Imports-Exports

Your motivation is correct, thank you for the list- but I doubt the correctness of it. The major income sources are oil and gas, the companies involved are the ones to hit, the size of their involvment don´t fit into the list, but the general direction might be.
There is some further investigation necessary.

And one more additional comment- one really has to investigate! Some of the boycott movements from the past had terrible effects (for instance some garment factories), so such steps should be considered carefully.

#1. Why do you doubt the correctness of it?

Because of the overwhelming importance of oil and gas business- I have to admit that I haven´t investigated properly yet, but any investment in this area should be immediately visible, though I don´t know if Total (France) or Chevron (USA) are "exporting recources".
And how are resources delivered through pipelines to Thailand are counted here if they might be exported from there again? And what about Russia? They have a reason to boycott UN resolutions.
Please let us investigate together before we tip the fingers on "countries", it is possible that there are companies from our countries involved as well.

Phil, don´t get me wrong- thank you for the list and effort. But there are several sources, they claim different facts. But as long as there are companies from the west, why should other countries back? The involved companies´ statements are really dissapointing:

Have a look onto this article, Daily Mail from today: Burma: Pressure mounts on Western oil companies profiting under repression

BEFORE the recent events some people stated: if our countries go, "worse" countries will go in. And: With that we might have at least some influence on the regime.

The Campaign for Burma UK lists all the companies doing business in Burma. The problem of course is they even include Lonely Planet for promoting tourism. However, it does give the extensive involvement of many companies from many countries. This certainly makes boycotts even more difficult.

The dilemma for the western oil companies is if they divest, then the only buyer will probably be China or Russia. The gas pipeline going to Thailand provides the fuel for about 25% of Thailand's power needs. The pipeline is owned by Total, Chevron, Thailand and the Generals. However, the corporate conglomerates have shareholders from many countries. Total, for instance, a French company, has a large number of shares owned by the Norweign oil trust.

China and Russia are the countries blocking action by the UN. Those are the countries who I feel should receive the most pressure, particularly the Chinese.

...and, of course, let's also boycott all the countries that trade with the countries (and multinationals) on your list!! I'll start by boycotting myself.

#6..Why China if it imports only 5+%. And thanks for the information that provides a more subtle analysis of who owns what...particularly the Norweigen Factor..where did you find that information?

#7...He,he,he.....

There was a piece in a local paper recently that stated that something like 20-25% of the power in Boston comes from coal mined(open pit) in Venezuala. The reporter researched what happened to the villages/people who had the misfortune to live originally on or near the coal deposits. Devestating information. Leading to the same conclusion,basically,as #7

<blockquote>Quote
<hr>The Campaign for Burma UK lists all the companies doing business in Burma. The problem of course is they even include Lonely Planet for promoting tourism.<hr></blockquote>

That cracks me up. Never mind the fact that LP is banned in Burma for it's anti-government commentary.