User Comments

1. 

   5/16/08

   Norski

   Perhaps the United Nations should: but I doubt it will.
   
   China and India, it's been argued, aren't likely to approve of any sort of assertive efforts to keep people from dying in Burma / Myanmar. Those two countries are, perhaps understandably, on being what they consider to be 'good neighbors' to the junta running Burma.
   
   I do think that there's a choice, not for the United Nations, but for nations which are in a position to make a decision while there are still survivors.
   
   Either drop vitally needed supplies into the areas where people need it, or let disease and starvation take care of the problem.
   
   Good news, sort of: WHO says there are cholera outbreaks in the affected parts of Burma / Myanmar; but it's okay, since it's about as many cases as they usually get ( www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/16/cyclonenargis.burma1?gusrc=rss&feed=ne... ).
   
   I think there's a case for someone to get food and medical supplies to people in southern Burma, before a rescue operation becomes a moot point. ( discussed at anotherwaronterrorblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/people-may-be-dying-soon-in-bur... )
   
   I also think that defying the junta isn't the best solution: and that there isn't a 'best' solution. Just one that will result in a few tens of thousands of people alive, rather than dead.

   [reply]
2. 

   5/16/08

   clioandme

   That's what I asked yesterday in a blog post: markstoneman.wordpress.com/2008/05/15/46/
   I'm including the link here again, because it contains information on what the "responsibility to protect"" is.

   [reply]
3. 

   5/16/08

   OutsideMyBrain

   That is a very difficult call and here is why...
   
   If the world condones the UN intervening than we are saying that the UN is "all-powerful" and there is no soveriegnty for individual countries. I had this same converstation back when the Republicans were trying to intervene in the Terry Schiavo case. I didn't agree with what her husband was doing and I don't agree with what the Junta government is doing to the people of Myanmar either. (Now the Junta is saying that the relief efforts are over and they are now beginning the reconstruction phase).
   
   So, it's a very difficult situation to say the least. Think of it this way... I don't know what country you are from, but the U.S.A. is a soveriegn nation. This means that no entity, be it the UN or anyone else has any say over the politics, policies, laws, etc. of our country. This prevents the UN from taking away our Constitution and along with it our rights. (Specifically the right to bare arms, the right of free speech and the right to worship however we wish to)
   
   Interesting point though, during Katrina the Mexican government sent troops into the U.S.A. to support during the aftermath and our government let them in.
   
   So, it appears that everything is headed that direction anyway, as far as having a World Government that all nations must pay allegience (which will probably include taxes). Too many Americans are too lazy, and too involved with their TV's to pay attention as their rights continue to be stripped away.
   
   On a positive note, regarding Myanmar, we donate our time to a Christian ministry called Understand the Times(dot)org which has 4 orphanages just 30 miles outside of Yangon. Their windows were blown out during the storm, but the concrete buildings stood firm. They are in a desperate situation right now as rice has gone from $25 a bag to $50 a bag the month before the storm to over $100 a bag now.
   
   Roger Oakland, the founder of the ministry is collecting funds to give directly to the orphanages, not the government, to not only feed the children, but also to reach out to their communities as this is a disastrous situation right now.
   
   You can read more about the ministry and how to donate at my wife's (Truthoughts) blog:
   
   truthoughts.wordpress.com/2008/05/09/breaking-the-myanmar-blockades/
   
   Thanks for starting this thread. I look forward to following everyone's comments

   [reply]
   1. 

      5/16/08

      clioandme

      The issue isn't about sovereignty. The UN Security Council (which includes the US, which could have vetoed it if it had wanted to) approved the "responsibility to protect" doctrine several years ago. The issue is also not "World Government". That is utter paranoid nonsense.
      
      The issue is whether or not force could create the conditions to save lives or if it would make things more difficult than they are now.
      
      And the issue is about the political will of the Security Council, which includes China.
   2. 

      5/16/08

      Norski

      markstoneman,
      
      Your point, 'the political will of the Security Council,' is one of the reasons why I'm not all that concerned about the United Nations as a threat. With some exceptions, the organization seems unable to act - let alone act effectively.
      
      An overgeneralization, but with some truth to it, I fear.
   3. 

      5/16/08

      clioandme

      Have you forgotten that the UN can further the interests of its sovereign member states? That's its strength. It's also its biggest weakness in a case like this one.
   4. 

      5/16/08

      Norski

      I haven't forgotten that the UN can help the states which are its members -or at least the bosses of those states. I believe that is why the UN has trouble taking effective action.
   5. 

      5/16/08

      OutsideMyBrain

      @markstoneman
      
      I apologize, you are right, the issue is whether helping (which would no doubt mean war) would create a worse situation than the people already have now.
      
      Regarding the UN furthering the interests of it soveriegn member states, is Myanmar one of it's members? If not, then they really don't have any authority, do they?
      
      This was what I was trying to point out, is when the UN or the USA for that matter, tries to take matters into their own hands and force their own agenda on other countries. And, also why I was saying that it's a difficult situation because it's usually the general populace who suffers in either case.
4. 

   5/16/08

   cooper

   The US will soon head the security council, but remember it is the Nation States which have to make these decisions. There always lies the problem. tippy toe national politics. I think the frustration with the UN is wordlwide.
   
   I received an email from a religious based charity organization. and did some research on them before posting, but it appears they have gotten into Burma maybe further than most. They are taking donations I did an off topic on my Darfur blog.
   
   hellonearth.wordpress.com/2008/05/16/407/

   [reply]
5. 

   5/16/08

   Norski

   Here's another voice, with a now-familiar argument:
   
   www.irrawaddy.org/interview_show.php?art_id=12044
   'This is a Good Day to Argue for Humanitarian Intervention'

   [reply]