Profits Trump Freedom

Beryllium Sphere(r)

Sun Sep 30 21:46:57 -0700 2007

manage

Still known as Burma to the opposition, which doesn't recognize the military government as having authority to change the name.

Profits Trump Freedom

Chuck Burgess

Mon Oct 01 06:29:18 -0700 2007

manage

Well, really... what did the world do to stop Darfur?  Why should a military like this think anyone will step up to interfere? 

They are not preventing the US access to its oil, so there ya go... "no oil restrictions ==> no al queda presence"... isn't that how it works?  Isn't that the only concern?

Profits Trump Freedom

Charles E Hill

Mon Oct 01 11:02:21 -0700 2007

manage

Slashdot is over that way, thanks.  If you are fool enough to believe that U.S. access to oil or other resources is enough to dictate American efforts you are fool indeed.

Hint: While Sudan and Burma are both rich with oil, it isn't the United States that is over there, it is China in both cases.  In Burma's case, it is also India and Russia.

For simplicities sake, I'll just copy the post I made at /. on this subject when someone there spouted the "no oil" meme:

* * *

That one line "because they have no oil" has become a meme propagated by people who seem to have distilled the U.S. invasion of Iraq down to one simple, black & white issue. It isn't, and wasn't ever that simple.

To answer your question, as to why we don't (or didn't) intervene in the Sudan, Burma, Rwanda, DPR Congo, Zimbabwe, Liberia or any other of those hot-spots is rather complicated, but if you want a simple answer -- it isn't in the best interests of the United States.

Leave Burma for last, simply because it is the only one I listed that isn't in Africa.

The memory of colonialism is still strong in Africa. A western power stepping in would be perceived by many as white people not believing black people are capable of running a country and having to step in to "save the poor savages from themselves". Add to that the fact that none of them would be a "quick fix" and establishing stable, working, representative government would take a DECADE or more of occupation. Ditto for Iraq -- a DECADE or more, without outside interference. By that time even the people who you tried to help will be calling you an occupying power and be working against you.

Not a one of them is worth all the trouble from a U.S. perspective, especially when you consider most of the "rebels" would be more interested in exacting revenge as to reconciliation and building bridges. For recent examples, see DPR Congo, Uganda, Zimbabwe and Liberia.

As for Burma, it too has a colonial past with Britain. The Junta do their best to blame every problem they have on the outside interference of Britain and the U.S. They also share a border with China, who I'm fairly certain wouldn't be interested in having U.S. troops that close.

They're also a short hop from Vietnam. The press in the U.S. would be making comparisons before the President finished any sentence about sending troops over there.

Sudan's current gov't is militantly Islamic and forceably imposed Sharia Law on the southern States in direct abrogation of the Addis Ababa Agreement that ended their first Civil War. And to put things in perspective, Osama bin Laden's latest message to the world called from mujhadeen to travel to Sudan to expel the infidel U.N. and African Union peacekeepers. Then there are issues with cross-border incursions into Chad and Uganda... it is a mess.

Watch the movie "Lord of War" for general info on the way politics and gun-running is handled by the big boys. The last scene where Costner explains to the guy that arrested him how it all works and why he was going to be free soon is enlightening.

Profits Trump Freedom

Chuck Burgess

Mon Oct 01 11:30:53 -0700 2007

manage

> Slashdot is over that way, thanks.

/me must concede he was feeling rather cynical earlier today when he posted this ;)

Profits Trump Freedom

President4242

Tue Oct 02 09:29:30 -0700 2007

manage

That one line "because they have no oil" has become a meme propagated by people who seem to have distilled the U.S. invasion of Iraq down to one simple, black & white issue. It isn't, and wasn't ever that simple.

And to repeat my "cut off their nose to spite my face" suggestion from /.- prove it.  Start supporting the permanent closure of Iraqi oil wells.  When there is no more revenue to fight over, the main economic argument for the civil war (who gets the profits from the oil wells) goes away.

But we'll never do that- because going into Iraq WAS primarily about oil.  More specifically, Saddam's plan to sink the petrodollar by creating the petroeuro.

Profits Trump Freedom

Charles E Hill

Tue Oct 02 09:45:08 -0700 2007

manage

Start supporting the permanent closure of Iraqi oil wells.  When there is no more revenue to fight over, the main economic argument for the civil war (who gets the profits from the oil wells) goes away.

That won't work because the oil is still there, just capped and guarded.  People will always try and get to it.  Not to mention the issue of justifying impoverishing an entire nation.  Until the oil is gone, it will be an issue.

My twist on your suggestion would be to use as much Gulf Oil as possible, and as little as possible from other areas.  Pump the entire Middle East dry.  Once the oil is gone, they can go back to herding camels, farming dates and throwing rocks at each other.

But we'll never do that- because going into Iraq WAS primarily about oil.  More specifically, Saddam's plan to sink the petrodollar by creating the petroeuro.

Make no mistake, oil was a big factor in Iraq, but it wasn't the only factor.  Also, it would have never happened if it wasn't convenient.  We were sitting right next door with 100,000 troops and would have never had a better chance.  Everything was already in place -- troops, supplies, intelligence, logistics, etc. I can easily imagine the phrase "We'll never have a better opportunity..." being bandied about quite a bit.

Please provide links to support the assertion that Saddam was trying to create a petroeuro.  All the info I have seen is that was an Iranian push, not Iraqi.  It is also a non-starter unless Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf States follow suit.

Darwin rules.

computersareevil

Mon Oct 01 07:09:05 -0700 2007

manage

"Profits win, humans lose."

Why isn't is "The fit win, the weak lose"? Isn't that what is really going on? Aren't the corporate barons simply following their Darwinian obligation to eat, survive, and reproduce better than the competition?  It would be nice to think that our intellect has overridden our instincts, but we haven't been out of the caves very long, and our dog-eat-dog instincts are what put us on the top of the heap. So are we doing the human species a disservice by trying to save the weak?  How do we balance egalitarianism with survival? Communism failed. Socialism failed. (Both because they failed to account for our Darwinian instincts.) Technologism? If we program our machines with our instincts (as we are bound to do and already trying to do), will they will carry our their Darwinian programming and eliminate us as weak?

Profits Trump Freedom

President4242

Mon Oct 01 09:46:32 -0700 2007

manage

I thought the right to earn profit WAS freedom, at least according to the free marketers. 

Profits Trump Freedom

disco

Mon Oct 01 11:49:34 -0700 2007

manage

Because economic isolation has worked so well in the past in toppling the regimes of North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, the Khmer Rouge, ... etc. You can argue that they should be isolated economically and it's morally wrong for these countries to continue trading with Burma, but let's not foolishly think that the Burmese people will be better off by doing so. Historically sanctions haven't worked.

Profits Trump Freedom

Charles E Hill

Mon Oct 01 12:14:25 -0700 2007

manage

Spot on.

The Junta of Myanmar has always told the Burmese people that they were not enriching themselves at the expense of their people.  While the capitol was Rangoon, this facade was harder to keep up.  By moving it to a smaller city in the north, they could get away with more.  This came to light when the daughter of one of the leaders was married and a cell phone video was released showing her in a lavish gown, dripping with gem stones.

Sanctions haven't impacted the Junta one iota.

Profits Trump Freedom

Uncle Entity

Mon Oct 01 12:27:28 -0700 2007

manage

Because economic isolation has worked so well in the past in toppling the regimes of North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, the Khmer Rouge, ... etc.

Seemed to work out in the case of South Africa.

N. Korea and Cuba both have 'sugar daddies' to take the pressure of them and Iraq had 'oil for food'. Iran has a *good* market for it's goods and I don't think they ever seriously tried economic isolation on them because India or Russia would happily buy their oil.

The Khmer Rouge is totally different in it was propped up by the US and apparently China and Thailand if the Wikipedia article is correct.

So anyhoo, Burma. They have a very open border -- open to smugglers from Thailand at least -- so economic sanctions would only hurt them if the Thais really closed down the border. There also doesn't seen to be any isolation policy in place since "On 23 June 1997, Myanmar was admitted into the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)."(wikipedia)

Profits Trump Freedom

disco

Mon Oct 01 13:31:42 -0700 2007

manage

> Seemed to work out in the case of South Africa.

According to the Wikipedia article:
In an analysis of the effect of sanctions on South Africa by the FW de Klerk Foundation, it was argued that they were not a leading contributor to the political reforms leading to the end of Apartheid

I'd add that with the Khmer Rouge's economic isolation was self-imposed. They were such a smart bunch.

But that rest of your post seems to confirm that sanctions don't work.

Profits Trump Freedom

Uncle Entity

Mon Oct 01 14:19:43 -0700 2007

manage

I disagree.

The wikipedia article uses this study as the basis of its claim and I would say that the conditions that led up to the reforms were directly related to sanctions. The 'unintended consequences' that resulted from sanctions led to an economic uplifting of all the people instead of just the ruling class as would have happened if they were able to rely on imports to supply the basic needs of the country.

They had to tap the local population to fill jobs instead of just being able to buy products on the international market and let the non-whites live in poverty and squalor. These new jobs created more jobs and so on until there was a critical mass of equality which translated into political reform.

I don't argue with the claim economic reform led to the ending of apartheid just the root causes that led up to it.

Profits Trump Freedom

disco

Mon Oct 01 15:01:04 -0700 2007

manage

> The 'unintended consequences' that resulted from sanctions led to an economic uplifting of all the people instead of just the ruling class as would have happened if they were able to rely on imports to supply the basic needs of the country.

One of the "unintended consequences" points in the study:

"The main victims of sanctions – predictably – were black workers who were usually the
first to be retrenched as a result of the negative effects of sanctions. It is accordingly not
surprising that authoritative opinion surveys consistently showed that a sizable majority
of black South Africans was resolutely opposed to sanctions."

One of the other points refers to an example (General Motors divesting) of the ruling class getting richer because of sanctions.

The study's conclusion is that Apartheid failed when black South Africans became better off, not because of international sanctions, but because they moved to the cities and received a better education. They in turn occupied white-collar positions and became economically and socially empowered. Also the Afrikans (whites) were "becoming increasingly uncomfortable with many aspects of apartheid" because they were "influenced by global values" from traveling abroad and international media (e.g. The Bill Cosby Show!). The article nowhere suggests these "economic and social forces" that resulted in the collapse of Apartheid were a result of international sanctions.

Profits Trump Freedom

Uncle Entity

Mon Oct 01 15:55:56 -0700 2007

manage

I'm not arguing the conclusion just the claim sanctions had very little impact on the economic situation of the people. Yes they can point to examples where the people were hurt as a result of divestitures but they completely ignore the job creation and local economic expansion as a result of being (mostly) cut off from the rest of the world.

Yes, it's a bit of a broken window argument but without being able to import cheap goods from abroad they were forced to increase their manufacturing and agricultural base to compensate thus creating jobs. Once the sanctions came down the local industries were unable to compete resulting in an economic downturn they have yet been able to recover from, so I've heard from some South Africans I hung out with a couple years ago who were forced to seek jobs elsewhere in the Commonwealth.

I also hate to say it because of the 'unintended consequences' it may throw into the discussion but I don't feel an MP under apartheid is exactly an unbiased source of information. I'm sure they have a whole plethora of arguments against sanctions they can dust off on a moments notice, they *had* to argue against them loudly and often for years. So we get 'sanctions hurt the blacks' and 'sanctions kept political change from happening sooner' instead of 'yeah, we were a bunch of racist assholes who couldn't keep the system operating without international support'.

Now that I think about it all the sanctions you mentioned failed because of a lack of international consensus. If there were a general embargo like what happened to S. Africa, most of the totalitarian regimes would fail because of the lack of an efficient centrally planned economic system so the people would have to assume the role of the entrepreneur and the government would have to eventually concede their authority to the people due to their failure to provide for the people. If *all* nations enforced an embargo against Burma I seriously doubt the government could last through the end of the year. Yes, the people would suffer in the process but it doesn't seem like they're any better off today.

Profits Trump Freedom

President4242

Tue Oct 02 09:32:33 -0700 2007

manage

Depends on how you do the economic isolation.

There's the weak way, with UN resolutions.

There's the strong way, by mining their ports and overland routes, and backing it up with UAV air power, completely making it impossible for anything with a body temperature greater than ambient to cross the border and live.

Historically, the weak way hasn't worked.  Historically, various versions of the strong way have.