[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
SOME MEASURES ON OIL-FOR-FOOD(1995/
Subject: SOME MEASURES ON OIL-FOR-FOOD(1995/1996)
/* Written 27 Sep 6:00am 1995 by drunoo@xxxxxxxxxxxx in igc:reg.burma */
/* --------------" Letter to Hon. S. Callahan (27/9/95) "---------------*/
Dr U Ne Oo
48/2 Ayliffes Road
St Marys SA 5042
September 27, 1995.
The Hon. Sonny Callahan
House Foreign Operations Subcommittee
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
RE: The McConnell Amendment Number 2753 to the bill H.R. 1868
As a Burmese national presently residing in Adelaide Australia, I
should like to express my sincere thanks to you and your colleagues
at the United States Congress for continuing your attention to the
situation of human rights and progress towards democracy in Burma.
In this regards, I am particularly pleased that the United States
Congress has been currently drafting the legislation for the trade
and investment sanctions on Burma.
I am simply overwhelmed with gratitudes and therefore write to you
about the fact that the Congress of the United States have given
strong support for the Burmese refugees and exiles in various
countries, which it is reflected in the McConnell Amendment No.
2753. We, the Burma's refugees, are so thankful to all your
colleagues that such attention to our situations by the U.S.
Congress and international community will ensure the refugee's well
beings and safety. I fully appreciate The Congress' humanitarian
concerns about Burmese people and Burma.
I totally support the President of the United States to take a
leading role in implementing an international arms embargo against
Burma through the United Nations. I also support the U.S. Secretary
of Treasury to make initiatives in limiting the international
financial institutions' loans and funds relating with Burma.
Although I am in support of continuing pressure to be applied to
the Burmese Military Government, it is felt that the time is
appropriate for international business community to be allowed to
make contact with the people of Burma. The Congress should,
however, make measures in order to scrutinize and control the
amount of cash flowing into Burma. I am particularly concerned
about the possibility of transfering large amount of hard-cash to
the Burmese Military Government by the various oil companies.
Finally, I should like to thank you and your colleagues at the
U.S. Congress for your kind attantion to Burma matters.
U NE OO
/* Written 30 Jul 6:00am 1996 by drunoo@xxxxxxxxxxxx in igc:reg.burma */
/* -------------" Oil for Food: Alternative to Sanction "------------ */
OIL FOR FOOD: AN ALTERNATIVE TO SANCTION
Some of our friends who advocate toughter measures from U.S.
Government may feel dissatified with recent Burma Bill HR.3540.
>From my view, it may be more effective to control the money flow
from companies rather than calling for complete withdraws. This is
particularly true for the operation of oil companies.
The SLORC must surely be looking forward to the time of completion of
its Yadana gas pipeline and the revenue that followed from the sale of
natural gas. It will be much more practical in letting such oil companies
building necessary infrastructure and the operation for the time being
(human rights concerns must be respected, of course). Important issue is
the way to find in limiting the flow of revenue - which will be substantial
in amount when the pipeline is completed - to the military government. For
the oil companies, it will still take some time to complete the pipeline -
reported to be after 1998. If things continue to be difficult like now
and the political reconciliations in Burma are still not achieved by that
time, the measures must be made to divert the flow of revenue to the direct
use of the people of Burma and elected government. To generate some
thought, I have posted the UN Resolution 986 on Iraq (& We do have enough
time to do political ground-work.)
The money flows from other businesses to SLORC are not substantial. The
largest foreign exchange income for SLORC in FY-1995 came from tourism,
which is only US$30 million. Though, it may still accumulate to few hundred
millions in small revenues, that would be no cause for serious concerns.
Such amount would still be a 'petty-cash' in terms of Governments' revenue.
Annoyance to most people was caused by the claim of SLORC's highly inflated
figures of investments - such as US$3. billion. The other problem is SLORC
flaunting about the support of international business community to it
to the people of Burma. -- With best regards, U Ne Oo.
MID: IRAQ, IN SURPRISE MOVE, EDGES TOWARD UN OIL TALKS
IRAQ OIL DAYLEAD
By Evelyn Leopold of Reuters
UNITED NATIONS, Jan 16(1996) Reuter - The United Nations received a
letter from Iraq late today apparently signalling Baghdad's
willingness to start talks on a controversial limited oil sales
Chief UN spokeswoman Sylvana Foa said that Secretary-General
Boutros Boutros-Ghali expected such a letter on selling small
quantities of oil to buy badly needed food and medicine, as called
for by Security Council resolution 986. She later announced a
letter had been received from the Iraqi authorities, but declined
to give its contents.
Resolution 986 permits the sale of $US2 billion ($A2.7 billion)
worth of oil over six months in order to buy food, medicine and
other goods for the Iraqi population, suffering under stiff
sanctions imposed when Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990.
Despite pressure from Boutros-Ghali, Iraq had previously turned
down Security Council Resolution 986, preferring instead to seek
the lifting of sanctions entirely.
Diplomats at the United Nations said Iraq's UN ambassador, Nizar
Hamdoon, told envoys to expect such a letter on beginning the
talks. He first briefed ambassadors from non-aligned countries on
the council and then spoke to others. Hamdoon declined all public
Unclear is whether Iraq wants to talk about implementing the
resolution or renegotiating some of its terms, which would be
unacceptable to the council. Boutros-Ghali's staff is not permitted
to change the resolution but to discuss ways of implementing it.
In Washington, the Defence Department said the move by Iraq
could be "good news". Pentagon spokesman Ken Bacon emphasised the
sale should not be viewed as a concession to Iraq because sanctions
were still intact, particularly on Baghdad's obligation to scrap
its weapons of mass destruction.
If Iraqi President Saddam Hussein "is ready to allow the
resolution to take effect for the benefit of his people that is
good news", said Bacon. "I think it would be an important step
Negotiations were held several years ago on a similar limited
oil sales deal fell through after months of talks. Iraq has said
that the resolution, which requires heavy UN monitoring of oil
sales, violates its sovereignty.
Specifically, diplomats said Baghdad had objected to the amount
of humanitarian supplies bought with the oil revenues that would go
to the Kurds in the north and a demand that most of the oil move
through its pipeline to Turkey rather than its seaport at Mina
Iraq's action coincides with Security Council discussions on
sending a mission to Baghdad on the country's humanitarian needs
and evaluating how the limited oil sales resolution could alleviate
the suffering caused by the sanctions.
The mission, which has been rejected in the Iraqi state-owned
press, could come up with a report backing the view that the
economic havoc is largely Iraq's own fault for refusing to take
advantage Resolution 986.
Some council members, including the United States, stress Iraq's
responsibility for the suffering of its own people. Others,
probably including Russia and France, could use the plight of
ordinary Iraqis as ammunition for their long-standing efforts to
ease the sanctions.