Liberal Intervention is Military Intervention and no amount of clever wordplay will obscure it. How exactly will cynical bombing of civilians solve the problem when the real issue is “Milbus” – military elites and their cronies’ control of Burma? Bangladesh was already mired in 10 months of a brutal war in 1971 when India stepped in. They didn’t instigate the war. Likewise, Serbia and Bosnia were well into 2 years of civil war before the US and UK forces stepped in 1999. There is however, no such meltdown in Burma.

The Burmese junta and their venal control of Burma *isn’t* our fault. But do you really see a moral right for the West to militarily intervene because a third world (totalitarian) government mismanages aid distribution in a natural catastrophe? Does your ethical relativism cover bombing the USA because of Hurricane Katrina? I doubt it.

The reason why the Burma junta has remained in power for decades is because it is a poor, third world country in the thrall to China. But we already know all about how we have ignored Chinese expansionism for decades, don’t we.

With what? the UK has no military left to intervene with. Ok to you mean the USA, India and China?

Perhaps if there is whole scale refugee crisis on the scale of 71, when the threat of millions fleeing from Bangladesh into India forced the Indian Army to prepare to be the mid-wife for Bangladeshi Independance, then in in this instant the Indian Navy may be forced to be the mid-wife for Burma. However there will have to be alot more ‘shoving’ and ‘contractions’ before any action is actually taken.

justforfun

Yes, the important thing is that we’re not talking about development aid here, but humanitarian aid for the survivors of a natural disaster.

In that situation, if you are appalled that the Burmese junta can withhold this relief from the desperately needy because of stupid venality, corruption, political vanity or what have you then you should be equally appalled by Aid Organisations who withhold the supply disaster relief based on the recipient’s compliance to political advcocay, however well intentioned that advocacy may be. That means if North Korea were to suffer a natural disaster, then for Western aid agencies to insist that aid will only be distributed if he softens his stance towards the West would be ethically implausible, not to mention criminal. It is not for aid agencies to play politics during disasters, in my opinion. I was aware it happened but I was shocked by the way Conor Foley put it in his article.

Disaster relief should have no impediments to distribution and this means any kind of string-attached supply, as in the Oxfam example, or partisan obstruction, as in the Burmese case, should both be seen for what it is: a crime against humanity.

Aid agencies, Burmese junta, moral relativism?

What are you talking about, Sid?

It is not refusing to accept aid, the bastards doing the refusing do not need aid. It’s refusing to allow the needy to get aid.

As far as I can tell from the latest media reports, aid agencies have accepted that the only priority is to get supplies into the country, while accepting that it will be minimally effective. Already there are reports that aid from Thailand is being re-labelled as ‘Gift of General X’ and distributed according to political advantage rather than need.

Handing money and material to the junta does not necessarily equate to humanitarian aid.

Well this seems to be the case n Burma, where the Yangon government is saying they are happy to receive the aid but not the foreign aid workers to go with it. So in essence, the aid will only be distributed by Junta-approved men.

If Aid agencies refuse to supply aid on these terms, does it make it a humanitarian crime, or would they be correct in doing so? My question is, if refusing to accept aid, on other’s terms is humanitarian crime why is refusing to supply aid on others’ terms seen as a responsible act? To believe that there is a sliding rule is moral relativism weighted in favour of Western aid agencies.

No there can’t be a case for with-holding humaitarian aid as it always affects the poorest members of society. With-holding aid won’t change the junta in Burma and merely affects the normal people.

Change can be attempted to be made without refusing to supply humanitarian aid which is critical to the well being of people who essentially have nothing.

We’ve seen the effects on normal civilians of with-holding humaitarian aid and the lesson is it doesn’t work.

The French govt is arguing that this may be a crime against humanity by the Burmese govt, so lets hope they can get this sorted out very quickly.

DONATE! People are dying, they need our help.

Either way, here’s how you can help:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7389735.stm

Refusing humanitarian aid (as opposed to gender-awareness workshops) under any other circumstances would make one no better than the regime one opposes.

But they didn’t warn them because they don’t give a damn about them. Gits…