Culture and politics forum

China invests in Myanmar

  • BruceMoon

    Click here to learn more about BruceMoon
    Joined Travelfish
    27th December, 2008
    Location Australia
    Posts: 1941
    Total reviews: 6

    According to an AlJazeera press report, nearly 90% of foreign investment into Myanmar comes from China.

    Last year, China invested some nearly $1 billion in Myanmar.

    http://english.aljazeera.net/business/2009/07/200971633541548833.html

    It appears the thrust of the investment is based on China shoring up access to Myanmar's energy resources.

    From this, one could conclude that tourists ought no longer boycott Myanmar as the withdrawal of their financial contribution is now a meaningless statement. And, not visiting Myanmar appears only to deny self enjoyment.

    Cheers

    #1 Posted: 17/7/2009 - 19:36

  • Advertisement

  • MADMAC

    Joined Travelfish
    6th June, 2009
    Posts: 6256
    Total reviews: 10

    I agree that tourists not coming has minimal impact on the economy of the government of Burma. Tourists staying away is just a statement. Will it have any impact? Probably not. I doubt anything will. The Burmese are going to have to solve their leadership problem.

    #2 Posted: 17/7/2009 - 22:13

  • neosho

    Joined Travelfish
    13th August, 2008
    Posts: 386

    Thailand, Singapore, and India all have energy interests in Burma. The current junta can't/won't give up control as they would then have to answer to the world courts. Didn't the UN already indict a sitting president of an african country for crimes against humanity. I think Chevron has a large interest there also. So much for sanctions.

    #3 Posted: 17/7/2009 - 22:44

  • somtam2000

    admin
    Click here to learn more about somtam2000
    Joined Travelfish
    21st January, 2004
    Location Indonesia
    Posts: 7047
    Total reviews: 24
    Places visited:
    At least 113

    "Meaningless" - perhaps to the generals -- but not necessarily to those who decide not to go -- it's a personal decision.

    Chinese aid -- as per all their road building in northern Laos -- that isn't being done out of the goodness of their heart!

    #4 Posted: 18/7/2009 - 06:52

  • MADMAC

    Joined Travelfish
    6th June, 2009
    Posts: 6256
    Total reviews: 10

    "The current junta can't/won't give up control as they would then have to answer to the world courts."

    This is not necessarily true. First of all, the arm of the world court is not all that long. For every Charles Taylor sitting in front of the court there are plenty of Abdi Hassan Awale's who are not.

    Secondly, a deal might be struck, ala South Africa, in order to make the transition feasible.

    ":I think Chevron has a large interest there also. So much for sanctions."

    The sanctions are directed, not blanket. Telling Chevron or BP they can't invest in oil interests there is stupid. Then, by default, the Chinese get those contracts. Practicality has to play a role in decision making if you want to survive in this world.

    #5 Posted: 18/7/2009 - 23:47

  • BruceMoon

    Click here to learn more about BruceMoon
    Joined Travelfish
    27th December, 2008
    Location Australia
    Posts: 1941
    Total reviews: 6

    John

    You appear to be overlooking the relevance of the Westphalian sovereignty which at its heart is a treaty for peace and economic prosperity.

    This treaty plays an incredibly important role in defining how government's act (or in this case, don't act), despite what you and I may say.

    Cheers

    #6 Posted: 19/7/2009 - 05:54

  • MADMAC

    Joined Travelfish
    6th June, 2009
    Posts: 6256
    Total reviews: 10

    I am a strong (not as strong as the Chinese mind you) proponent of the Westphalian State system. I fail to see how that impacts on my points however. The Westphalian arguement doesn't apply to internal dissent.

    #7 Posted: 19/7/2009 - 13:04

  • BruceMoon

    Click here to learn more about BruceMoon
    Joined Travelfish
    27th December, 2008
    Location Australia
    Posts: 1941
    Total reviews: 6

    John

    I don't know what the Westphalia State system is.

    I was referring to Westphalian sovereignty - an important attribute (principle) in the way international relations are undertaken.

    Cheers

    #8 Posted: 19/7/2009 - 14:46

  • MADMAC

    Joined Travelfish
    6th June, 2009
    Posts: 6256
    Total reviews: 10

    Bruce

    Westphalian State System:

    Term used in international relations, supposedly arising from the Treaties of Westphalia 1648 which ended the Thirty Years War. It is generally held to mean a system of states or international society comprising sovereign state entities possessing the monopoly of force within their mutually recognized territories. Relations between states are conducted by means of formal diplomatic ties between heads of state and governments, and international law consists of treaties made (and broken) by those sovereign entities. The term implies a separation of the domestic and international spheres, such that states may not legitimately intervene in the domestic affairs of another, whether in the pursuit of self-interest or by appeal to a higher notion of sovereignty, be it religion, ideology, or other supranational ideal. In this sense the term differentiates the ‘modern’ state system from earlier models, such as the Holy Roman Empire or the Ottoman Empire.

    #9 Posted: 19/7/2009 - 19:11

  • BruceMoon

    Click here to learn more about BruceMoon
    Joined Travelfish
    27th December, 2008
    Location Australia
    Posts: 1941
    Total reviews: 6

    John

    You wrote:

    [color=blue"The current junta can't/won't give up control as they would then have to answer to the world courts."

    This is not necessarily true. First of all, the arm of the world court is not all that long. For every Charles Taylor sitting in front of the court there are plenty of Abdi Hassan Awale's who are not.


    The world court is a product of like minded states and is used where an entity can be brought to the court to be made an example of for the pleasure of those like minded states.

    No entity gets brought before the world court unless the entity is accepted to have contravened the principle of Westphalia Sovereignty.

    Cheers

    #10 Posted: 20/7/2009 - 04:42

  • Advertisement

  • MADMAC

    Joined Travelfish
    6th June, 2009
    Posts: 6256
    Total reviews: 10

    "The world court is a product of like minded states and is used where an entity can be brought to the court to be made an example of for the pleasure of those like minded states.

    No entity gets brought before the world court unless the entity is accepted to have contravened the principle of Westphalia Sovereignty."

    This is true if you view the Westphalian system in a very narrow range. But that definition is narrow. In fact, at the moment it is pretty much limited to war crimes. If a state decided not to prosecute a serial killer for whatever reason, the international criminal court would not be some sort of other recourse. Ditto if a criminal flees from one state to another where no extradition treaty exists (but both stats are party to the IC treaty). The aggrieved state doesn't have recourse to the IC.

    Lastly, Charles Taylor was compelled to flee Liberia. When he did so, he went to a third party country where he was eventually arrested (Nigeria). This could also happen with members of the Burmese Junta should they be compelled to flee Burma and end up in a state which hands them over (though I am sure most would go to someplace like Laos, where money talks - they have money).

    The bottom line is that I don't think the IC would be a major worry for the Burmese generals. It would be their own people and their own courts should those come under the control of another political entity. If things fell apart fast and hard then they could end up like Ceaucescu did. On the other hand, if things transition as they did in South Africa, then they could just leave politics and live a low profile existence. So a peaceful transition with the generals giving up power is probably possible, but I think that will only happen if there is some sort of general amnesty as part of the agreement.

    #11 Posted: 20/7/2009 - 12:00

  • BruceMoon

    Click here to learn more about BruceMoon
    Joined Travelfish
    27th December, 2008
    Location Australia
    Posts: 1941
    Total reviews: 6

    John

    Several decades ago, Australia went to the IC against France regarding the atomic blasting in the Pacific. Even though France got a rap over the knuckles, nothing happened because other like minded states didn't bother pursuing the issue. Something similar occurred when Australia took Indonesia to the IC over Timor.

    As I siad "The world court is a product of like minded states and is used where an entity can be brought to the court to be made an example of for the pleasure of those like minded states.

    Cheers

    #12 Posted: 20/7/2009 - 13:01

  • MADMAC

    Joined Travelfish
    6th June, 2009
    Posts: 6256
    Total reviews: 10

    "As I siad "The world court is a product of like minded states and is used where an entity can be brought to the court to be made an example of for the pleasure of those like minded states."

    Bruce
    I don't disagree with this - but I am not sure how it applies to our particular conversation about the Burmese Junta and the potential for it to relinquish power.

    #13 Posted: 20/7/2009 - 18:34

  • BruceMoon

    Click here to learn more about BruceMoon
    Joined Travelfish
    27th December, 2008
    Location Australia
    Posts: 1941
    Total reviews: 6

    John

    This is getting too hard.

    From your successive comments, it appeared you were saying that slight as it might be, there is a possibility that the world stage may play a part in the Myanmar outcome. I was trying to say that because of the principle of Westphalian Soveriegnty, outside influence to resolve Myanmar's internal problems won't occur.

    Let's go to sleep on this one, eh?

    Cheers

    #14 Posted: 20/7/2009 - 19:17

  • MADMAC

    Joined Travelfish
    6th June, 2009
    Posts: 6256
    Total reviews: 10

    Bruce we were just talking past each other. The limits of this communications medium.

    I would not say that outside pressure from other states won't be a factor at all. I think those external pressures are apparent to the regime right now. But I do agree they won't be the decisive factor - that will clearly be internally driven.

    #15 Posted: 20/7/2009 - 19:28

  • BruceMoon

    Click here to learn more about BruceMoon
    Joined Travelfish
    27th December, 2008
    Location Australia
    Posts: 1941
    Total reviews: 6

    Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    Buuurp!!!


    Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    #16 Posted: 20/7/2009 - 19:40

  • MADMAC

    Joined Travelfish
    6th June, 2009
    Posts: 6256
    Total reviews: 10

    Have you been having these gastroenological problems for a long time? Perhaps it's related to gerd. I recommend you consult a physician.

    #17 Posted: 20/7/2009 - 23:18

Have questions? Jump to our menu of forum quicklinks

Add your reply

Your reply

Check this box if you want to be notified of replies.

Please be familiar with our user guidelines before you post. Thanks!

Businesses planning on plugging their guesthouse / hotel / karaoke bar should read our "Addition guidelines" very carefully.

You need to be logged in to answer an existing post on the Travelfish forums. Please login via the prompts just above and refresh this screen -- before writing your post -- and you'll be in business.