Ignore the Burmese government and deliver the aid.
There are times when you simply despair. Last night Channel 4 news carried pictures of what was taking place inside Burma and you found yourself near to tears with exasperation at the actions of the Burmese government.
For once, I find myself on the side of the US and France. I would simply deliver the aid and distribute it with or without the permission of the Burmese government. If this is allowed to continue like this we are going to see a catastrophic rise in water-borne disease levels, so it is imperative that we act as soon as possible.The UN reacted furiously last night to Burma's military government confiscating food aid intended for more than a million victims of last week's cyclone. Two planeloads were impounded by the junta, prompting a temporary suspension in deliveries. UN flights were resumed last night, in the hope that negotiations would lead to a resolution.
Gordon Brown called the Burmese action "utterly unacceptable". He stopped short of joining France and the US in calling for aid deliveries without Burmese permission, although pressure within his government for such a move is growing.
Last night, the international development secretary, Douglas Alexander, said an emergency UN meeting today would demand urgent humanitarian access. A UN appeal launched yesterday raised almost half its target of $187m (£96m).
Britain's ambassador to the UN, Sir John Sawers, last night demanded that the Burmese government grant visas to aid workers, allow importation and distribution of food aid, and stop charging import duties on it. He also hinted Britain might back the distribution of aid without Burmese government permission.
If we can invade Iraq out with of international law then we can surely deliver aid to the Burmese people whether their government grant permission or not. I am not in this instance calling for a revision of the Treaty of Westphalia, I am simply arguing that it is in the service of the greater good that we act to bring aid to the Burmese people whether the junta give permission or not.
After all, international law allows us to interfere in other nations business to prevent catastrophe, and this case seems almost tailor made for us to employ that distinction.
They are having a fucking referendum - I saw adverts that they are running last night on TV - whilst their people are starving. We are dealing with an insane regime here, they are attempting to push ahead with a fucking referendum in the middle of a humanitarian disaster.Britain is putting diplomatic pressure on Burma via China, India and Thailand. But if this fails in the next few days, it would look again at unilateral delivery. "If it comes to letting hundreds of thousands of people die, of course we're not going to do that," a British official said.
"There are people suffering," the prime minister told Sky TV. "It's utterly unacceptable that, when international aid is offered, the regime will try to prevent that getting in."
The row over food deliveries came after a standoff between the junta and the UN over visas for up to 40 disaster management experts.
UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon criticised the government's decision to press ahead today with a referendum strengthening the generals' grip on power.
To Hell with these nutters, deliver the aid and distribute it, whether the regime gives permission or not.
Click title for full article.
9 comments:
Yep - I was just waiting for the DEC to give the go-ahead. I've now donated. It's the only thing I can do but far better to give and risk it not getting there than not give, I think.
I've done the same. The images are simply horrendous and the fact that the Burmese junta are sitting about doing next to bugger all simply infuriates me!
Interesting how you're campaigning for the use of military force even outside the bounds of the Supreme World Government (the UN). Makes you a bit of a hypocrite doesn't it? Especially after you've stated in these pages that there's nothing that can be done about genocide in Rwanda because the Supreme World Government that you subvert yourself to refuses to allow anything to be done.
And if you think having the militaries of France and the US delivering aid without the permission of the Burmese junta isn't military force, you're kidding yourself.
In any event, at least you are now on record as stating that you believe sovereign nations may undertake military action outside the confines of the unelected body you think is a world government (again, that would be the UN).
Dear Jason,
If you think delivering aid to a stricken nation is akin to bombing them then you are even more of a lunatic than I had previously thought.
Delivering aid is not "military action" and - as I was careful to point out - one is permitted to act outwith of the UN if one is doing so to prevent humanitarian disaster.
If you think delivering aid to a stricken nation is akin to bombing them then you are even more of a lunatic than I had previously thought.
I never compared anything to bombing.
Delivering aid is not "military action" and - as I was careful to point out - one is permitted to act outwith of the UN if one is doing so to prevent humanitarian disaster.
You are once again completely mistaken. Regardless of whether or not the mighty UN approves of a military action, it is still military action.
When the host nation refuses to give permission for foreign forces to enter its borders, and those foreign forces violate the territorial integrity of that nation, that is what we in the military quaintly referred to as an "invasion". For the foreign military forces entering this country against the will of that country, this constitutes military action.
I've participated in such actions (Operation Provide Comfort) and I can tell you without fear of contradiction by anyone who has a clue, that it is most definitely military action.
So, as I've stated, whether you realized it or not, your embrace of military action in Burma to help alleviate suffering means that you come off as a hypocrite given your past statements regarding military action in the Sudan.
So, as I've stated, whether you realized it or not, your embrace of military action in Burma to help alleviate suffering means that you come off as a hypocrite given your past statements regarding military action in the Sudan.
Utter bollocks. I am saying exactly the same thing as I said concerning Sudan. If we are not able to get a vote through the UN then one is entitled to step in via Nato to prevent humanitarian disaster.
My previous point was regarding your claim that Europe should intervene, I simply pointed out that as your nation was a leading Nato force then it was highly unlikely that - given the nightmare that is Iraq - that any European force would willingly enter Sudan.
I personally, as I made clear to you at the time, would favour intervention in the Sudan, just as I favour intervention here. There is no hypocrisy in my stance at all.
If we are not able to get a vote through the UN then one is entitled to step in via Nato to prevent humanitarian disaster.
So then you believe the UN may be ignored when they refuse to act appropriately. But why only via NATO? That seems a bit outside NATOs charter since no member nation has been attacked nor does any member nation require defense. If you believe it would be fine for NATO, then why wouldn't it be fine for a coalition of nations willing to take on the burden? Or even one nation willing to take on the burden?
I simply pointed out that as your nation was a leading Nato force then it was highly unlikely that - given the nightmare that is Iraq - that any European force would willingly enter Sudan.
The non-US members of NATO, have two million men under arms, yet they refuse to must up even the forces necessary for Afghanistan, an operation which they agreed to undertake under NATOs clause that an attack on one is an attack on all. What on earth makes you think that under any circumstances that European nations have the will to use their military in sufficient numbers with or without US leadership. The EU wants to be thought of as a world power, well then they need to act like it. But given the utter fecklessness they are generally displaying in Afghanistan, the future of Europe as a respectable military force isn't looking to bright. Afghanistan has proved that with a few exceptions, Europe is generally unreliable when it comes to military force. As a result, the US is going to increase its forces in Afghanistan and right the ship that's faltered since NATO took over.
Even the countries that are actually fighting (Canada, Britain, the Netherlands, and a small handful of others) aren't really providing much in the way of forces, and certainly not enough to get the job done. Once again it is going to require US leadership and the bulk of US blood and treasure. But then, that's how it always is these days.
So then you believe the UN may be ignored when they refuse to act appropriately. But why only via NATO? That seems a bit outside NATOs charter since no member nation has been attacked nor does any member nation require defense. If you believe it would be fine for NATO, then why wouldn't it be fine for a coalition of nations willing to take on the burden? Or even one nation willing to take on the burden?
I say via Nato because that is how traditionally we have acted when UN support is not forthcoming. And no, it is not fine to ignore the UN when "they refuse to act appropriately", however, there is no need for the UN to be involved at all in the case of humanitarian disasters and genocide. And yes, it would be fine for one nation or any group of nations to intervene to stop a humanitarian disaster or genocide.
The rest of your post is simply another tiresome attack on Europe's cowardice and an avoidance of the fact that you wrongly called my stance hypocritical. I won't be expecting an apology from you as I am well used to you making attacks and then simply dropping them when you are shown to be talking nonsense and acting as if your original charge simply never existed.
I say via Nato because that is how traditionally we have acted when UN support is not forthcoming. And no, it is not fine to ignore the UN when "they refuse to act appropriately"
So you back NATO actions that have been made without UN support, but on the other hand you state that it's not fine to ignore the UN when they refuse to take steps to alleviate the situations that made these actions necessary? You don't see any contradiction in that line of thinking?
there is no need for the UN to be involved at all in the case of humanitarian disasters and genocide
That is an absurd statement. The UN, a huge portion of which is dedicated solely to providing humanitarian aid, should have no need to act in humanitarian disasters?!? Do you even know what the UN does?
an avoidance of the fact that you wrongly called my stance hypocritical.
Don't get confused, I still think your stance is hypocritical. Aside from hypocritical though, I might have to add "confusing".
Post a Comment