I don't ask you folks for much - no tip jar, I pay for my own laptop by working a day job, etc.
But I really, really would appreciate it if you could take a few moments today and write one letter to one of the companies on the list of businesses that do business with Burma.
Let them know what you think of the situation there, and what you think of them for profiting from it.
Yes, it's not something that will have an immediate or massive impact.
But if we can get enough people to do it, it will have some impact.
A boycott or disinvestment drive against Burma will only throw Burma more into the arms of China. On the other hand, if China can be persuaded to encourage Burma towards economic liberalization, then Burma might back off. As is, Burma is a communist tyranny and the tyrant government doesn't care where they get their money from. If the West stops doing business with Burma, they'll just ramp up illegal drugs production and ask for money from China.
The question to ask is, "how can you get China to exert pressure on Burma?"
The question to ask is, "how can you get China to exert pressure on Burma?"
Answer: disinvest from Burma. Force the Burmese government to turn to illegal drugs and handouts from China. Chaos and black marketing slopping over the borders and an increasing drain on China's resources will do more to convince the mandarins to do something about the situation than any other course of action.
I thought the U.S. had pretty stiff sanctions on Burma. I am surprised at the number of American companies listed.
The question to ask is, "how can you get China to exert pressure on Burma?"
Is that the question? I am not sure. According to the CIA Factbook 49% of Burma's exports go to Thailand, 12.8% to India and 5.3% to China. OTOH 34.6% of imports come from China, and 21.8% from Thailand. All of these figures do not account for rampant smuggling.
Perhaps the question is how to pressure India, Thailand and other SE Asian countries. It appears to me that China is hollowing out Burma's periphery with infrasture improvements built to transport resources to China, not to Burmese coastal markets. It also appears that Burma likes to play China and India off of each other to retain independence, but generally India gets little.
What does the junta want? If it aspires to be Tibet, then outside pressure will only speed up and increase its dependency on China. If the junta still retains nationalistic aspirations, pressure from India, Thailand and others might have more significance than at first blush.
I have to suggest H20 Yachts for someone - it's both French and make yachts, so it'll be good for a Republican populist. Who speaks(and writes) French.
Suzuki looks good otherwise.
I despise dictatorships, but I'm having trouble understanding why some, like Burma, get the pariah treatment, while others, including most of Burma's neighbors, get a pass. Perhaps someone can tell me why I'm supposed to boycott Burma but be indifferent to China, Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos, all of which are one-party police states.
Nobody's telling you to be indifferent to anything, as far as I can tell. The point is that there is some sign of movement in Myanmar/Burma, and so now would perhaps be a good time to try to push there, a bit.
But Burma was singled out for singular opprobium well before the latest savagery, and even at the time of Tianamen I don't recall anything like the same effort to foster China's isolation, for example; there is apparently a distinction here, and I'm hoping someone can explain it.
Perhaps someone can tell me why I'm supposed to boycott Burma but be indifferent to China, Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos, all of which are one-party police states.
Well, you're not supposed to be, if you want the socially correct answer. And really, Viet Nam/Cambodia/Laos may be corrupt socialist regimes, but at least they have sham elections of people who are supposed to represent the citizens. Additionally, those 3 have had relatively strong industries for the last 20 years, and Burma is just tanking. And Burma tortures and uses forced labor.. more, I guess, than the others. So, it harms it's people much more than those 3, more than Zimbabwe, but less than Sudan.
Ignoring for a moment the memories Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos will bring up for the next 30 years or so.
China's just too big, and most people recognize that moving it to democracy quickly could very likely be devastating. It'll come eventually. After Tienanmen, Congress changed the law requiring MFN approval - there were other scattered things, probably more than now - I thought there was a harshly worded UN postcard.
And really, it's not like China rules is direct opposition to the will of it's people, as strange as it sounds. If 100 or 200 million people wanted another party, it would happen. 1 mil here or there just isn't enough. It's why the clamp down on information so hard, right? Can't let 100 million people know about a better way.