The UN is presently calling for an "Aid Corridor":

quote:

---

The UN's humanitarian agency said there was a risk of a "second catastrophe" unless a massive operation began.

The UN said it had only been able to reach nearly a fifth of about 1.5m people in urgent need. The official death toll has now reached 34,273.

Burma's junta is still opposed to the entry of foreign aid workers.

Vice-Admiral Soe Thein said the government was grateful for the aid shipment from the United States that arrived on Monday but insisted that "skilful humanitarian workers are not necessary".

A BBC correspondent in Burma says some help is getting to those who need it, but aid distribution remains very patchy.

'Haphazard' delivery

The spokeswoman of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in Geneva, Elizabeth Byrs, warned that its teams had only been able to reach 270,000 people - less than a fifth of the estimated total of survivors. Some 27,800 are missing.

---

The following article gives a glimpse of the type and size of aid delivered so far. The excerpt gives a thought worthy overview of the politics at play.

Cyclone disaster worsens

quote:

---

The sanctions, like the current barrage of propaganda over international aid, are aimed at politically undermining the junta, not at assisting the Burmese people. The US administration’s hostility to the junta is primarily because of its close ties with Beijing, which Washington regards as a rising economic and strategic rival. The toppling of the regime and installation of a government sympathetic to the US is part of broader plans to forge closer relations with countries that lie on China’s borders.

The White House has offered only $3.5 million to date in financial aid and is demanding the direct involvement of US and other international officials in directing operations. The Burmese junta is insisting that aid be either financial or goods, and that it is capable of running relief operations. At this point, one cannot tell from the highly-coloured media coverage of the catastrophe to what extent the military is even engaged in aid work.

The political agenda behind the condemnations of the junta became apparent last week when French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner suggested the convening of the UN Security Council to invoke its “responsibility to protect” powers to intervene in Burma, with or without the regime’s permission. Kouchner referred to the fact that French and British warships were already in the region and could be used. The US Navy also sent four vessels, including a destroyer, to nearby waters.

While US Defence Secretary Robert Gates last week ruled out such action, several comments and editorials over the weekend pushed the idea of what is tantamount to a military invasion of Burma. One of the most direct was published in Time magazine under the headline “Is it time to invade Burma?” After denouncing the Burmese regime, its inability to relieve widespread suffering and refusal allow in aid workers, the article declared: “That’s why it’s time to consider a more serious option: invading Burma.”

The article noted that USAID director Andrew Natsios had floated the idea of the US military making aid drops over Burma regardless of the junta’s attitude. It raised the suggestion of retired General William Nash who called on the US to press China to use its influence with Burma and also suggested working with the Indonesian military to ferry in supplies. China, India, Indonesia and Thailand all maintain relations with Burma and their aid has been accepted. Despite calls from US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, neither Beijing nor New Delhi has joined the international denunciations of Burma.

---

At the time, the US refused offers of assistance from Cuba, which had plenty of expertise in dealing with hurricane relief and oodles of medical personnel. Imagine if foreign countries offering Katrina aid were insisting, as the US is now doing with Burma, that the afflicted country allow foreign troops to enter its territory to deliver aid!

[ 14 May 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

The scale of the disaster is vastly worse than what occurred in New Orleans, but both events showed the utter distain of the governing groups for the poor and the helpless.

Unfortunately, US/Western intervention would end up costing more in lives than the intervention might save, as a Burmese military and guerilla response to "humanitarian invasion" can be predicted.

At first I felt this was all about the military junta and blamed them only but now as I understand more of what is being said I suspect that a big part of the problem is that those giving aid want to be sure to get credit for it- a form of political statement. I agree that the military government of Burma is awful but do not agree that we should withhold aid for political purpose. It seems that western countries can help significantly even if they are not on the ground. As well there are international observers on the ground there already including Oxfam.

I would expect that if there is corruption etc there could be some loss locally although that could happen in other places as well.

If some want to work on toppling the Burma regime, we can have that debate later. In the meantime we should be delivering the aid without strings attached. Frankly if the aid gets there it does not matter that much to me who gets the credit - it is about saving lives. A propaganda campaign can be done later if western countries want to crow about what they did but this bickering when people are dying is sickening.

Or put another way- deliver humanitarian aid supplies to the regime if need be- there are enough people in the country that if they did not provide them to the people we would find out. This is not a time to be fighting with the government. If we do we are as much to blame as the regime is for the lack of aid getting through.

quote:

---

While I cannot claim to be perfectly well informed and I may well be missing something

---

The debate is over the refusal of the Burmese government to grant visas to persons who wish to distribute aid in Burma.

The Burmese government thinks it looks bad if people get into the country, and report back on what they see, except the Army.

So, it lets people starve and die, because it doesn't give a shit.

That doesn't mean that anyone should invade; I wrote above why I think that is a bad idea. But it isn't about getting "credit" for giving aid.
Even if it were, you'd think the government of Burma would be prepared to pay that price to save, say, 100,000 innocent people from death.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

The debate is over the refusal of the Burmese government to grant visas to persons who wish to distribute aid in Burma.

The Burmese government thinks it looks bad if people get into the country, and report back on what they see, except the Army.

So, it lets people starve and die, because it doesn't give a shit.

That doesn't mean that anyone should invade; I wrote above why I think that is a bad idea. But it isn't about getting "credit" for giving aid.
Even if it were, you'd think the government of Burma would be prepared to pay that price to save, say, 100,000 innocent people from death.

But apparently not.

---

I don't see the connection between what you quoted from me and what you said.

The credit I was referring to was western. My point was we should not give a damn if the Burma government takes the credit or not we should fly the stuff in to Rangoon. They have said they will accept the supplies. I think a lot of the hesitation from the west is that they are afraid their aid will prop up the military junta there. I think that is the West playing politics- give the damn supplies and argue with the dictatorship when the crisis is over. I do not support an invasion when we can drop the supplies in and have good reason to believe they will get to the the people that need it. I don't care if the Maple Leaf or stars and bars etc are stickered over- the point is to save lives.

Doesn't sound like I am disagreeing with you so don't see why you quoted me like that.

The point is that the Burma government is letting us supply aid on their terms-- where we bring it there and they use their army to deliver it. We may not like that but they are the government of that country. If we don't deliver the aid it is us playing politics and letting the people die not just them.

I personally don't give a crap for the Burma government -- I am more concerned about our responsibility and behaviour in this. What are we doing that can improve the chances that people there will survive. Insisting that our aid workers come with the aid is not helping. We can deliver to Rangoon or to one of the countries Burma is willing to let go in like Thailand or India.

[ 15 May 2008: Message edited by: Sean in Ottawa ]

quote:

---

The Myanmar junta is corrupt and cruel, but not stupid enough to throw open their borders to a military whose commander-in-chief is named George Bush, the Regime Changer. So busily bellicose is President Bush, he finds it necessary to delegate Myanmar-related threat-making to his wife, Laura, who last October demanded that the country's generals "step aside," forthwith. Threatening to overthrow foreign governments has apparently become so routine at the Bush White House, if the president's schedule is too crowded, he lets Laura do it.

Traditionally, American First Ladies are expected to be concerned with humanitarian affairs, but not to soil themselves with the dirty business of armed aggression. However, the Bush regime has succeeded in popularizing what they consider Humanitarian Wars - aggressions that are for the other guy's own good. Shock and Awe with a heart of gold. The benevolent, armed embrace of weaker countries. Tough love among nations.

The Bush's invasion compulsion must be contagious, because much of the ruling circles of America have caught it. Time magazine asked if it was time to invade Burma which, it is assumed, will go back to its old name once the generals are removed. The influential (among warmongers) publication Aerospace & Defense Network, for obvious reasons, argues that it's past time to fly the American flag over Myanmar which, incidentally, has substantial oil and natural gas reserves. According to the magazine, the U.S. considered invading Myanmar on several previous occasions, in order to remove that country from its number two place in the global heroin trade. It appears the Americans thought they could do a better anti-drug job in Myanmar than they've done with the U.S. puppet states of Afghanistan and Colombia, currently ranked number one worldwide in heroin and cocaine, respectively.

---

I'm fine with letting the government get credit for delivering the aid. But they haven't really been delivering it, from what I've heard. And I don't think we can assume that every report about the situation is part of a Western conspiracy.

BTW, Myanmar's rulers cooperate with the U.S. on security issues, so I don't think we can assume the U.S. gov't wants them overthrown. In fact, that same U.S. gov't hasn't done much of anything to try to overthrow the Myanmarian state.

And I agree with the assessment of the U.S. gov't response to Katrina. But they didn't bar ALL assistance from other areas(people all over the U.S. came to help and are still coming). Please don't assume that if I haven't mentioned an act of U.S. government wrongdoing in a thread that I have let the U.S. government off the hook. I've never absolved them of anything. OK?

[ 19 May 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 19 May 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
Why does the writer of that piece assume that letting international aid workers in to Myanmar is the same thing as letting the U.S. Army in?

---