¹ The military has a well documented history of human rights violations, as well as introducing rape, torture, and murder to local communities in surrounding areas of development projects. For information on human rights abuses and environmental degradation associated with previous natural gas pipelines constructed through Burma, see EarthRights International report “Total Denial Continues” (2003) and EarthRights International web article “Another Yadana.”   On Shwe Gas development prior to the MoU regarding the sale of Shwe gas to China, see Matthew Smith & Naing Htoo, Another Snake in the Jungle? Shwe Gas Development in Western Burma, Watershed, Vol. II, No.1, 31, 34-36 (July-Oct. 2005), subscriptions and past issues available at http://www.terraper.org/watershed/subcribe.html.

² The Yadana and Yetagun pipelines in Burma adversely affected approximately 35,000 people. See EarthRights International web article “Another Yadana,” supra note 1. The Shwe Gas project potentially involves construction of two pipelines considerably longer than previous pipelines in Burma, covering wider terrain, thus affecting a greater number of people.

³ On behalf of fifteen Burmese villagers, EarthRights International filed a lawsuit in US Courts against California-based Unocal Corporation for human rights abuses associated with the construction of the Yadana and Yetagun pipelines through southern Burma. In 1997, the U.S. Federal District Court in Los Angeles found that, “the evidence does suggest that Unocal knew that forced labor was being utilized and that the Joint Venturers benefited from the practice.” On the basis of this finding the Court concluded that corporations and their executive officers can be held legally responsible under the Alien Tort Claims Act for violations of international human rights norms in foreign countries, and that U.S. courts have the authority to adjudicate such claims. For the text of the court's 1997 decision, click here . The 9th Circuit Court's decision is available at http://www.laborrights.org/projects/corporate/unocal/unocal091802.pdf (accessed 28 February 2006).

⁴ “Primary Jolt in Burma-India Gas Pipeline Project,” Mizzima, 19 January 2005. available at http://mizzima.com/archives/news-in-2005/news-in-jan/19-January%2005-24.htm [accessed 02 March 2006]

⁵ See David Fulbrook, “Gas Deal Fuels China's Plans for Myanmar.” The Straits Times. 2 February 2006.

⁶ See Syed Ali Mujtaba, “Consultant to Study Indo-Burma Gas Pipeline Routes.” Mizzima News, 8 February 2006.

⁷ See Kyaw Yin Hlaing, “Myanmar in 2004: Why Military Rule Continues” in Southeast Asian Affairs 2005, Institute of South East Asia Studies Publications, Singapore (2005). p231-256.

⁸ See Myanmar Foreign Investment Law, available at the official Myanmar government website, http://www.energy.gov.mm/Incentive_1.htm.

⁹ Shareholding capacity is reserved for the military and military families. See The EU and Burma: The Case for Targeted Sanctions, available at www.burmacampaign.org.uk/reports/targeted_sanctions.htm.

¹⁰ See the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Least Developed Countries (LDC) http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=3641&lang=1

¹¹ See recent United Nations economic forecast report, “World Economic Situation and Prospects 2006,” available at http://www.un.org/esa/policy/wess/wesp2006files/wesp2006.pdf

¹² Based on a February 2006 interview with an undisclosed economist. Notes on file with author.

¹³ See Tyler Giannini “Destructive Engagement: A Decade of Foreign Investment in Burma” EarthRights International issue paper (1999). Available here . [accessed 28 February 2006].

¹⁴ “Foreign Investment in Burma Hits US $7.6 Billion.” The Irrawaddy Online Newsletter, 18 November 2005.

¹⁵ See S. Mukherjee, “Myanmar: Cheers Jeers over Giant Gas Find” Asia Times Online (13 Feb 2004) available at http://www.asiatimes.com.