AMosely

This is precisely why I refer to the nation as Burma.



No, I don't want to blame the Bush administration and I never did. I wholeheartedly agree that the junta in control of Burma is a corrupt and abusive regime. I thought the initial response from the Bush administration was confusing at a time when simplicity was needed for the sake of a tremendous population of innocent people. As I said before, the US was the only country who acted like this following news of the catastrophe. An offer for more aid along with poorly timed criticism and a stipulation that only USAID could deliver that aid did not seem helpful to me and others. That is merely an opinionated observation, nothing more.

Press reports today are saying the UN has landed planes and supplies and US officials claim an agreement is being brokered for the USAID planes. That is all good news, and the delays were undoubedtly caused by the junta more than anyone or anything else.

SmokingTarpan

Honestly, that's kind of like us referring to France as Gaul, or England referring to us as The Colonies. Whether we like it or not the country of Burma no longer exists, and refusing to acknowledge the new name isn't likely to make the people in control willing to come to the conference table. Hell, I get extremely pissed when I introduce myself as Stephen and people immediately say, "Nice to meet you, Steve." Now imagine if I were a country. :P

As far as having strings attached to aid, I can see reasonable strings being okay. Stuff like what organization delivers the aid, what the aid specifically is used for, etc. The last thing we need is to pledge millions of dollars intended for food that ends up turning into a couple of Mig fighter jets. But unreasonable strings, such as forcing people to hold elections or adopt the chihuahua as the national dog, should definitely be scoffed at. The area needs real help, targeted where necessary but without the stipulations of a nation-changing event.

__________________

[squadl]
"I am the prettiest african-american, vietnamese..cong..person." -SugarNCamo

leejo

Lighten up, Steve!

(ducks)

AMosely

I agree with you, and for diplomatic purposes I think the name Myanmar is used by the UN and most countries other than Britain. However, I'll still use Burma because I support the Burmese democratic movement's refusal to recognize the authority of an unelected regime to rename the country.

It's a unique situation that makes this disaster so much worse.

leejo

What's unique about it?

Switchcraft

I'm on the side of calling it Burma.

The US was NOT the only country to urge for the admission of assessment teams. The UN is still trying to get assessment people in to survey the damage. Most countries and aid organizations require the use of assessment teams before they will start rendering aid.

No, it can't just be left to the Red Cross. Money isn't magic powder that makes everything better...some forms of aid include search and rescue teams, naval support, helicopter support, transport aircraft, etc. The Red Cross already present could not handle a disaster of this magnitude even if they began getting tons of extra funding, which I'm sure they have, because Burma is still dragging its feet on admitting aid workers and assessors. It would be silly to ask that the red cross be given money to hire ships, planes and helicopters when those same ships, planes, and helicopters are already standing ready. If the junta isn't going to give them permission to enter, then it's not going to give them permission to enter. If it is, then why pay the Red Cross to organize something that is already organized?

leejo

I'm on the side of calling it Burma too, but I'm not the one finding fault with an administration who isn't falling over itself to play nice with the junta.

There is one organization on earth capable of managing the logistics involved in an effort like this. The next time someone talks about military spending remember that.

AMosely

It's unique because unlike hurricane Katrina and the tsunami in Thailand, this disaster fell upon a country without a functioning government - unless opression is considered a function of government (it is in some circles). It's unique because the logistics are extraordinarily complicated by the political situation.

I'd really like to get off the topic of putting down the Bush administration within the context of this catastrophe. In theory I really don't find fault with the way they've responded, I just had some questions about it, such as why mix aid with criticism and why require aid through a single channel (USAID) when you knew that getting acccess was going to be an issue. I know there are valid reasons at play such as pre-existing efficiencies with USAID. I really do not care to make an issue out of it, I misread the facts in the first place and it wasn't the purpose of my posting.

Are you talking about the U.N.? Because it landed first in this. If you're thinking of the U.S., I disagree with both the factuality of this statement in addition to its overwhelming hubris. If the U.N. is ever going to work right, this kind of thinking is inarguably counterproductive.

Kerostasis

UN? No. US? Not precisely. USN? Now we're getting somewhere.

The US Government in general is not known for its efficiency. But the US Military has always been known for "getting things done". Maybe not always at the most economical cost, but they definately get things done.

__________________

leejo

OK. Your mastery of the facts has already shown itself to be shoddy in this thread, and the rest is your opinion, which, given your struggle with facts, isn't worth much. Speaking of hubris, what do you call it when someone who has to retract their earlier statements lectures someone about their "factuality"?

And what kind of thinking are you talking about when you say "this kind of thinking"? And why is it counterproductive to notice that the UN doesn't have the men and equipment to execute this mission fast enough to matter? I'm looking at capabilities. I'm not trying to play any "my team can out-execute your team in a critical relief operation" game here.

I think you could have made the same point by simply asking how I might reconcile my statement with the fact that the UN got there first. You might have asked if it wouldn't make sense to build a permanent rapid-response team under UN command with the capabilities required to undertake a mission this large within the existing time limits. I might have been less snippy in my response.

The UN may have been first. Can you enlighten me as to the UN's 10s of 1000s of men, heavy-lifting equipment, cargo ships, fuel ships, helicopters, and so on required to bring in the supplies to feed, cloth, and house a million people in remote areas with all the roads destroyed before those people starve or die of exposure? I didn't know the UN had this sizable force. Only the US military has the people, equipment, experience, and expertise to get this massive job done fast enough to make a difference.

The UN may be able to cobble together a coalition of loaner military groups large enough to accomplish this mission, technically, but the communications and ego-management then slows things down.

With regard to how unique this situation is, I kind of throw it into the same pile as Sudan, North Korea, and a few other places where rogue governments allow millions to suffer and die rather than comply with some very basic standards the world community has established. IMO the most merciful thing to do is overthrow the governments in question. Again, IMO, if the UN is ever going to work then it needs to stop tolerating or even rewarding such governments and start attacking them.

leejo

Good lord, what a terrible situation.

UN halts aid to Myanmar after junta seizes supplies

Another good reason for the junta to prefer the UN to the US military.

SmokingTarpan

Time to move on and let Myanmar fend for itself?

__________________

[squadl]
"I am the prettiest african-american, vietnamese..cong..person." -SugarNCamo

leejo

I think you have to keep trying, but it's certainly a grim task.

AMosely

Humility. Saying that you disagree or question the factuality of something isn't a lecture, and it wasn't my intent. In the context of debate we all mistake facts from time to time, call it out, and hopefully correct it. Isn't that the whole point of posting in here? I guess being civil about it is optional.

USA is is and has to be #1. It seemed like that's what you were thinking, which is why I asked.

I asked if you were talking about the UN or the US, and if you were talking about the US, I disagreed. It seems to me that you got my point just the same.

But it shouldn't slow things down. This is my point - if we want the UN to work, we have to support it. Saying that they can't do something so we will, or only we can do this or that is not a productive way to fix what is broken. I don't have statistics on the size and capability of UN forces, but I do know that they are dependent on personnel and equipment from member nations and therefore an inventory is difficult to list. In an event like this, the UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affarirs (OCHA) should be (and currently is) managing relief efforts on behalf of the member nations. The US, I think, is still planning on going alone with USAID. Though clearly not an expert on the matter, I see a lot of duplicity there that would seem wasteful. On the other side of the coin though, I do see where USAID is a known quantity, the US is used to it, knows it can work quickly, etc. I am thinking in terms of greater good, and perhaps that's a mistake in this case.

Burma is a currently rogue state in terms of diplomatic disconnection and distrust, so I think it would be fair to compare it to a Sudan or North Korea in that sense. However, I think suggsting that the UN attack rogue states as a matter of policy (if that is what you are suggesting) is a mistake. War is an outcome, not a solution, and should be avoided as much as possible. I do agree that in order to function as a security element (remember that the UN is chartered with much more than security, it should be the responding force when diplomacy fails, or when war becomes inevitable. To the same degree, I think it should be the leader in providing humanitarian aid in the wake of a disaster. As you say, it might not be the most capable organization of doing this, but if it ever is to be I think it's counterproductive to proclaim it untennable.

Switchcraft

More on the US proposals:

The US is doing everything it can to help with minimal friction, and it is being spurned.

The UN was not "first in" as far as supplies delivered, interestingly. UNICEF had people in-country before the cyclone, but the UN had to wait days for visa approvals for anyone else to enter. As far as I know, Thailand was the first country to actually get supplies landed.

AMosely, since the Secretary General of the UN has been criticizing the military junta about its political situation, do you also believe that is poorly-timed criticism?

Everyone may be interested in this from Al-Jazeera:

Yes, France is actually arguing that the United Nations invade Burma. I'm gonna sit back and let that one marinate for a while.