Email 
Print 
HAVE YOUR SAY: Should the world help even if Myanmar doesn't want it?
Written by: AlertNet
Survivors of Cyclone Nargis in Bogalay. REUTERS
France's foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, says the United Nations should deliver aid to cyclone-devastated Myanmar even if the military junta doesn't approve it. He argues the United Nations has a responsibility to protect people and it should be able to intervene even if that means violating national sovereignty. But John Holmes, U.N. undersecretary-general for humanitarian affairs, says confrontation would undermine discussions with Myanmar's government, and the European Commission has dismissed the idea. What do you think? Should the world override the junta's wishes? Is it the international community's duty? What would the implications be? Please submit your comments at the bottom of the page. Further reading:
Reuters AlertNet is not responsible for the content of external websites.
49 responses to “HAVE YOUR SAY: Should the world help even if Myanmar doesn't want it?”
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 Although we require your email address, this will not be published on the site, and is only required to enable us to check facts with you, e.g. if you are making a claim we can not confirm easily.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.
08 May 2008 19:58:18 GMT
To ask this question implies political motives. True service to need requires that you do not do that- it is a very basic academic requirement of emergency relief.
Those who taint relief with politics likely contribute to delays in delivery of relief. There have been enough delays already. Yes, there is always a connection to politics, but opportunistic use of disaster for political motives is cruel and un-humanitarian. Later stages of recovery will invite requisite political chatter, but do not be self-center and minimize potential for relief with uninformed political elitism and destructive speculation. There is a wealth of ideas regarding means of providing relief that are yet unexplored in media. If the boundary to relief was cold, aid will still come. If heat, if fire, if disease, relief will still come. It is human nature. If politics is the barrier, relief will still come. We're human. However, I hope it comes from those qualified to respect those in need of the services rather than those driven by privilege and social cache. Those qualified know relief first, politics later.08 May 2008 20:48:46 GMT
No, we couldn't even help our own people in New Orleans
08 May 2008 20:49:24 GMT
Should the world help even if Myanmar doesnât want it? The relevant legal context was discussed in a recent book I edited on Global Obligations for the Right to Food.
/quote/ [In international law,] the discussion is mainly about the rights of the donors to have access to the needy so that their goods and services can be delivered without interference. The argument says needy people have a right to receive assistance if other people offer to provide it. It does not say that the needy have a right to receive certain kinds of assistance, and therefore others have an obligation to provide it. The main concern appears to be with the rights of those who provide the assistance, not the rights of those who need it. The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty advanced an argument of this sort in 2001 in its report on The Responsibility to Protect, clarifying guidelines for humanitarian intervention. The approach was highlighted in a UN report on A More Secure World in 2004, a UN declaration in 2005, and again in the G8 Summit in 2006. On April 28, 2006, in Resolution 1674, the UN Security Council again made similar claims, asserting the right of the international community to provide protection to people whose human rights were being violated. It acknowledged that at least under some circumstances the international community has a responsibility to provide such protection, but this responsibility has not been spelled out. . . . The assertion of a right to intervene with no counterpart obligation to intervene under some circumstances implicitly invites the politicization of intervention decisions. Those who intervene within nations on humanitarian grounds should not be free to choose who and when they help. . . . There should be recognition of obligations, and not only rights, on the part of those who would intervene. It is not surprising that the donors and protectors tend to emphasize their rights rather than their obligations. However, one would think that if the powerful are going to claim a right to assist under some conditions, they should also have an obligation to assist under some conditions. /unquote/ The dangers of powerful countries claiming the right to help as they please is demonstrated with glaring clarity in Iraq. Forcible intervention anywhere should be decided multilaterally, in the Security Council, and not by single nations acting on their own authority. We should be cautious about encouraging powerful countries to act as they please. Apart from the legal considerations, the unfolding situation in Myanmar shows that John Holmes is correct. The regime there is in fact relenting and allowing assistance to come in. Aloha, George Kent08 May 2008 20:49:47 GMT
Big YES the govt has been killing its citizens for years it is one of the most evil junta's on the planet, humanitarian aid is mandatory in this instance. how is it violating national sovereignty when this country is ruled by force under evil warlords?
09 May 2008 04:16:04 GMT
Yes, we must help the people of Burma at every cost. The Military junta is one of the worst dictators since 1962. Saddam Hussain is nothing in front of what this military junta has done to its people. USA intervened in Iraq, why can't they intervene in Burma ? Atleast here you will have the whole population on your side.
09 May 2008 04:19:04 GMT
I fear that there may be confusion between relief and aid. Intervention can be qualified by immediate basic needs for survival (e.g., food, potable water, injury treatment, etc.). There is implied concern for more chronic issues (inequitable services or prejudice provisions of service, abuse of displaced, and many other things), but one would hope there is common understanding of the distinction between immediate relief for traumatic disaster situations (e.g., tsunami, cyclone) as opposed to chronic issues (e.g., Iraq). While not "spelled out" the legal provisions give preference to immediate relief under obvious traumatic threat over interventions in chronic conditions.
Does saying "yes" to the requirement to help implicitly requires threat to sovereignty? Raw capacity requirements in this situation might mean yes, but sovereignty arguments are necessary negotiation platforms considering Than Shwe's long history of walking the line right at the brink of total irresponsibility that begs for U.N. intervention (hopefully, many have read "Threat to the Peace: A Call for the UN Security Council to Act in Burma"). The interesting part of this question is that Myanmar has somewhat trained the rest of the world to threaten sovereignty before there is any reaction on their part. It is odd that U.N. and other agencies worked very hard last year to better understand the legal prerequisites for effective disaster recovery. Hopefully, that will prove to be useful study for humanitarian work due to the cyclone. The issue of knowing when foreign aid workers are done is probably going to be less obvious and more interesting in Myanmar.09 May 2008 08:27:54 GMT
I have a simple question.
I YOU and your family were stranded by flood waters in (fill in the blank -- Illinois, Yorkshire, or in the Elbe valley in Germany -- and your respective governments were not providing relief, and a flotilla of French, Indian, Thai, and US ships were with half an hour of you by helicopter, just waiting for permission... what would YOU want to happen? After hurricane Katrina the Bangladeshi government offerred $1million in aid. Cuba offered doctors. There were similar offers from dozens of countries. The U.S. should, in fact, have taken them up. The people of New Orleans would have been much better off. It is not a matter on invading a sovereign country but invoking the "right to protect". Isn't it time that humanity acknowledge such a right and duty to protect that trumps sovereign power? For more along these lines, check out www.disasterdiplomacy.org and its page on Burma. BEN WISNER bwisner@igc.org09 May 2008 08:30:22 GMT
While I would like to answer Yes, we should provide aid whether the military junta wants it or not, the practical answer is No, we would not be able to provide the aid, as basically the military junta controls access. The only way we would be able to provide aid in defiance of the junta would be if we were to displace the junta. That might not be a bad idea, but is a whole different can of worms.
'Bye for now herbie09 May 2008 08:30:57 GMT
The news is full of stories of how aid agencies can't get in to Myanmar.
Where are the stories of how Myanmar civil authority is coping? The media would have you believe that the Myanmar government is an evil regime that is doing nothing The news would have you believe that over 100 000 are dead. The quoted 'official' numbers are way less than that. Many countries have proffered aid. Myanmar has chosen to refuse that aid. Unless you are willing to go to war with Myanmar there is nothing else to do except wait and respond if Myanmar changes its stance. This isn't the first disastrous storm to affect this area and it won't be the last.09 May 2008 09:07:03 GMT
I think the word "should" help has connotations that is driven by guilt or political motives and less by human responsibility or as George says it "obligation". When we enter using the wrong question I think the outcome is less than desirable, evident in many world disasters we have seen today.
09 May 2008 09:08:02 GMT
Yes, my heart goes out to the vulnerable people of Burma. The Military Junta should face the reality that they are not in a position to handle the disaster of that magnitude alone. The people of Burma needs immediate help. All the humanitarian actors from all over the world should joine hands and rush to Burma and launch releif and rehabilitation activities as soon as possible. We must help the people of Burma right away.
09 May 2008 09:08:13 GMT
Other options to be explored quickly before articulating such option to bypass countryâs sovereignty e.g. work through nations friendly to the Junta China, Thailand, India and Bangladesh.
Further use of political and military language such as âaccessâ would just weaken world ability to support Burmese peopleâs right to international assistance. The UN must continue engaging Junta to understand their concerns. USA should offer civilian plane and logistic, rather military one. We need humble and caring approach now.09 May 2008 09:09:54 GMT
We need to be specific here, what do we mean by if "Myanmar doesnt want it". Who is Myanmar- the military junta or the poor person without food, water and shelter because of the cyclone? After all very few in the top military may have been directly affected to require food, shelter and water though the economy gets affected. We seem to think that they are some previllaged groups be they rulers, leaders and donors who should make decisions always and these know what is right for all. They are no morals in politics and there is a lot of humanitarian hypocracy. Where two elephants fight its the grass that suffers most. Let the person without food, shelter and water speak and donors as well as politicians take it from there and we can then ask do they want assistance or not. Too much on the theoretical and yet that the right thing to do.
09 May 2008 12:56:19 GMT
As one reader has said, the current regime in Myanmar is a thousand times worse than the former regime in Iraq! Do we stand by and see people continue to die for no fault of theirs? This would be like silently acknowledging genocide. When are we going to open our eyes and do something about this situation? Even if this leads to confrontation, it would be worth it - we are saving lives not taking it away!
09 May 2008 13:14:09 GMT
Yes. It's not 'Myanmar' that doesn't want help, it's a few political actors who are refusing it and I don't think they're the ones at risk of dysentry, cholera, starvation...
The 24 million people living in Yangon, Pegu, Mon, Karen and the Irrawaddy probably won't object to their lives being saved even if it is by outsiders. They can't be allowed to die at the word of a few priviledged people. It would be mass murder and we can't condone it.09 May 2008 14:00:01 GMT
As a welfare aid and releif organisation situated in Thailand and active in Burma, we were able to give quick assistance in the tsunami regions with the blessings of the government. At this moment thousands of releif and aid workers and thousands of tons of aid are sitting awaiting what likely won't come. Permission to help those in great distress. We already have reports of desease, starvation and massive despair, but the Generals have banned outside assistance, prohibited monestries from helping the destitute and confiscated money and aid meant to help the people. Should someone go in uninvited. Not just someone, everyone who can.
09 May 2008 17:23:20 GMT
Burma has not refused aid, it has refused aid workers. Now is the humanitarian prepared to give aid without supervision is I think the question? Should aid come attached to strings? is another one. Disasters happen in all different settings and all political situations. Rather than to work every time to a formula, flexibility and creativity would be welcome.
09 May 2008 17:24:23 GMT
The Myanmar regime redefines the word "evil". There can be absolutely no excuse, political, religious or otherwise, for their refusal to aid their own poor people. The sooner this bunch of paranoid gangsters is off the face of this earth trhe sweeter the air will be. This behaviour is at least as bad as anything that Hitler or Stalin perpetrated, How CAN the world tolerate this? Of course the aid should be delivered whether "permission" is given or not - a moral no-brainer, this question. Ands anybody who does not think so simply continues the perpetration of this disgusting inhumanity.
10 May 2008 07:43:14 GMT
round up the junta, dump them 20 miles out in the ocean, and wait until they beg for help. then, wait until they agree to allow the help needed for ALL of the people. If they don't agree, they drown, and food is delivered.
10 May 2008 07:44:16 GMT
The Myanmar government does not reject help, it rejects foreign aid workers. This contribution is not an excuse for dicatorship governance, but we should stop pretending that "international experts" do everything right and better. See the Tsunami lessons learned - it would have been a sake if some workers would have stayed at home.
Why not sending in as much relief goods as we can - some will arrive, and there are international NGOS still in the country who can take care. Who cares if the aid is used for propaganda? What do we want? Helping people or looking for ways for the West to govern in a new form by sending relief troops?10 May 2008 07:45:05 GMT
People from other countries might have their own opinions, but as for a Burmese it is not a small scale devastation. Here we are talking about the lives of 1.5 million people (and more if you are talking about consequences in the future) and an evil government. 100,000 people already died. If we fail to act/intervene now, we will see someone worse than Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao Tse Tong, and even Hitler coming from Burma. Please help our people. No politics involved in helping people in misery.
10 May 2008 07:46:09 GMT
If one has to believe Junta allowing and accepting relief supports from other countries, UN should try its best to reach these supplies ensuring its minimum possible ways for equitable distribution to the most needy. This would reduce crime that is happening during this food crisis. Also UN should continue to attempt to find local government as well as nongovernment agencies or even faith based organizations to help distribution of relief.
While this is going on UN also should try convincing Junta to open ways for aid workers from atleast asian countries or neighboring countries like India to allow aid workers begining with medical emergency team. This is absolutely essential. Efforts should also be by neighboring countries like India etc. to talk with Junta. At this juncture, it is better not to confront or allow countries to send wrong messages across.10 May 2008 07:57:49 GMT
Some years ago I was on the Thai Myanmar border and crossed over for a short while, it was obvious to me then that the Military junta do not care about the poor of its country,starving orphans lived by begging,lying in hovels too week to move. the scale of poverty was heart breaking, the police and military would walk past as if they did not see them, indeed they did not see them as anything other than a pest to be ignored, which is exactly what they are doing now. Harsh as this may sound I have no doubt that they do not care about the thousands who have died and will die, they see this disaster as an effective way to rid themselves of the pestilance that is their poor. Should we send in money? NO, it would not go to the people who need it, should we send in practical aid? YES, air drop it, do what ever it takes. The US and UK no doubt have thier spy satalites working over time taking continuous pictures of the area, so why dont they make the information available to the aid agencies, forget soveriegn air space and get together to coordinate air drops. No country in this day and age should be able to get away with mass murder.
10 May 2008 11:44:51 GMT
If you like supporting military regimes who terrorize their people you should send aid to the generals , without assessment teams, then they will hoard, it not ditribute it, to be used as a further means of control at a later date to those who will be desperate and starving. A humanitarian crisis will still not be avoided. This is a form of genocide and population control the Junta is practicing and they are proving exactly how ineffectual the UN is.
10 May 2008 11:47:07 GMT
it is a poor to do when the Burma goverment wont let the aid workers in.My husband and i see the devastation on the news,and u feel so helpless.(GET THE AID IN NOW).Even if it has to be air dropped to the people.WE ARE SENDING MONEY SO HOPE IT GOES TO THE PEOPLE.
10 May 2008 18:13:02 GMT
I really worry about incendiary/inflammatory perspectives precluding authentic progress, and I am a little nervous to post this. Hopefully, readers are sympathetic.
Intervention, via U.N. security council action was necessary before the cyclone. The rationale being: 1. The risk to security, public health, destructive commerce (black market, trafficking in persons, arms and drugs), and many other issues are traversing Myanmar's political boundaries to an extent sufficient to threaten other populations. 2. The non-violent models of protective force (engendered in Right to Food, Child Protection, and other policy statements) were justified for many years. Many U.N. security council meetings paint a consistent picture that extent is not the issue- Myanmar has met the criteria; however, the means of intervention (regional, international, economic, etc.) and economic motives stay the Russia and China votes on intervention. Before the cyclone, I, a committed non-violentist and eternal peace activist, cast my vote for protective force. But, immediacy of need makes me fear creating a distraction to relief. Yes, it hurts the dignity of vulnerable parties to know SPDC hoarding of supplies will take place, but if that is the only bad that comes with starting relief flowing (and FAST), then I'll cook gourmet meals for the SPDC. I'll send more food and medicine than they can handle and hope it is possible to bite that bullet to better maximize relief effect. Those with privilege in the west are quite good at hoarding and "trickle down" theories as well (e.g., recent economic bailout examples). We may even set the bar for trickle down from the privileged on the global scale. It is tempting to calculate estimates of greater effect between creating sovereignty threats on one hand, and bearing the discomfort of privileged hoarding on the other. Maybe pushing a surplus bounty over the border along with constant advocacy and pressure for allowing groups with higher qualification and capacity is the greater effect. The potential of that advocacy should not be underestimated. Relief is different than ongoing issues. If someone breeches ethics to allow a greater number to be helped, more vulnerable people in Myanmar can live with that. It's about the numbers for now. Later, I cast my vote again for protective force. And every day after that I cast the same vote, and if someone in the region calculates greatest relief effect from intervention, they get y vote, but there is the possibility of escalation rather than relief. Please remember previous disasters escalated suffering of displaced, illegal commerce, and increased migrant worker abuses. Those multinationals making use of cheap Burmese labor at the border (e.g., Nike?, Levis?, others?) should take some worker protection steps and quickly partner with NGOs mobilizing in the region to minimize negative impacts. Whoever is reading is most qualified to education donors, negotiate with corporate social responsibility officers, and prepare for what must happen immediately and for the long recovery process.10 May 2008 21:53:15 GMT
NO NO. people must rise up against the gunta.
11 May 2008 07:12:58 GMT
first of all , do you know that if you call this country" Myanmar " it is referred to the name the militarian junta has given to it , and that if you call this country "Burma" it is referred to the name the people and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi give it to it ? ;)
11 May 2008 07:13:26 GMT
Why should we help, it is not our responsibility to help every nation in the world, we need to sort our own financial problems before commiting millions to others, how many homeless have we got, how many starving children, this country is struggling, but BUSH insists in sticking his nose into every other countries problems.
And the majority of the country doesnt want the troops in IRAQ so why the hell should the be sent to Burma??? Wake up people, it is NOT our war. Just like Iraq is not our war. Elisha, Yes the Junta may have been killing its people, news flash people, NOT OUR PROBLEM. WE ARE NOT THE WORLD POLICE.11 May 2008 17:44:16 GMT
It's important to distinguish between the people and the government. Just because the government wants one thing it doesn't mean the people want the same, especially when we are talking about a military dictatorship.
11 May 2008 17:45:34 GMT
Maybe Rajendra says no to aid, after having a good meal himself. If you ask some one who has been without water, food and shelter for days to rise against the junta, I do not think he will do so. He is much to occupied to think where is he going to get food or water tonight. I do not understand this talk of sovereignity when we are talking about a junta who was never elected by the people of Burma. Sovereignity for what? Cathrine
12 May 2008 14:58:21 GMT
I agree with the French stance --- natural siadter is a disater wether the govt needs or requires assistance is not the point. The questions must be places with the people or refugees who are really and truly facing the disater. If they ask for help or aid then there is nothing anyone or any government can do --- AID must be given to them on humantarian gorunds or reasons. And that is final, and it should be the UN who must take resposibility but if they can't then anyone who is capable should take charge and give aid.
What id there to argue about when there id a disaster you do your best to help one another...12 May 2008 14:58:57 GMT
The people are innocent,possibly the Junta feels the people should be under its Mercy so that they can deliver the AID themselves selectively .
It is unfortunate that the people be allowed to suffer when help is just around the corner. Bern Odo Zak12 May 2008 19:10:03 GMT
The people are innocent,possibly the Junta feels the people should be under its Mercy so that they can deliver the AID themselves selectively .
It is unfortunate that the people be allowed to suffer when help is just around the corner. Bern Odo Zak12 May 2008 19:11:20 GMT
I agree with the French stance --- natural siadter is a disater wether the govt needs or requires assistance is not the point. The questions must be places with the people or refugees who are really and truly facing the disater. If they ask for help or aid then there is nothing anyone or any government can do --- AID must be given to them on humantarian gorunds or reasons. And that is final, and it should be the UN who must take resposibility but if they can't then anyone who is capable should take charge and give aid.
What id there to argue about when there id a disaster you do your best to help one another...13 May 2008 11:14:33 GMT
Give the people what they need, if Government doesn't have your best intrests at heart, then Government should not be the last say in how a person is treated at any such a time. Food should never be turned away when so much is needed and is available, how can we let this happen? How do governments like this exist? Lines on a map should not matter. If there is a will and a need, they should meet, without any man made hindrance.
14 May 2008 09:41:14 GMT
Ask the officials about the number and type of items they need before sending to them as this is more economical.
Second, give the materials to nearby countries if Myanmar refuse to take in fear of heavy loans and debts I suppose.14 May 2008 14:41:01 GMT
I agree with other writers about the junta is not the people. Myanmar Junta has been known for its dictatorship, its atrocity toward their people. One has to ask why they want to close their gate to the world, even in this disaster when the people of myanmar needs the most help. I agrre, Some nations should pack the junta and leave them in the sea. Why the world ignore the repression and crime exerted to the people of Myanmar? and make such a fuss about China's Tienanmen? Flesh is fless, the pain, hunger, violence exerted to its people by the Junta should be denounced and somebody do something about it. Now because of this natural disaster, where the people needs the most assistance, the country is unable to provide to its peole, and the Junta is makeing difficulty...this is a chance to reflect, and use some forces upon this dictators. Luna
14 May 2008 14:43:55 GMT
Why should we help others abroad when we have SO many people HERE that need legitimate help...thousands losing their homes due to sub-prime mortgage scams, tornadoes, floods, high prices for gas and food, etc. etc. forcing people to choose between feeding their families and gas to get back and forth to work. If those in Myanmar don't like the "dictatorship", rise up and kill the oppressors - it's been done MANY times over the course of world history. Besides, it's not like the world offered us much of any REAL help when Katrina hit did they? Oh sure, they sent their "symapthies" but what good is feeling sorry for someone going to do when they've lost everything? Do you honestly think that Myanmar or China did anything to help us? Nope. And if this post angers you, why don't you get off your computer, buy a plane ticket and go over there YOURSELF and help them instead of complaining about it. I doubt that you will.....
15 May 2008 08:00:21 GMT
This is a serious question and actually is one worth considering when you factor in the repressive junta regime ruling that nation. How can you turn your back on the suffering but if you contribute the corrupt leaders get it, who knows what to do, really?
16 May 2008 07:13:50 GMT
Well,the situation seems slippery and have developed some uneasy environment around the globe regarding the Myanmar Relief matters.As for me, the right to basic needs and the freedom to live is one's birthright which is beyond UN or JUNTA. But whatever the circumstances, this is a co-dependent world, I cant just turn my back. I therefore feel that with all the standards and code of conduct that UN have, they should take legitimate steps to intervent and bring sustainable solution. Otherwise... WHATS THE POINT HAVING UNO???
17 May 2008 15:39:48 GMT
Who is stopping the world from helping the people devastated by the nature's fury?Just a mere group of people calling themselves as the leaders of those tormented mass?what they have to stop the whole world..weapons?Thought the rest of the world have much better weapons...!!!!?A handful of people stopping the world from serving the basics of humanity..?Is this the situation in Myanmar?..Why its so difficult to bend the rules,when we are the creator of the rule.Why it is so easy to drop bombs,and not food..where we are standing today...the world is already entangled in bad politics.....dont let it get more..-A mere thought.
17 May 2008 15:41:48 GMT
Grace says: I therefore feel that with all the standards and code of conduct that UN have, they should take legitimate steps to intervent and bring sustainable solution. Otherwise... WHATS THE POINT HAVING UNO???
Grace, I think many, in the world, wonder the same thing...they seem to do little but drain resources from countries and are either sitting on a fence most of the time or ineffective when they do finally make a decision.19 May 2008 13:40:26 GMT
Any nation that willfully allows its citizens to die does not deserve sovereignty
20 May 2008 08:59:23 GMT
Faye & David, What you said holds true. But one thing that touched me is: that the disaster showed the devastation that nature can unleash, but it also once again proved the greater compassion and love that subsist in the hearts of millions around the world today.
22 May 2008 14:42:36 GMT
In reality, these boundaries? Borders we can or cannot cross? Some in power, all the rest like sheep, all will die. Nothing will change, some feel the need to share, feel compassion and love, others feel scared and want to defend their little fiefdoms, and some want to manipulate all of this, to control the planet and its resources. Shame shame shame, nothing will change with human beings.
22 May 2008 15:14:57 GMT
This is all very technical. Now normally, the international community SHOULD be responsible to help any country faced with such a crisis - by all means necessary!
But in this case - with Myanmar's/Burma's stubborn ruling junta - the best (and most sadistic) thing to do is to either: 1. SADISTIC - Withdraw all international aid and sever all trade relations, abandoning Myanmar's people to the cruel fate brought upon by the junta's refusal to accept aid in the first place. Then watch Myanmar as its people slowly die from starvation and disease until finally (though it would too late by then) Than Shwe and his idiotic cronies from the junta finally appeal for aid in desperation, for fear of losing a country to lord over (possibly half of Myanmar's population would be dead - leaving them with nothing and nobody to rule). 2. RADICAL - Forcibly wrest control from the junta and take matters into our own hands or hand over political power to Aung Sun Suu Kyi, Myanmar's opposition leader under house arrest. She should straighten things out. 3. POSSIBLE - Secretly smuggle (it HAS been done before) relief goods into Myanmar and help them out!25 May 2008 09:16:08 GMT
Has anyone stopped to think about the problems this country is going through at the moment, why should it be our responsibility to help, we have millions out of work, and growing at an alarming rate, we have millions of people losing there homes, millions in poverty and yet we are still sending millions abroad to help others. We need to help ourselves before we try and solve the worlds problems. We are already in debt to the tune of Trillions to China, and yet we spend money like we have an unending supply of it. WHY WHY WHY
26 May 2008 21:10:35 GMT
You have to thank to your policies that the US is in that stage and see if next time you are more carfull in chusing your policy makers... clensines starts from home...