Burma: Targeted Sanctions Needed on Petroleum Industry

[Lone_Star_Dem]

Source: AlterNet News

(New York, November 19, 2007) – The United Nations Security Council should act to prohibit any new investment in Burma's oil and gas fields and block company payments that help sustain Burma's brutal military rule, Human Rights Watch said today. Human Rights Watch said that until the Security Council imposes sanctions, members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), China, India, the European Union, the United States and other countries that have economic ties to Burma should act to suspend any further development of Burma's oil and gas sector. To encourage an end to ongoing repression, Human Rights Watch also called for targeted financial sanctions on companies owned and controlled by the Burmese military or whose revenues substantially benefit the military.

"Burma's generals act as if they are immune from worldwide condemnation because they're still getting cash from foreign-financed oil and gas projects," said Arvind Ganesan, director of the Business and Human Rights Program at Human Rights Watch. "It's time to cut them off."

In a detailed new compilation of information on foreign investment in oil and gas released today, Human Rights Watch identified 27 companies based in 13 countries as having investment interests in Burma's oil and gas fields. Thirteen of those companies are wholly or partially owned by foreign governments, and these state-controlled companies are invested in 20 of the 30 projects currently underway.

<snip>

The Burmese military government relies heavily on the oil and gas sector to sustain itself in power. Lucrative revenues from gas sales allow it to ignore demands to return to civilian rule and improve the country's human rights record. The oil and gas sector is one of the few sectors in the badly managed economy to experience growth in recent years. Funds from this sector help underwrite the military without bringing benefits to ordinary people.



Read more: http://wap.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/HRW/feebe16978325e46b39a4efe4e49b3af.htm

---

Burma: Foreign Oil and Gas Investors Shore Up Junta - Human Rights Watch

Foreign companies are lining up to partner with Burma’s military junta and tap into the country’s lucrative resources, particularly oil and gas fields. This foreign investment provides a crucial source of support to the junta, allowing it to ignore demands that it return Burma to civilian rule and end human rights abuses.

The billions of dollars generated by these projects, which involve at least 27 companies from 13 countries, help to fund the military without bringing benefits to ordinary people.

Outside investors in Burma’s oil and gas industry include companies from:

* Australia
* British Virgin Islands
* China
* France
* India
* Japan
* Malaysia
* Netherlands
* Russian Federation
* Singapore
* South Korea
* Thailand
* United States


More at link: http://hrw.org/campaigns/burma/drilling/

[Baby Snooks]

1. But the jewelers are boycotting the gems!

In what has to be the most ludicrous pr stunt ever there is a boycott of Burmese gems. The people who can afford Burmese gems probably also have nice dividend checks from the oil companies including Chevron which allow them to buy the gems. And they could care less about human rights violations in Burma. Or anywhere else for that matter.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/11/12/burma17316.htm

The most expensive of the gems which account for most of the income probably are not sold through the jewelers participating in the boycott. They are sold by brokers and at auction. Sotheby's and Christie's of course will not be participating in the boycott. Particularly now that they will probably represent the major market for the most expensive of the Burmese gems which include sapphires as well as rubies.

Most of which will be listed as "property of a gentleman" or "from the estate of a lady." Sotheby's and Christie's of course cannot be faulted. Pop a newly mined ruby or sapphire into an older setting and you have an estate piece. I doubt anyone would expect you to toss your grandmother's ruby ring into the dumpster to protest the human rights violations. The problem is the auction houses don't know if it's really your grandmother's or the general's. Or the general's lady's. They simply put it up for auction. Beyond that, well, if you want to boycott all rubies and sapphires, then go for it. They will still be sold at auction even if every country bans the import of newly mined gems. They will simply be put in older settings.

The best way to boycott the junta in Burma is to not buy gas at a Chevron station. The junta is making far more off Chevron than it is the gems. The problem is most Americans will not boycott Chevron. Any more than they boycotted Exxon-Mobil. And many will come back from the auction with the ruby or sapphire ring sold at auction that belonged to someone's grandmother. And not care whether it really did or not.

[AndyTiedye]

2. Does Chevron Buy More Burmese Oil than the Others?

You singled out Chevron as being most deserving of a boycott. Why?
Do they buy more Burmese oil than the others?

What I had read up to this point suggested that Burmese oil mostly went to China.

[Joanne98]

3. Oh yeah right. The oil companies are going to care? BWHAHA

That's pretty funny!

[ohio2007]

4. China cut oil deals with Burma, they won't go along with any sanctions like that

China prefers a stable supressive govt that can deliver a steady flow to them. They won't risk damaging supplies that may take months or even years to restart.