are strongly urging the Secretary General to secure the release of all political prisoners by the end of December.  While we still have much work to do, we are glad to see that the issue is getting a lot of attention.

Your support makes it possible for us to compile cutting-edge research, gain media attention for Burma, and have a real impact on governments and at the United Nations — we thought you would like to see some of the public results.

Thank you,

Aung Din, Jeremy Woodrum, Jacqui Pilch, Jennifer Quigley, Mike Haack

Support 1991 Nobel Peace Prize recipient Aung San Suu Kyi and the struggle for freedom and democracy in Burma:

 

Biofuel plantations top food crops in Burma

Junta resumes plantations for biofuel post referendum

Written by KNG

Friday, 20 June 2008 18:52

Burma’s ruling military junta has resumed its state-project of growing castor oil trees (Jatropha curcas) for biofuel production by using local civilians without paying them wages in Northern Burma post the constitutional referendum in May, according to the locals. In this morning’s heavy monsoon downpour in Myitkyina Township the capital of Kachin State, hundreds of residents had to plant thousands of castor oil trees (Physic nut trees) also called Jet Suu in Burmese in the open space in their quarters, Myitkyina residents told KNG today. According to eyewitnesses, they saw over a hundred civilians with knives and mattocks in Du Mare (Du Kahtawng), Shatapru and Tatkone quarters planting Physic nut saplings in their quarters between 6 a.m. and 9 a.m. Burma Standard Time in heavy rain. A resident in Du Mare said, “This morning over a hundred residents from our quarters planted more than 4,000 Physic nut saplings in the free space between Du Mare and the other two quarters on the same side — Jan Mai Kawng and Edin quarters on the eas Jatropha plants are seen in front of Myitkyina Education College, Kachin State. tern side of the railway.” He added, Du Mare residents had also planted Physic nut saplings yesterday in the same areas and only 10 residents in each block in Du Mare were asked to plant saplings every time by the administrators of Quarter Peace and Development Council (QPDC). All villages and quarter administrators in the township have been warned by the Township Peace and Development Council (TPDC) to avoid the Physic nut plantation activities with the masses, a source close to TPDC said. Local administrators of villages and quarters said, they had been ordered to apply less than 10 civilians in each plantation sector because the junta was worried about media attention if it used a mass of people rather than small numbers of people. Last year in Myitkyina, residents were called and paid wages for growing the Physic nut saplings by the authorities but this year they have not been paid— the residents have turned into forced labourers, a local in Myitkyina added. According to the report titled “Biofuel by Decree” released on May 1 by the Thailand-based Ethnic Community Development Forum (ECDF), Burma’s ruling junta has planned to grow eight million acres of Physic nut trees for biofuel production throughout the country. Under this project, Burma’s Supremo, Senior General Than Shwe has instructed that each state and division in the country must cultivate 500,000 acres within three years, the ECDF report said. Burma has seven states and seven divisions. The full report Biofuel by Decree: Unmasking Burma’s Bio-energy Fiasco by the Ethnic Community Development Forum can be viewed at: http://www.terraper.org/key_issues_view.php?id=17

 

Burma Fuels Thailand, Bangkok Post

Posted by: “Edith Mirante”

Tue Apr 8, 2008 1:10 pm (PDT)
April 8, Bangkok Post
Burma fuels Thailand

Natural gas exports to Thailand alone earned the country $2.7 billion,accounting for a 2007 trade surplus of $3.1 billion.

In 2007, Burma’s total trade hit an historic peak of $8.7 billion, splitinto 5.9 billion exports and 2.8 billion in imports, leaving the countrywith a trade surplus of $3.1 billion, said the Myanmar Times weekly, citing government officials.

Burma’s exports last year were driven primarily by natural gas, which earned the impoverished country $2.7 billion, or 45 per cent of its total exports.

“The major reason why Burma’s trade volume is increasing is the massive contribution form the energy sector – the export of natural gas to Thailand,” said Maung Maung, an economist and researcher from Economic Studies and Research Institute, the Union of Burma Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industries (UMFCCI).

Natural gas exports have risen dramatically since 2002, when Burma first opened a pipeline to deliver gas from offshore reserves in the Gulf of Martaban to Thailand.

“As a result, Burma has enjoyed consecutive trade surplus since 2002,” said Burma’s Commerce Minister Brigadier General Tin Naing Thein in a recent interview.

Besides natural gas, Burma’s main export items last year included agricultural products, amounting to $572 million in earnings, gems and jewellery to 561 million, and fishery products to 366 million.

The country’s main imports were fuel, which cost $471 million, followed by textiles at $276 million, palm oil at $251 million, machinery parts at $243 million, and automobiles at $192 million.

Most multilateral lenders such as the World Bank and Asian Development Bank severed their programmes with Burma in 1988 following a brutal military crackdown on a pro-democracy movement that left more than 3,000 people dead.

The US forbade its private sector from investing in the country in the early 1990s, after the ruling junta refused to acknowledge the outcome of the 1990 general election, and the European Union has placed visa restrictions on the regime’s rulers.

US and EU sanctions were tightened after another crackdown on protesters in September, when a sudden doubling of fuel prices prompted demonstrators, led by Buddhist monks, to take to the street on Rangoon.

The latest incident left at least 31 dead, according to the official media. (dpa)

Edith Mirante is the author of Down the Rat Hole: Adventures Underground on Burma’s Frontiers and Burmese Looking Glass. The above article was first posted on her newsgroup burmaoil@yahoo.com

 

Total & Kouchner see eye to eye on Burma – Oliver Dours

March 25, Bakchich.info
Posted by: Edith Mirante

maje@hevanet.com emirante

Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:58 pm (PDT)

In Asia, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs never misses a chance to lend a hand to his pals at Total, who are getting bogged down in the Buddhist monks’ rebellion.

Total’s CEO, Christophe de Margerie, is determined to protect his company’s assets in Burma. On October 16, 2007, he rambled somewhat senselessly before the National Assembly’s Foreign Affairs Commission. In answer to a question put by Commission Chair Axel Poniatowski, de Margerie claimed that neither Aung San Suu Kyi nor representatives of the Burmese opposition had ever, “asked Total to leave.” He also boasted about the “opinion shared by a great number of people on the spot (i.e. in Burma) as well as all of the eyewitnesses who have been there, that Total’s activities are essential, and should be sustained in the interests of the Burmese people, for whom they are directly beneficial.”

Bizarre notions that the Burmese Prime Minister-in-exile, Dr. Sein Win, and his UN representative, Than Htun were quick to dispel during their recent stay in Paris, late last October. In actual fact, as far back as 1992, Burmese pro-democracy forces asked Total to abandon its project for a natural-gas pipeline from Burma to Thailand to produce electricity. To make matters worse, since it was put into service in 2000, they have never stopped pleading for the suspension of this financial windfall, which has
already brought in some $3 billion to the Burmese generals’ regime. For the opposition, it is abundantly clear that Total has been indeed been essential… to the change in the junta’s status on the international scene, from disreputable “narco-dictatorship” to the more presentable “gas-pipeline-dictatorship.” At a press conference in Paris last
October, Messrs. Sein Win and Than Htun expressed surprise that the letter they had
addressed to the French government just before the meeting of the European Council in Luxembourg on October 8 had not been taken into account. In it, the Burmese government-in-exile requested the establishment of effective sanctions – which inevitably meant seizure or international control of natural-gas revenues. In actual fact, the European Ministers made haste to exclude fossil fuels from the scope of the sanctions. Decision which can surely be blamed on pressure from the French.

When asked, “Who is your leader ?”, certain monks have been known to confess under torture, “His name is Siddhartha.” As the agitator’s identity and description was passed through the ranks of the uniformed hierarchy, in order to establish a warrant for his arrest anywhere in the country, one officer – slightly cleverer than the rest – realized that Siddhartha is the name of the historical Buddha born 2,500 years ago in
Kapilavastu, now part of Nepal…

To console his woes, Christophe de Margerie can always go sob on Bernard Kouchner’s shoulders : after all, once upon a time, the high-spirited French Minister of Foreign Affairs was a consultant for Total-Burma. This week, the French doctor performed a strange belly dance in a neighboringcountry he was visiting. In Singapore on October 29, he came up with another suggestion based more on smoke and mirrors than true substance : a funding project for Burma that would allow the international community to finance micro-credits to assist the country’s development, on condition that the junta become more democratic. All under the auspices of the World Bank… which can no longer operate in Burma since the Americans vetoed it.

On October 30, 2007, in Bangkok, Kouchner laid it on even thicker by singing the praises of Total’s pipeline, which, he said, was beneficial for the people of Burma and Thailand. And again, on October 31 in Beijing, he tried to sweet talk Chinese leaders – to get them to reason with their Burmese protégés – by offhandedly mentioning that French president Nicolas Sarkozy could be convinced not to receive the Dalai Lama during his planned visit to Paris in August 2008. Unlike a certain George W. Bush. During his visit to Beijing in December 2007, President Sarkozy asked his Chinese counterpart to intercede with his Burmese protégés in order to have visas granted to Bernard Kouchner and Rama Yade, his Secretary of Human Rights –raising snickers in diplomatic circles around the region, but otherwise to no avail…

Translated by: Regan Kramer

__________

========================================================

EarthRights International has an open letter to the CEO of Chevron,
Dave O’Reilly, and a petition to him, regarding the brutal crackdown on
peaceful protests in Burma:
The Petition to sign is here:
http://www.petitiononline.com/urgeChev/petition.html

 

Thich Nhat Hanh: Compassion of Burma’s Monks

Renowned Buddhist peace activist & teacher Thich Nhat Hanh talks about Burma, Iraq and “engaged buddhism,” which he has advocated since the war in Vietnam. Interviewed by TIME religion correspondent David Van Biema; produced by Asia Society.

Added to YouTube: October 12, 2007

 

How oil companies support the Generals in Burma

Our economic system– the global economic system — is founded upon the assumption that cheap, easily accessible oil and natural gas (the creme de la creme of fossil fuels) will always be available. But the fact is that these resources, like all natural resources, are finite. They can be used up. Experts say that the world has passed the peak of available petroleum stored on our planet. At the same time, new U.S. style economies are coming online; India and China are two examples. These and other expanding economies are demanding their share of available supplies.

Third world countries like Burma have always been victims when bigger economies, until recently these were Western economies, seek to obtain the natural resources they have needed. Oil (energy) companies have always cooperated with despotic leaders to gain access to the oil riches of “undeveloped” countries. The situation is Burma is no different. Despite the pro-democracy rhetoric of leaders in Western nations, virtually nothing has been done by these nations to require Western multi-national corporations to observe this priority in their dealings with the governments of resource rich but income poor nations.

In fact, these corporations have turned their eyes away from human rights violations in these countries. In some cases they actually benefit from the practices of oppressive governments. Oil is why the U.S. is in Iraq. As the scramble to secure energy resources proceeds in a situation where global supplies are dwindling, one wonders how this will effect the human rights of people in Burma and throughout the world.

The following video is the first of many posted on YouTube under the title Burma’s Secret War. It was posted to YouTube on November 21, 2006, almost a year before the monks’ non-violent protest and the its violent suppression by Burma’s military government.

 

China’s game plan for Burma

Posted by: “Edith Mirante” maje@hevanet.com emirante on Burmaoil@yahoogroups.com.

Fri Jan 4, 2008 10:32 am (PST)
China’s Game Plan for Burma
By William Boot/Bangkok
January 3, 2008
The irrawaddy

China’s ability to elbow out other contenders for the Shwe gas—from
Thailand, Japan and South Korea, as well as India—underlines Beijing’s
rising influence within the Burmese regime

There was always going to be a buyer for the huge stock of gas in the
Shwe field off Burma’s west coast, but the fact that China won out
against higher and earlier bidders has sent a shiver down the
international natural gas industry’s spine.

A section of the Yadana gas pipline from Burma to Thailand
[Photo: The Irrawaddy]

South Korea’s Daewoo International and India’s two state energy
companies, who are developing the field, are clearly rattled that the
Burmese regime rode roughshod over them to award the gas to the Chinese.

The question now is: Will Beijing stalk Thailand’s development of
another large gas discovery off the east coast and eventually use its
influence to grab that too?

The M-9 field in the Gulf of Martaban, being developed by Bangkok’s
state-controlled oil and gas explorer PTTEP, is intended to have a
significant role in stoking Thailand’s power plants after 2011—if the
gas doesn’t get diverted to China’s Yunnan Province, like the Shwe
reserve.

Latest estimates on exploratory drillings in M-9 put the minimum
quantity of gas there at 1.8 trillion cubic feet (50 billion cubic
meters), and PTTEP said in November it had so far probed only one-third
of the site.

However, just two blocks of the Shwe field contain about 6 trillion
cubic feet (200 billion cubic meters) of recoverable gas.

There have already been reports in Bangkok that China’s state energy
conglomerate PetroChina—the beneficiary of the Shwe gas—is seeking
talks with PTTEP’s parent company PTT.

At the end of the day—whoever secures the gas deal—the Burmese military
regime is the winner.

Two independent reports on Burma’s economy underline the fact that gas
is propping up the regime financially. The International Monetary Fund
says gas sales abroad have allowed the regime to build up its foreign
exchange reserves to US $2 billion at a time when inward investment is
generally dropping.

Foreign investment in Burma is being hit by Western sanctions and a
lack of confidence due to political instability, except where energy is
concerned.

“Even if every Western company pulled out there would be other takers.
Asia is hungry for energy, and it will get hungrier,” said energy
commodities consultant Jeff Mead in Hong Kong.

The IMF’s December report said that apart from gas sales the Burmese
junta had pursued disastrously inept economic policies with inflation
now running at 35 percent a year.

This is a view shared by a new report on Burma by the British Economist
Intelligence Unit, part of The Economist business news magazine.

“The junta’s management of the economy remains poor, and major changes
in policy continue to contribute to economic instability,” says the EIU
report for 2008. “Gas exports will keep the current account in surplus
in 2008-09, but the import bill will rise, partly driven by the rising
cost of imports of petroleum products.”

China’s ability to elbow out other contenders for the Shwe gas—from
Thailand, Japan and South Korea, as well as India—underlines Beijing’s
rising influence within the Burmese regime, say analysts.

“The Chinese government doesn’t just want some stability on its
southwest border and a bonus gas source; it needs to use Burma as a
conduit, as part of its wider global strategy for energy security,”
said an economic analyst with a Western embassy in Bangkok, who spoke
to The Irrawaddy on condition of anonymity. “Much of China’s foreign
policy now is geared to energy security. The country’s growth requires
more and more oil and, increasingly, gas.”

China will build a gas pipeline through Burma and into bordering Yunnan
Province, which is desperate for energy, especially after the central
government ordered a cutback in the number of hydro dam developments on
some of the region’s most sensitive rivers.

The Chinese will also use Burma as a conduit to transfer Middle Eastern
and North African crude oil via another pipeline into Yunnan, where
some of it will be processed at a new refinery and the rest piped on
farther north as far as the large industrial center of Chongqing in
Sichuan Province, according to the official Chinese news agency Xinhua.

These gas and oil pipelines will cost China several billion dollars,
but these days that’s cheap for Beijing. After stock market
listings—including investments by thousands of Chinese in so-called
chao gu (“stir-fry stocks”)—PetroChina is the world’s first company
valued at more than $1 trillion.

The Naypyidaw regime will earn several hundred million dollars in
transshipment “fees”—a bonus for selling the gas cheaply. Human rights
observers fear many Burmese face land confiscation, displacement and
possibly coercion to build the pipelines.

The movement of oil through Burma will be large, possibly more than 20
million metric tons a year—that’s about 400,000 barrels a day—according
to sources close to PetroChina.

Some reports suggest China will transship the oil through the existing
dilapidated western port of Sittwe, which will also be used for moving
the Shwe gas.

This would be a big blow for India, which has just signed an agreement
with the Burmese junta to invest $100 million redeveloping Sittwe as a
trade window for its landlocked northeastern states, via the Kaladan
River.

But the Chinese are also working on a new port at Kyauk Phyu on Ramree
Island to the east of Sittwe. This port will be capable of handling the
world’s largest container ships. It’s likely the two ports will be
linked by a new road.

Either way, China’s procurement of the Shwe gas is part of a wider
strategic game being played by Beijing, which also guarantees comfort
and support for Than Shwe and his fellow generals.

 

Burma Update

More deaths suspected in Myanmar

Dec 15, ‘07 1:45 PM for everyone

In keeping with my commitment to do more than I have been doing to work for human rights, I am posting the following link to a Reuters new story about Myanmar. Apparently, the United Nations’ underestimated the number of deaths resulting from the government’s response to the recent protests by monks and other activists in that country. Activistists who entered the country as tourists and met with in country activists, say the death toll is at least 70, more than double the UN’s count of 31.

Myannmar or Burma is one of those undeveloped countries blessed (cursed?) with an abundant supply of our planet’s most coveted natural resource, fossil fuel, mostly in the form of natural gas. Thailand, India and China all deal with the repressive military regime in Burma to gain access to those resources. Chevron Oil, the U.S.-based oil company which employed Condoleeza Rice before she joined the first Bush Administration as National Security chief, also has holdings in Burma and continues to work with the cruel regime and has been exempted from current restrictions on U.S. companies’ dealings with the regime because its presence in Burma pre-dates the time parameters in the current restriction.

The regime could not exist without oil and gas revenues. The money is used to fund the extravagant lifestyles of the generals and their friends and to employ police and military personnel to enforce their grip on power in Burma.

The Chevron holdings in Burma were originally owned by Unocal. This is the company which recently settled with 15 Burmese peasants who brought a lawsuit against it for human rights violations and its complicity with the regime in forcing them to work on oil infrastructure projects for no or low pay and under conditions of extreme cruelty.

Milena Kaneva, a Bulgarian national working in Italy as a journalist, produced and directed a film about the lives of Burmese citizens and the court case against Unocal called Total Denial.
The film was released in 2006 and received a special prize for Human Rights from former Czech President Vaclav Havel during the One World Festival in Prague(March 2006).

I mention the lawsuit and Kaneva’s film about it because they point up the linkages between world oil and gas consumption, oil and gas company (and stockholder) profits and our individual choices as consumers and citizens to human rights abuses in Burma.

The 17th Century English churchman and poet John Donne said in a sermon “no man is an island entire of itself” and this is true today. It has always been true; we are connected to all other beings. Acts that may seem invisible to us because they are behaviors encoded in our “lifestyle” are choices we make and our choices affect the lives of unseen others in distant places such as Burma. In his Meditation XVII Donne isn’t writing about blame; he is writing about connection. It is said of England’s Metaphysical poets, of which John Donne was one, that they were the last to write in a poetic language that reflected the union of feeling and reason. This severance of the mind and heart in English poetry was a sort of prophecy. We live in a world which pits our hearts and minds against each other, a world which has erased our connection to unseen others.