If spreading democracy was the true goal of the NeoCon (Artists) then they would’ve started with Burma.

I think the reason why Iraq was taken out before Burma was that Iraq was perceived as dangerous and Burma not. Also Burma has friends but Saddam didn’t.

Why do you focus so much on the policies and practices of he USA? Are there not other large and medium and small nations that have the interests of the destitute of Burma at heart? Last I heard, the globe was not a one-nation State.

cheers

Self-determination used to be an important part of Liberalism - nowadays it’s more like we determine that we don’t like (projection of morality) and force others to accept it (rights-based HI).

I think self-determinism is still an important part of liberalism (and any other political philosophy that advocates democracy). ‘Liberalism’ however has been hijacked by people who’re anything but. The Bush junta (to use John le Carre’s phrase) have simultaneously subverted or even rolled back civil liberties whilst talking the spread of democracy and free markets out the other side of their faces.
>
In truth they are advocating neither. They’re engineering a corporatist collusion between the State and select friends in the private sector at the expense of ordinary people and their own nation’s reputation. They were initially successful because able to utilize the post 9/11 environment to silence any criticism as treacherous. When the whole shebang started even suggesting that Iraq was about oil was deemed not just wrong but immoral. This despite the massive evidence to the contrary plain as the smirk on Dubya’s face.
>
Shame on the fourth estate.
>
Nothing similar to the PNAC project in Iraq would be attempted in Burma because what John Perkins has referred to as the Corporatocracy has no trouble accessing Burma’s natural resources. If spreading democracy was the true goal of the NeoCon (Artists) then they would’ve started with Burma. Unlike Iraq there’s already a head of state who is both popularly acknowledged as legitimate and has the smarts to bring Burma into the modern era. There is a popular will to multi-party democracy (the mantra Ms. Aung Sung most often repeats in her writing). These are absent in Iraq.
>
But democracy is not the point but the cover story. A cursory look at the behaviour of Bush shows that he and the majority of his cohorts are plutocrats for whom democracy is an accursed and perpetual thorn.
>
All that said there’s an inherent contradiction in spreading democracy by force that is both moral and practical. However given that the US has had no trouble in the past subverting indigenous democratic movements via the training of nasty militias one wonders why they can’t perhaps use this expertese in furtherance of redeeming their own national soul something I suspect thinking Americans want badly.

Yeah, should only take a couple of hours to get rid of the Burmese Army, then we can get back to feeding everybody.

With the what’s left of the Burmese army? Mmmm meat group!

“Just get rid of the fxxx axxx criminals-in-uniform who are getting rich by letting their own people die for nothing. That’s all. Once the cxxxs have been wiped out, feed the victims of the cyclone …. then get out of there and let the Burmese sort out their own problems; don’t get involved in any political fights afterwards”.

Too late, you’ve already acted politically in removing the nominal government. Power vacuums etc, have to keep the peace and good order etc, sound familiar?

To be really harsh an argument could be mounted that we should do nothing about the Junta (and I just know that someone will take offense at this so just bear in mind the semi-contrariness intention here). Self-determination used to be an important part of Liberalism - nowadays it’s more like we determine that we don’t like (projection of morality) and force others to accept it (rights-based HI). Tacit support is still support and if populations don’t do their own work of liberation they will never really be free.

Lol laissez fair humanitarianism!

I think a case could have been actually been made for humanitarian intervention in Iraq. Its a shame it wasn’t.

But that case was made. It was made by Ann Clwyd and by Baroness Nicholson and by Bernard Kouchner, now Foreign Minister of France who makes the same case for Burma.

How convenient our memories are when we forget or ignore what led up to that war.

I only repeated what I heard …. and omitted mentioning another issue which is causing so much hatred against the present Myanmar military regime.

Absolutely no “spreading democracy by force” whatsoever.

“Just get rid of the fxxx axxx criminals-in-uniform who are getting rich by letting their own people die for nothing. That’s all. Once the cxxxs have been wiped out, feed the victims of the cyclone …. then get out of there and let the Burmese sort out their own problems; don’t get involved in any political fights afterwards”.

I’m tempted to agree with that.

Adrien: the shooting can come later, mate! Helping the desperate is the key right now, isn’t it?

Well the trouble is it’s very difficult to help people who live under a tyrannical kleptocracy.

Consider Bob Geldof’s heroic but ultimately futile 1980s projects - Band Aid and Live Aid. Wonderful things. The whole world tuning in to a concert, donating money. Unfortunately it just wasn’t that simple:

…most of the aid — again, roughly 90 per cent — was channelled through Mengistu’s hands. In a grotesque irony, we found ourselves supporting the very government that was causing the famine we were supposed to be alleviating.

Disheartening but true, cont:

The regime ensured that the visitors converted their Western dollars to the local currency at a rate favourable to the government: in 1985 the Dergue tripled its foreign currency reserves. It used this influx of cash to help build up its war-machine, it commandeered aid vehicles for its own purposes and, by diverting aid supplies, helped feed its armies.

Instead of feeding the world we let the dictator responsible for the famine in the first place know it’s Christmas time. This is extremely unpalatable (and I suspect someone’ll give me shit for being a cynic - again) but it’s the truth.
>
In Burma we have a natural disaster. The Ethiopian famine was represented as a natural disaster but it wasn’t. It was a deliberate military tactic. The journalist most responsible for reporting the tragedy Michael Buerk decided to oversimplify the causes of the famine for humanitarian reasons. He believed (with reason) that if he went into the realpolitik complexities of the situation people would simply switch off in resignation. As it happened they didn’t. Unfortunately in reality all the efforts to feed the starving benefited Colonel Haile Mariam Mengistu more than it did the starving.
>
Having said all that I’m not advocating resignation re Burma. I’m simply saying that when one looks the regime in the face one sees clearly a sociopathically obtuse state that has no regard for the well-being of its people. I almost never advocate violent revolution as a solution to political problems. Unfortunately it seems clear that it is the only solution here.
>
And as Graham Bell has asked why don’t we fight Burma in these days of spreading democracy by force? Why? Because what John Perkins refers to as the Corporatocracy has no trouble accessing Burma’s resources which is what the NeoCon agenda is really about. The Burmese will have to do it for themselves.
>
But they’ll have to do it, or continue to suffer. There’s no third way.

HI on the basis of need, delivered apolitically can be very effective. E.g. ICRC or AI approaches during the cold war

Be very suspicious of HIs undertaken on the basis of some perceived violation of human rights - the two principles of non-discrimination and political neutrality pervade Geneva Law and should pervade modern humanitarianism. Without them, humanitarian practice is indistinguishable from partisan political activity.

Though the Machiavelli in me suggests that it is the perfect area for a bit of fun and games; with the right spin humanitarianism can easily be morphed into militant humanitarianism and/or hard-wilsonianism, justifying the expansionist urge. From there it’s a short hop, skip and a jump to the neo-con position.

Don’t say it is “racism” but ….

Some people are wondering why the RAAF and the Army haven’t been sent in to help the rescue efforts in China’s earthquake-stricken areas …. and wondering why the RAAF haven’t bombed the living daylights out of the Burmese military regime and shot their air force out of the sky.

I have not heard such virulent hatred against any foreign regime in years …. not even against Saddam Hussein’s or Osama bin-Laden’s and certainly not Kim Jong-Il’s.

BTW, I wasn’t demanding you have a suggestion; I just think the situation is dire, relief should be provided to the destitute, homeless, sick…. and genuinely wondered whether you had some ideas to share with us.

Your witch joke is amusing, I’ll grant.

Meanwhile, back in the Irrawaddy delta, there’s rain forecast. I certainly don’t exclude diplomacy, pressure, etc. I applaud those organisatins who have Burmese working with them, especially those who’ve had Burmese partners or employees for many years.

Come to think of it, earlier I wrote “Donate to a charity that has local (Burmese) staff already working with the homeless. Keep up the multi-pronged diplomatic pressure. Find a way of parachuting supplies in.” So it looks as if you agree with two of these and think the third is crazy.

Two out of three ain’t bad for a dimwit codger like me… Shucks!!

cheerio

The interventionist style has this wonderful trait of demanding opponents come up with their own solution before criticising a bad one, of which you’ve provided a handy example.

“I ain’t saying burning witches is foolproof, it MAY hve have a chance of curing the drought. What’s YOUR suggestion?”

Adrien: the shooting can come later, mate! Helping the desperate is the key right now, isn’t it?

I too detest a country that locks up its elected PM for decades. These generals have no shame and few brains.

Rather than get explore the costs and drawbacks of an action, or getting tied up minor, niggling details like, I dunno, logistics (especially in light of longer-term disaster relief and recovery issues, for which scattershot aid bundles are not going to suffice) it seems it is much more preferable to blame the UN(?!) for inaction and come up for grandiose schemes for action for any course of action that will assuage their guilt, regardless of wether they would actually be effective.

PS. Berlin was a city. Easy to spot on the map, there were runways to land on, and organisations in place to distribute aid on arrival - it couldn’t be anything less like the situation in Burma.

Surely the bedrock responsibility of any state is to protect its citizens in the case of natural disaster.

Depends on the type of state you have.
>
I really like the Burmese. Last year they held a week long vigil on the lawn of the state library for freedom. It was a quiet, dignified ritual. There were no megaphones or speeches or raised fists. And it was interesting how people paid more attention to it for that reason.
>
That said I’m not sure the Burmese are going to get anywhere with peaceful resitance any more. The people in charge don’t give rat’s. Shoot ‘em.

I don’t share your pessimism, Kim. Donate to a charity that has local (Burmese) staff already working with the homeless. Keep up the multi-pronged diplomatic pressure. Find a way of parachuting supplies in.

The Berlin Airlift worked, and that was in early days of a Cold War with one side nuclear-armed, amidst the continuing chaos and destruction from WW2. Many large-scale humanitarian efforts have at least ameliorated dire conditions, saved SOME lives.

A free Burma is a worthy ultimate goal, but meanwhile there is MUCH to be done. Situation Normal, All F***ed Up (SNAFU).