a case of conflicting principles May 21, 2008
Posted by deepali in corporate america, human rights, news.trackback
I recently wrote a guest post on Mrs. Micah, discussing the situation in Burma and ways in which we can help. One of the major dilemmas we face in this disaster is the need to prevent more lives being lost vs the desire to continue opposing the government.
I’ll be honest – I think innocent lives trump politics any day. Regardless of who is running the country (and how), I think we have a responsibility as members of a global community to uphold international law and our own governing principles.
I understand the quandary: aid going to Burma is being rerouted through the government, who is likely taking a cut, and redistributing itself, likely in a very inefficient way. None of us wants to support such a regime.
But here’s the kicker – we already do. Emergency relief aid is actually a very small amount of money, relatively speaking. No military regime can prop itself up on it. What this government thrives on is a much larger stream of money, and one to which we all contribute.
Burma is a country of natural gas and oil resources, and the Chinese, Russians, and South Africans have heavy investments in the area. They continue to support the junta because it’s a win-win situation for them (and let’s be frank – none of the those three countries has the best governance or human rights record).
But we support the military regime too. Despite our economic embargo, some of our own companies invest in the region. And even more insidiously, the products we buy from places like China are produced with the energy and profit China receives from its investments in Burma.
In the end, it’s not aid money that will keep the junta in control – it’s our own purchasing power.
Indeed. To my mind the possibility of helping some people trumps the other. Ideally, when this is better recovered-from, it’ll be easier for people to try opposing the junta, etc. For now, working with them may be the best option.
That link you put describing Halliburton’s business dealings in Burma is out-dated. Actually, Bush recently put stronger trade restrictions on Burma than any other US president. Now, even the major credit cards can’t do business there. I know this because I visited Burma last year and had to use a 4-inch stack of paper cash; everyone blamed Bush on the lack of credit card options.
But all this is moot. We know that trade is not the main factor to determine whether a bad regime will stay in power. If that were the case, Castro would’ve been gone a long time ago. Burma has been run by the military since 1962. That’s not an easy thing to get rid of.
@ Lonnie – Outdated or not, it still occurred, yes? And energy companies are still allowed to do business there, if not directly.
Trade might not be the biggest factor, but it is *a* factor. Cuba might not have trade relations with the US, but it does have them with plenty of other countries.
Regardless, it’s not trade, but investment, that is funding this regime. When we divested from S Africa, we brought down apartheid. We could do the same in Burma.
@ Mrs Micah – Ideally “working with them” would include only gaining permission to enter the affected regions… and nothing else.
Somehow i missed the point. Probably lost in translation
Anyway … nice blog to visit.
cheers, Ufology.