Email 
Print 
Why not just do air drops in Myanmar?
Written by: Ruth Gidley
A man rests before carrying rice donated by a British non-governmental organisation to his cyclone-destroyed village south of Yangon, May 12, 2008. REUTERS/Stringer
The Myanmar military junta is sticking to its guns about not wanting outsiders to give out aid, and international debate is hotting up on whether the world has a duty to give relief to people in Myanmar's cyclone-hit delta even if the government rejects it. Nonetheless, there are some good reasons why it's not as simple as just flying over and dropping aid down to desperate survivors. Air drops are usually a last resort, because it's hard to reach the people who need aid most, especially the sick and injured. Unless there's someone to meet the aid and organise its distribution, it ends up with the ones who are most able to scramble and fight for it. That's why reputable aid agencies don't throw aid out of the back of trucks, either. And it's the most expensive way there is of delivering food. "The lower the cost of transport, the more food we can buy," said a senior aid official who didn't want to be named. Aid workers say that for air lifts to be effective you need staff on the ground and you need to create large, visible drop zones. Without this, air lifts run a real risk of injuring people when they land. "There have been some injuries in the past, in chaotic situations," the aid official said. The U.N. World Food Programme has developed the "snowflake" technique, dropping packages of high protein food that are small and light enough not to hurt anyone they might land on. British-based aid agency Oxfam published its views on air drops in Myanmar on the U.N. website ReliefWeb, saying: "In a natural disaster such as Cyclone Nargis or conflict like Darfur it's not only food that's needed but also sophisticated equipment such as clean water and sanitation systems weighing tons as well as highly skilled staff to operate them - none of which can be dropped from the sky." Oxfam's humanitarian director quoted in the statement, Jane Cocking, was adamant that air drops shouldn't be seen as a substitute for having specialists on the ground. Aid agencies are keen to emphasise they wouldn't condone working in Myanmar without the government's permission. All these reasons, plus the sheer, humiliating indignity - no one should have to fight like a zoo animal for food flung from a helicopter or a truck - make aid agencies understandably wary of air drops. Is it better than nothing? "If it's an emergency, and people are at risk of death, you use air lifts," the aid official said. "But you have to have staff on the ground." Oxfam's Cocking said: "At best air-drops can only be a partial solution, at worst they give the illusion that somehow we are addressing this ever worsening humanitarian crisis."
Reuters AlertNet is not responsible for the content of external websites.
5 responses to “Why not just do air drops in Myanmar?”
Please note that comments should not be regarded as the views of Reuters.
Leave a Reply
When you submit a comment to us we request your name, e-mail address and optionally a link to a website. Please note where you submit a website address, we may link to it via your name. By sending us a comment, you accept that we have the right to show the comment and your name to users. Although we require your email address, this will not be published on the site, and is only required to enable us to check facts with you, e.g. if you are making a claim we can not confirm easily. Additionally, if you would like your comment removed at anytime, you'll have to use this e-mail address when you contact us. To remove a comment at any time please e-mail us at blogs-(at)-reuters-(dot)-com (address obscured to avoid spam) specifying who you are and what you would like removed. We moderate all comments and will publish everything that advances the post directly or with relevant tangential information. We reserve the right to edit comments in order to maintain the quality of the comments, and may not include links to irrelevant material. We try not to publish comments that we think are offensive or appear to pass you off as another person, and we will be conservative if comments may be considered libelous. Reuters will use your data in accordance with Reuters privacy policy. Reuters Group is primarily responsible for managing your data. As Reuters is a global company your data will be transferred and available internationally, including in countries which do not have privacy laws but Reuters seeks to comply with its privacy policy.
Unlike some other content on this website, the written content in this article may be republished or redistributed by any means free of charge. Any use of photographs and graphics on this website is expressly prohibited. You must check whether written content contained in other articles on this website may be republished or redistributed without the express permission of Reuters or the relevant third party provider.
Ruth Gidley has been on the AlertNet team since late 1999. Before that, she lived in Guatemala, working first with a small local NGO and then as a journalist for a Central American news service. Ruth, who has a Masters in Latin American Studies, has edited a book on human rights in Guatemala, and written chapters for books on truth monuments and on Native American traditions.
16 May 2008 17:20:52 GMT
This maybe very hard to accomplis but I suggest NGO to drop leaflets warning the time and location of airdrops which would be near the buddhist temples and hopefully the buddhist monks can help in the distribution process.
17 May 2008 15:34:21 GMT
The very last statement: "...at worst they give the illusion that somehow we are addressing this ever worsening humanitarian crisis." That sounds like politics and not life and death. The FACT is that if we did that...then we would be addressing something about the situation!! Also, water purification tablets are not heavy either!!
I swear, as used as I am to a nice life, if I were stuck out in the middle of nowhere with the dead and dying, I would sure be happy, no ecstatic, to scramble for food like a zoo animal. Especially if I were looking my hungry children in the eye. I know that hunger weakens their system and opens them up for all kinds of death by infection, dehydration, etc. When he does open it up...and he will...I think that we should refuse to allow our boys and girls (18 year olds and up) REFUSE to put them on BODY DETAIL. I say make him make his ARMY bury the rotting dead. I don't want any of our kids having to handle that particular mess; I expect (revisit New Orleans) they will have plenty of that back home one day.17 May 2008 15:39:15 GMT
Dropping aid from helicopters wonât work? One need only recall the Kurdish aid drop after the first Gulf War to know that a major disaster can be at least partially mitigated by a massive air drop. Back in those days the press shamed the Bush administration into providing aid with a heavy coverage of the tragedy. Of course air drops are expensive and used only as a last resort. Weâre not at the last resort yet in Burma? Clearly your solution will be more cost effective. After a couple more weeks of hand wringing by the international community, supported by media explanations about why nothing can be done without permission from the Tat Ma Daw, and the problem will pretty much solve itself, donât you think?
18 May 2008 18:49:34 GMT
My Response to 'Van' comment 16th May 2008 on "Why not just do air drops" I read about the Sitagu Missionary Association and their current relief work, is it possible to contact them (the Sayadaw is 'the Venerable Nyamissan' and arrange for Van's suggestion to happen?" If so, to connect NGO's with them... Kindly Join me in praying for continued strength and ability for these precious Buddhist monks and their work. Thank you for your compassion. Mar
18 May 2008 18:52:18 GMT
Van - I'm no expert on Buddhism, but I think that Buddhist monks rely on donations for food themselves and are not permitted to store food overnight. It may be that they could be encouraged to be part of the food distribution, but right now they may well be the most hungry as they don't grow their own food or have land.