International narcotics agenda behind Myanmar instability

[donsu]

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2473.shtml


-snip-

The demise of the Golden Triangle: bad for business

According to a report by Thomas Fuller of the International Herald Tribune, the Golden Triangle has, in recent years, lost its prominence as a narco-region. In fact, the legendary Triangle now accounts for as little as 5 percent of world opium supply, according to some estimates.

Not surprisingly, the Golden Crescent and Afghanistan, now under control of the US and its drug-intelligence proxies, are by far and away the world’s number one opium suppliers, as well as the top overall drug producing region, dwarfing Colombia and the Golden Triangle.

In fact, the demise of the Golden Triangle in recent years can be traced to geostrategic developments that run counter to the agenda of international interests whose financial and banking system depends on the multi-billion dollar cash flows of the criminal drug trade.

-snip holds 4 points-

These narco-developments, parallel with 1) other financial and political reasons why a new Mynamar government would be preferred; 2) a fragile and teetering world economy facing numerous financial bubbles and insolvency; and 3) continued failure to control either the Middle East or contain the rising political and economic power of China, cast a different light on the sudden burst of interest on the part of the Bush administration to back a coup or regime change in Myanmar.

The Bush administration, the epitome of criminal political power, does not support “human rights.” It will utilize every means, including overt military force, to protect geostrategic interests that depend on the world drug trade.

The revitalization of the Golden Triangle drug trade, and the installation or support for an openly pro-US regime in Myanmar, benefits Western financial interests. Any geostrategic foothold in Southeast Asia also benefits efforts to contain China.
------------------


it's always the money

[Flabbergasted]

1. The plot thickens

[seemslikeadream]

2. Unocal and the Crimes of Burma Ashcroft Sides with Torturers

http://www.counterpunch.org/mariner06072003.html

June 7, 2003


Ashcroft Sides with Torturers
Unocal and the Crimes of Burma
By JOANNE MARINER

Given the chance to protect corporate interests, the Bush administration is predictably happy to take it. Ditto for the prospect of undermining international justice.

But it's not every day that the opportunity arises to accomplish both objectives at once. It takes a case like John Doe I v. Unocal Corp., a civil damages action currently pending in U.S. federal court.

In a brief recently filed in the Unocal case, the administration--in the person of Attorney General John Ashcroft--sets out to defend an oil company, reaffirm the president's untrammeled power over foreign policy, and eviscerate a law that has provided a modicum of justice to victims of rights abuses from around the world.

All that, and more. In an added plus, the brief also gives the administration a vehicle for highlighting the wit and wisdom of Robert Bork. Bork, the right wing's original judicial martyr, is very much in the thoughts of an administration that is currently fighting bruising confirmation battles in Congress.

Forced Labor, Murder, Rape and Torture

The plaintiffs in the Unocal case are Burmese villagers who claim that they were subjected to forced labor, murder, rape, and torture during the construction of a gas pipeline through their country. Soldiers allegedly committed these abuses while providing security and other services for the pipeline project.

Jane Doe I, one of the plaintiffs in the case, testified that when her husband tried to escape the forced labor program, he was shot at by soldiers, and that, in retaliation for his attempted escape, she and her baby were thrown into a fire. Her child died and she was badly injured.

Other villagers described the summary execution of people who refused to work, or who became too weak to work effectively.

There is little doubt that such crimes occurred. They have been exhaustively documented by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and a host of other groups. In 1995, when pipeline construction was beginning, the U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution urging Burma (also known as Myanmar) to put a stop to its practices of torture, forced labor and summary executions. Even the Justice Department, whose "friend of the court" brief was filed this past May 8, was willing to acknowledge the "blatant human rights abuses" committed by Burma's military government.

The only serious factual issue in the case is the extent of Unocal's responsibility for the crimes. The plaintiffs claim that Unocal aided and abetted the Burmese military in its campaign of abuse, an assertion that Unocal vigorously denies.

"Practical Assistance"

The Unocal case is now pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The lower court that first heard the case dismissed it, finding insufficient proof of Unocal's involvement in the abuses.

The appeal was heard by a panel of Ninth Circuit judges that ruled unanimously to reverse the dismissal. The court found that the evidence presented by the villagers supported the conclusion "that Unocal gave practical assistance to the Myanmar Military in subjecting Plaintiffs to forced labor."

As the court described it, this practical assistance "took the form of hiring the Myanmar Military to provide security and build infrastructure along the pipeline route in exchange for money or food." The assistance "also took the form of using photos, surveys, and maps in daily meetings to show the Myanmar Military where to provide security and build infrastructure."


Moreover, the court found, the evidence supported the conclusion "that Unocal gave 'encouragement' to the Myanmar Military in subjecting Plaintiffs to forced labor."

Besides ruling for the plaintiffs on the forced labor issue, the court also reversed the district court's dismissal of the murder and rape claims, finding sufficient evidence of Unocal's complicity in those abuses. But the panel decision, issued in September 2002, was vacated in February, when the Ninth Circuit decided to rehear the case en banc (in other words, sitting as a panel of eleven, rather than three, judges).


The Alien Tort Claims Act

Except for a token acknowledgment of the Burmese government's human rights abuses, the Justice Department's brief ignores the facts of the case. Rather than attempting to defend Burma and Unocal on the factual record, it instead aims to destroy the legal basis of the villagers' suit.

In its brief, the Justice Department embarks on a wholesale attack on the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), the law underlying the villagers' claims. For over twenty years, since the landmark 1980 case of Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, courts have ruled that the ATCA permits victims of serious violations of international law abroad to seek civil damages in U.S. courts against perpetrators found in the United States.

The Justice Department's proposed interpretation of the law would radically narrow its scope. The law would be changed so dramatically, in fact, that as the Department itself acknowledges, it would be rendered "superfluous."

If the Ninth Circuit adopts this approach, victims of human rights abuses abroad will no longer be able to rely on the U.S. courts for any hope of justice. And no more will multinational corporations, enticed by other countries' lower wages, laxer worker protections--and, possibly, ineffective and corrupt judicial systems--have to worry that abuses they commit in foreign countries may come back to U.S. courts to haunt them.




AIN'T GONNA LET NOBODY TURN ME AROUND
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1896963


Burma is on the Brink of Revolution
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1893560

[donsu]

3. thanks for adding this to our info

nt

[donsu]

4. kicking back to pg. 1 as this is important

nt

[Theres-a]

7. .

:kick:

[Theres-a]

10. .

:kick:

[seemslikeadream]

5. Burma's Billionaire

http://members.forbes.com/global/2007/0423/058.html


David Serchuk 04.23.07

George Soros spends $2 million a year trying to pave the way for democracy in Burma. It's a tricky operation. Naturally, the head of his Burma Project is banned in Burma, where ruthless military dictatorships have ruled for decades. And Soros is unwelcome in neighboring Thailand, home to 2 million refugees who have fled Burma. What's more, Thailand won't recognize these people as refugees, making them that much harder to help.

Thailand blamed Soros and his hedge fund for setting off the Asian financial crisis in July 1997, which started when the Thai baht plummeted. He's been so demonized there that some potential grant recipients have shied away from the Burma Project, unwilling to be associated with it. "Some get a little nervous to publicly have our support," says Maureen Aung-Thwin, who heads the project out of a Fifth Avenue office in New York. And Soros himself hasn't set foot in the country in years. In 2001 he canceled a planned speech in Bangkok because of the threat of protests.


So how does the Burma Project handle these obstacles? It keeps a very low profile, employing just a few people on the ground in Thailand, says Aung-Thwin. Instead of directly running all of its projects in Thailand, it contributes to some 100 groups each year and offers scores of academic scholarships to Burmese who might someday play a role in a democratic Burma. She says the Burma Project keeps its recipients at arm's length and makes sure they're also getting funds from other organizations. The result: Few Thais even know the Burma Project exists. "We just don't want to give any reason for attracting negative attention to (the recipients') work," she says. "In case somebody feels like scapegoating Mr. Soros, they've got other people's funding, so it's not a problem." (Soros declined to comment.)

Burma has been in the news this year, and once again the difficulty of the project's task is being highlighted. In January, for just the second time, the UN Security Council held briefings on Burma, and then the U.S. and the U.K. introduced a resolution calling on Burma to free its political prisoners, including Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi; begin a transition to democracy; and cease military attacks against civilians. But China, Russia and South Africa blocked it. Just days later Burma granted China oil-and-gas exploration rights. "Those are pretty formidable allies for the Burmese junta, to have both Russia and China protecting them," says Aung-Thwin. "But we're not daunted."

....

...the Burma Project puts its money into "capacity building." This means that rather than provide food or water, it seeks to foster the economic, legal and media skills needed to run a country. One reason? It's cheaper. "Relief work requires vast resources that not even Mr. Soros has," says Debbie Stothard, head of the Alternate Asean Network. Instead her group aims to raise the refugees' level of economic literacy and show them how to get their message out in the media. That means teaching about banking, taxation and how natural resources affect trade, for example, while also showing how governments can raise loans to finance development.

One star pupil of Stothard's is Charm Tong, a 25-year-old advocate for the Shan minority in Burma who's met with President George W. Bush and spoken to the UN. "We're always trying to build the new leaders; we call it the future of Burma," says Aung-Thwin, who was born in Burma but raised in India.

Another priority is teaching English.

[donsu]

6. gosh, the neo cons will be bldg. a lrg. embassy there before you know it

neo cons are such busy bees

[seemslikeadream]

8. I wonder if the monks are being "used"

[Theres-a]

9. Wouldn't surprise me. nt

[struggle4progress]

11. Uh .. for twenty years, people have been concerned about the military thugs who rule Burma