Re: U.N. 'furious' as Myanmar aid 'seized'

On May 9, 6:49=A0pm, PaPaPeng <PaPaP...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Fri, 9 May 2008 14:47:02 -0700 (PDT), bmo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> >What if only one grain of rice reaches the people? You're saying that
> >no matter how shameless and horrible the junta is, we should bend over
> >backwards to comply with their edicts, even if it means more people
> >will die. Sovereignty is im****tant but in so is saving lives, arguably
> >moreso in this case. It's too bad the junta is in charge. They don't
> >deserve to be.
>
> This is a human disaster not a morality play. =A0There is no place for
> good and evil battles. =A0Do what is possible first and that is to get
> drinking water food and shelter, medical supplies to the disaster
> site. =A0Who gets the supplies is irrelevant at this moment. =A0The
> im****tant thing is to get the stuff there on the ground. =A0Then argue
> about the fairness and the morality of allocation. =A0

Good point. Another unwarranted assumption is that foreign aid workers
will deliver fairly and/or effectove;u. As a matter of fact, western
aid effort has bad track record.  Michael Maren, a long time American
aid worker had written a book with the title of "The Road to Hell: The
Ravaging Effects of Foreign Aid and International Charity."

>
> If the regime is stupid enough to hoard the supplies only for itself
> then the anger of the people will have a unstoppable basis to topple
> the regime with. By then their lives are already written off and dying
> with a bullet is better than their families and themselves slowly
> starving to death. =A0The ordinary army =A0ranks will certain not
sup****t
> a regime that immoral for their own families will also die in the
> disaster.

I am not saying one should not try to get the best results. But if one
can choose, he would choose to have no disaster in the first place.
But then a disaster is a disaster. It is not anyone's choice. And it
is not a time for optimal results  Concerning about the leaders of
Myanmar, they are also a force of nature. If they are bad, they are
also a kind of natural disaster. And they cannot be wished away. Hence
no reason to be furious about their behaviior. We can only hope that
they are smart enough to distribute the emergency supply quickly and
fairly. If they are to claim all the credits, I will say "let them."

Anyway, if a donor country set out to have condition for giving aid,
should it not expect the aid receiver also has conditions.?