Cyclone Aid Impasse; It takes Two to Compromise
http://burmadigest.info/2008/05/09/cyclone-aid-impasse-it-takes-two-to-compr=
omise/
_ by Thuria Tayza
According to official Burmese government figures, 22,997 people have
died and 42,019 are missing (supposedly dead) in Cyclone hit Irrawaddy
delta of Burma. And according to the estimates by the United States,
the death toll could exceed 100,000.
And more than two million people are stranded and left homeless in
worst effected areas, which are still flooded and yet inaccessible,
without any clean drinking water, without any medical supplies, and
with very little food to eat. There are now reports of malaria and
diarrhoea out-breaks in those areas.
With vast areas of paddy fields submerged under flood water, and with
roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, phone lines and electric power
lines totally destroyed, the worst effected areas will take more than
three years to recover.
Burma=92s need for humanitarian aid to storm and flood victims is
URGENT. Aid is needed not only for short-term relief, but also for
long-term reconstruction.
But the much needed aid is caught in a rather un-necessary impasse.
On one side, there is a group of would-be donors who do not trust
Burmese generals enough to hand over the aids into the hands of the
Burmese military government. They want to send in not only the aid but
also the aid-workers to deliver the aid. They keep the aids RIGIDLY
tied to aid-workers. And they even want to use their military_ Navy
ships, military helicopters and marines_ to carry out the aid delivery
operations by themselves.
But, on the other hand, there is a group of very reclusive and ultra-
nationalist and very proud and haughty military generals ruling the
country de facto. They do really have suspicions on big foreign
powers. And they do not like foreign donors accusing them of being un-
trustworthy. They want aid but do not like the idea of foreign aid
workers coming and meddling inside their reclusive country. Above all
else, they thoroughly hate the prospect of foreign troops carrying out
operations (albeit humanitarian ones) on their territory.
So there is an virtually unbreakable impasse going on regarding the
aid delivery.
Actually, there is a common intention between the donors and the donee
that humanitarian aid is needed for Burma=92s storm and flood victims.
And the donors have pledged to give aid (albeit in miserably small
amounts so far) and the donee military government of Burma has also
expressed its desire to get aid, and has even made an unprecedented
plea to the outside world for help.
But the donors and the donee are now wasting the precious time by
arguing just on the process and procedure and technicalities of the
=91delivery=92.
It is a very un-necessary and uneconomical impasse, and the blames
goes to both sides.
Whilst the situation is deadlocked in the shameful impasse, the Bling-
Bling President of France and his foreign minister=92s arrogant remarks
which publicly humiliated Burma=92s haughty Generals is making the
situation un-necessarily more difficult. The French government at
first said that they would give only a small amount of aid because
they do not trust Burmese military government. Then they added that if
Burma wants French aid, French will send navy ships to carry out
rescue operations in Burma. And then they made rather hollow and
impractical threats that they would invoke =93responsibility to protect=94
power at the UN Security Council to intervene in Burma by use of force
with or without consent by Burmese government.
Such arrogant remarks and provocative threats (albeit hollow) might be
good for political point scoring in ordinary circumstances; but now is
NOT the time to score political points, but to deliver real aid
effectively with a genuine good faith. US Secretary of State Ms
Condoleezza Rice has said, =93It=92s not a matter of politics. It=92s a
matter of humanitarian crisis.=94.
And John Holmes, UN undersecretary-general for humanitarian affairs,
said =93confrontation=94 would be unhelpful, and also added =93I=92m not
sur=
e
that invading Burma would be a very sensible option.=94
The European Union executive has also dismissed the French suggestion
of using force to intervene in Burma=92s cyclone disaster. An EU
Commission spokesman said that diplomatic efforts are the best means
of convincing Rangoon to allow humanitarian agencies to provide help.
And, in fact, there is a lot for the Bling-Bling President of France
and his men to learn from the nice and wise diplomatic approach taken
by the British government. All senior British politicians are
consistent in their positions and comments that politics should be
cast aside at least once during this immense disaster with
immeasurable human sufferings so that humanitarian assistance can be
given a first priority. Britain has pledged largest amount of aid so
far with smallest amount of political noise or fuzz. And Britain has
very wisely promised that British aids will go through the UN, not
provoking the paranoid Burmese Generals with the use of British Royal
Navy in rescue operations inside Burmese territory. Moreover, at the
security council meeting yesterday, Britain=92s UN envoy John Sawers,
currently chairing the security council, clarified that the 2005 UN
resolution of =93responsibility to protect=94 relates to =93acts of
genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and so forth, rather
than the responses to natural disasters=94.
So, while Burmese Generals need to reduce their paranoia and wrong
pride, potential donors on the other hand also should try to avoid
unnecessary provocation of Burmese Generals=92 well-known paranoia.
For the sake of the dying millions of helpless cyclone victims, the
donors and donee on both side MUST try to compromise, reducing the
bloated egos and stopping the blame games.
In the current situation, as the EU Commission spokesman has said,
diplomatic efforts are the best means to resolve this unnecessary and
wasteful impasse. Consequently, United Nations Secretary General Ban
Ki-Moon has now requested a meeting with Burma=92s senior general Than
Shwe to find out ways to deliver more aid to the cyclone victims.
As of now, the problem is not about =93giving or not giving=94 of aid;
already a few plain loads of aid has landed in Burma. But the real
difficulty lies on getting more aid at a quicker rate into Burma. The
difficulty arises because the aid is attached to aid workers=92 entry
into Burma.
However, there are some possible grounds for a compromise.
First of all, rich countries, which want to give aid but are worried
about the military regime using the aid money to buy arms, can give
aid in the form of energy-rich biscuits for starving survivors,and
plastic sheets for making temporary shelters. Such emergency aid
supplies do not necessarily have any use for any military purpose. Of
course, Burmese soldiers who deliver those food aids may probably take
a pack or two of those biscuits to feed their own children at home.
But, so what? Pet-owners in rich countries are even spending hundreds
of million dollars on expensive pet-foods for their pets everyday.
Foot soldiers in Burmese army are starving and suffering in the same
way like their ordinary civilian brethren under the corrupt Generals.
Poor soldiers stealing a few packets of biscuits from food aid to feed
the hungry mouths at their own homes should not necessarily be a big
annoyance for the rich donors.
Humanitarian aids should be =93no ties/strings attached=94. Causing an
unnecessary impasse in the aid delivery by tying non-essential aid-
workers to essential aids is just NOT fair.
And, even if the donors insist on keeping an eye on the delivery of
their aid, there are people on the ground who can do it without
causing an international political fuzz. There are already some UN
staffs and NGO workers inside Burma. There are international
diplomats. They can at least keep an eye on the aid delivery to make
sure that the Burmese army really deliver the aid to the real victims
in need.
And actually a few, two or three, UN officials have already got visas
and has entered into Burma. The world cannot forget that there is a
referendum on May 10 in Burma, and Burmese regime is preparing to rig
the referendum, and so does not want any international press and
observers inside Burma during the referendum. So, may be, with time,
and with patience, probably after the referendum, more UN officials
will get visas to enter Burma. But, of course, with the humiliating
remarks and hollow threats made by Bling-Bling government and
diplomats of France, some damage has already been done and there is
little or no chance that the haughty military regime of Burma will
grant visas to non-UN western aid-workers, let alone their Navy ships
and marines.
But, again, may be (just a =91may be=92) Burmese regime will give entry
permissions to personnel from countries in the region which are either
friendlier or at least perceived by the regime as less hostile to
them. Even this may happen_ if it happens_ only at a later date when
things have calmed down. The truth is, the more fuzz and panic created
by the outside world, the more nervous becomes the paranoid Generals,
and the impasse becomes all the more difficult to resolve.
Rather than threatening them with impractical but very provocative
threats of unilateral intervention by force, coaxing the Generals
through friendly diplomatic channels (UN or Chinese or ASEAN) may be
more effective in getting more and more aids delivered to Burma
sooner.
And keeping their mouths shut and avoiding making any more unnecessary
hostile remarks by Bling-Bling government and diplomats of France,
and the likes, will also help calm things down better. Whether one
likes it or not, Burma is a sovereign country and is ruled by a
dogmatic military regime with an army of half a million strong
soldiers armed with poor-quality but at least usable modern weaponry
from China and Russia, the only way to get things done quickly in
Burma is to get the regime=92s consensual cooperation.
For any cooperation, there is a vital need for mutual understanding of
each other=92s psyche or mentality. While big countries have big enough
egos to want to make unilateral interventions, small countries also
have similarly bloated egos to resist any intervention by any means.
Eventually, the impasse in aid delivery will only be resolved by a
comprise; and remember, it takes TWO to compromise. Compromise is a
bilateral thing. If unilateral, it will only be a concession. A
concession is good only if it can come easily, as with Mitt Romney in
the 2008 US primary elections for the Republican Party. But with
Burmese Generals who are at least as stubborn as Hillary Clinton, the
impasse will only be resolved by a bilateral compromise, with the
regime restraining its own paranoia and the donors removing their
unnecessary ties from their aids.
|
