More Active Posts
Front Page
Holding Myanmar accountable
 |
 21 Comments |
How responsible is a government for the impact of a natural disaster? In the ever-widening aftermath of Cyclone Nargis last week, this question is beginning to hound the Burmese Junta and its inexplicable resistance to international aid offers (much of which is still waiting on the Burmese border). Some analysts fear that the junta’s resistance to aid is an attempt to cover up how much devastation has been caused by government shortcomings.
Myanmar’s government has told the UN on Tuesday that it lacked the radar equipment necessary to detect the cyclone early enough for its citizens to evacuate. But a report from India indicates that the Indian government provided all the radar information necessary for Myanmar to warn the southwest Irrawaddy region. The Indian Meteorological Department revealed Tuesday that it had given Burma sufficient warning of the incoming storm. “Forty-eight hours before Nargis struck, we indicated its point of crossing, its severity and all related issues to Burmese agencies,” said a spokesperson for the department.
Whether or not the junta had the information in time, however, communicating a warning to the population in the Irrawaddy region–some 30 million people, over 60% of the Myanmar populace–would have been nearly impossible. In Myanmar, there are six radio stations, four television stations, and only a hundred internet servers. Telephone land lines and cell phone lines together number fewer than a million. By contrast, in neighboring Thailand, albeit with a slightly larger population (60 million to 47 million in Myanmar) there are nearly 50 million phone lines in use, over 600 radio stations, 111 television stations, and close to a million internet hosts.
Even if the government had overcome the communication obstacle, however, the Burmese population had no way to escape the path of the storm. Myanmar has only 2,000 miles of paved roads, and another 27,000 miles of unpaved roads; Thailand has 35,000 miles of paved roadway. Myanmar’s 10,000 miles of waterways, which would have been the most significant method of transportation for those in the hardest-hit areas, are also the most dangerous during a storm of this magnitude.
Al Gore has called the cyclone in Myanmar a consequence of global warming. The loss of life, however, clearly seems to be the consequence of something else altogether.
The Times Online from Britain has written that the government in Myanmar is “Running the country on a combination of internal repression and xenophobia.” This has lead to the (now fatal) insufficiency in communication and transportation infrastructure. As the CIA note on Burma’s economy observes, the nation “suffers from pervasive government controls, inefficient economic policies, and rural poverty.”
This week brought that suffering was brought to a new, devastating height.
 |
Topic: Front Page, The World |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: Cyclone Nargis, junta, myanmar |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed. |  |
Share this: |
Don’t blame racism
Come on. Fix your HTML junk… Can’t read this post for all the errors. Really.
“suffers from pervasive government controls, inefficient economic policies, and rural poverty.”
That could describe the U.S. I guess it’s all relative.
Clearly the Burmese Junta is responsible because they took all control away from the people for themselves and they have to spend all their energy holding on to that control. The people are the enemy. The Burmese Junta was probably cheering the deaths of their people; that many less they have to take care of.
Look at Zimbabwe. Has Mugabe done anything but destroy that country? Was his campaign of “rural development” through bulldozing urban communities done with concern for the people or for himself?
I bet xenophobia is caused by global warming, too. I must consult Al Gore. Maybe he can explain how that works. He’s so smart!
I think the Burmese disaster must be understood in broader context. A missionary to in Japan told me that after the Kobe earthquake, the Japanese govt was not going to allow American doctors in unless they’d passed the Japanese med boards.
Iran had several folks buried in a bad earthquake. The mideast’s resident experts at rescuing folks from collapsed buildings is Israel. They offered to help.
Iran said no and permitted Iranians to die
Myanmar and Sawgunner’s additional examples all go to show that some governments would rather endanger their own citizenry than accept help from people or governments they don’t like or trust.
What I find … troubling is the idea that somebody — some other government, perhpas? — might try to “hold Myanmar accountable.”
Imagine, e.g., the US invading Myanmar in order to ensure delivery of humanitarian aid. (All under the proper authorty of the UN, of course …)
“‘Hey, we just wanna see the Myanmarese government held accountable,’ President Bush said after declaring Myanmar a Federal Disaster Area and sending in 150,000 National Guardsmen …”
Frank (#4) writes:
What I find … troubling is the idea that somebody — some other government, perhpas? — might try to “hold Myanmar accountable.”
So you take an “idea” that is in your head alone, manufacture a make-believe scenario out of it and then blame President Bush. Great. That is really a sophisticated and credible analytical process you have going on there Frank! You should apply for a job with one of the MSM networks. You would fit right in with the likes of Dan Blather and his made-up stuff.
I’m not sure that global pressure applied by a multi-national force is such a bad idea in cases like this. It would serve notice that withholding aid to disaster victims is bad.
Frank’s right and people hate it.
And they hate it for good reason. Can you justify standing by while a government kills off all it’s citizens through neglect or genocide?
“We should just stay out of it, it’s none of our business.”
Yes?
Michael Martin (5): So you take an “idea” that is in your head alone, manufacture a make-believe scenario out of it and then blame President Bush. Great. That is really a sophisticated and credible analytical process you have going on there Frank!
Frank: Calm down, Michael. I’m not “blaming” Bush for anything. The US could very feasibly use military force to ensure delivery of humanitarian aid regardless of who’s president at the time. The scenario I’ve sketched could just as easily happen under Hillary or Obama as it could under Bush or McCain. I only used Bush’s name because Myanmar is happening right now, and George Bush is president right now.
Now discuss briefly with me the ideas and make-believe scenarios that are “in my head alone.”
Exhibit A: This post’s title. “Holding Myanmar accountable” implies, uhh, holding Myanmar accountable.
It looks like the post may have been mistitled, since the post doesn’t seem to suggest that anyone should actually “hold Myanmar accountable.” But it does cite other sources’ concerns over Myanmar’s “combination of internal repression and xenophobia” and “pervasive government controls, inefficient economic policies, and rural poverty.” But regardless: If this discussion is about “holding Myanmar accountable,” why is it unreasonable for me to posit just how such a task could be accomplished? And at the end of the day, isn’t accountability under law ultimately effected by the threat of force?
Exhibit B: Our nation’s recent history. We have enforced the delivery of humanitarian aid by military force in our recent past. See “Operation Provide Relief,” Somalia, 1992.
So, I have 2 Qs for you, Michael:
1) Do you think Myanmar should be “held accountable” for any death and disease that occurs due to their unwillingness to allow foreign aid workers into the country?
2) If so, how?
Make it Man (8): Can you justify standing by while a government kills off all it’s citizens through neglect or genocide?
Frank: I can justify that alot easier than you can justify using young men and women who voluntarily joined the armed forces to defend this country to instead deliver rice, bandages and generators to civil-war-torn nations that pose no threat to us. (What was your position on Bush Sr. & Clinton’s militarily-enforced aid-to-Somalia efforts, BTW?)
If the US government wants to call for volunteers from within (or without) its military forces to participate in such an endeavor, fine.
But don’t take soldiers and turn them into Red Cross workers.
If Myanmar won’t accept outside aid, that is their prerogative. They will have to answer to God — not to the UN or the US — for their evil.
“Like a man who grabs a dog by the ears is one who meddles in a conflict not his own.” ~ Proverbs
Well said, Frank in Phoenix!
Amen.
Frank (#9),
God will ultimately hold the leadership of Myanmar accountable for their criminal neglect. In the meantime, the United States should offer, as President Bush has done, humanitarian aid. The use of force to compel its acceptance is not a viable or sensible option for us. Our national interests are not being threatened.
The people of that country need to clean their own house of the leadership that has neglected and abused them. This situation may be a powerful incentive to to arouse the people to action. Throughout history there are numerous examples of this kind of thing bringing about needed government changes from within.
Michael,
Well said.
And all I was trying to say, really.
The LA Times had an article on this today, of course. They reported how the UN had delivered tons of food, but the government just kept it. They also reported how the government is exporting rice that was grown there but not giving any out to those now starving. I don’t know what could be done about this, but it seems very wrong to me to think that starving humans are simply someone else’s problem (in this case, the Myanmar government). I don’t know how starving peasant farmers can change their government from within; pretty soon there’ll be so few left, I guess we won’t need to be bothered with it anymore.
And over at Time magazine, they are asking the musical question that I posited at (4), and which Michael poo-poohed (at first, anyway) at (5):
Is It Time to Invade Burma?
So maybe this “idea” isn’t in my head alone …
Yes, you are right Frank. The idea is seriously in the heads of others. I believe that your posing of the idea was not really serious and was mostly a facetious slap at President Bush and our invasion of Iraq. However, the people at Time are serious.
The article offers some sane ideas on ways to pressure the regime, or to make the aid more acceptable, but going to war is not one of them. An invasion is an act of war, no matter how you rationalize it or dress it up in other clothes.
That is stupid and insane: “I want to save you, and I’ll kill you if you don’t let me!”
Michael Martin (18): I believe that your posing of the idea was not really serious and was mostly a facetious slap at President Bush and our invasion of Iraq.
Frank: I would have written precisely the same thing if Bill or Hillary, Barack Obama, or John McCain were currently president.
Now, regarding your (false) assumption that I was merely taking another swipe at Bush’s invasion of Iraq: perhaps you’re feeling a slight twinge of Neocon guilt?
Michael Martin (18): That is stupid and insane: “I want to save you, and I’ll kill you if you don’t let me!”
Frank: I don’t know if this is true or just a cliche, but it is said that injured anumals are the most dangerous — that they will attack a person who tries to render them aid.
This is sort of what I picture the situation to be in Myanmar. Wild animals simply don’t trust humans (Gen. 9:2), and an injured, vulnerable animal isn’t any different.
The military junta in Myanmar already distrusts those powerful western nations that don’t approve of their takeover. And now that the “wild animal” is severely injured …
Frank, I am impressed! Well argued and right on the money. How rare to read wisdom and plan common sense on a blog like this.
Although this one comment to Michael,
“Now, regarding your (false) assumption that I was merely taking another swipe at Bush’s invasion of Iraq: perhaps you’re feeling a slight twinge of Neocon guilt?”
May be a bit of a swipe, I must admit I was thinking the same thing while reading through the comments. So in that sense, I still think you’re on to something.
If the Constitution is the supreme authority WITHIN our government (God being supreme OVER all government), then I find it rather alarming how far we have strayed from its bounds in our international adventures. One need only take a brief cursory look at the writings of our nation’s founders to discover their complete aversion to interventionist programs. I will take the wisdom found in Madison, Washington and Adams over any of the present crop of neocons and socialist we are being offered. It’s amazing, these politicians will heap praise on the founders, while working to dismantle the very checks and balances the founders establish.
Anyway, excellent series of posts frank…I look forward to reading more.
I was utterly unaware of this story until I heard about it on the Charles Goyette Show this morning (all italics mine):
Well, at least our refusal of international aid was merely the result of “bureaucratic bungling and indifference,” and not the raw brutality of a military dictatorship.
So we got that going for us …