Relief by Force?

[Pangloss]

This unusual and interesting concept has been floating around since Myanmar (Burma) got smacked by a hurricane about a week ago. Aid agencies have been struggling to get permission to enter the country, with only a trickle of aid being allowed in thus far.

 

The suggestion that's been made is that relief be provided to the country's people whether the regime in power wants it or not. The effort would be international in scope, and France is leading the charge with the US in support. The French want the UN Security Council to debate the issue immediately. Russia and China, however, are opposed to the idea.

 

I think it's interesting but I am more than a little bit nervous about the precedent. Still, I think I'd be willing to go along with it, even if it meant the possibility of combat action and aid workers coming under fire.

 

What do you all think?

[CDarwin]

This unusual and interesting concept has been floating around since Myanmar (Burma) got smacked by a hurricane about a week ago. Aid agencies have been struggling to get permission to enter the country, with only a trickle of aid being allowed in thus far.

 

The suggestion that's been made is that relief be provided to the country's people whether the regime in power wants it or not. The effort would be international in scope, and France is leading the charge with the US in support. The French want the UN Security Council to debate the issue immediately. Russia and China, however, are opposed to the idea.

 

I think it's interesting but I am more than a little bit nervous about the precedent. Still, I think I'd be willing to go along with it, even if it meant the possibility of combat action and aid workers coming under fire.

 

What do you all think?

 

Is it a new precedent? It sounds a bit like Somalia. In that case it wasn't any regime that was being undercut, but it was still militarily imposed aid.

 

I think it could easily backfire. If the government can paint this as a "foreign invasion" (which it would be, a bit) and call on the people's nationalism it could be a propaganda boon and help further isolate the country.

[Aardvark]

The Burmese military regime would simply order their troops to shoot at the aid workers. The only way to do it would be to launch a full scale military invasion to overthrow the regime in order to help the people there.

 

I can't see that happening somehow.

[CDarwin]

The Myanmarians seem to be letting up: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7394410.stm

[Pangloss]

Just when it was starting to get interesting (if horrifying). I got the impression that the leaders figured that people living in grass huts wouldn't be harmed much by having that hut knocked over, not realizing the extent of poisoning of food and water sources, etc. And they probably figure the aid groups are just allies of the same organizations calling them ruthless dictators, and are therefore exaggerating for effect.

 

I hope they're able to punch through in time. That was a very graphic example of why the UN and its member nations need to continue to work hard to eliminate authoritarian rule around the world.

[Aardvark]

Pangloss, the idea that anyone can 'punch through in time' is too optimistic. It's already too late for a lot of people. We don't even know how many tens of thousands are already dead or how many more are suffering or at risk from a variety of diseases related to filthy water and little food.

 

As for your call for the UN to 'continue' its work to overthrow authoritarian regimes. I'd say it was more an example of why the UN should start some work to overthrow authoritarian regimes. At present the UN sees fit to have nations like Cuba on its 'Human Rights Commission'. I can't off hand think of any examples of the UN working to overthrow an authoritarian regime, although i can think of examples of authoritarian regimes being given support from the UN.

[Pangloss]

That's not actually what I said, and I chose those words pretty carefully. I believe the UN is, in fact, working hard to eliminate authoritarian rule around the world. But like Global Warming, I don't see that as a problem that absolutely demands to be solved overnight, or even within our lifetimes. What's required is that we move in the correct direction.

 

In general prefer the stage and timescale of history, in which the human endeavor is gradually improved over time, over the human emotional need to solve everything by suppertime.

[Reaper]

But like Global Warming, I don't see that as a problem that absolutely demands to be solved overnight, or even within our lifetimes.

 

I don't necessarily agree with that last part there. But, at the risk of having yet another thread locked related to this topic, I'm just going to leave it at that......for now .

[CDarwin]

That's not actually what I said, and I chose those words pretty carefully. I believe the UN is, in fact, working hard to eliminate authoritarian rule around the world. But like Global Warming, I don't see that as a problem that absolutely demands to be solved overnight, or even within our lifetimes. What's required is that we move in the correct direction.

 

As a heartless disciple of realpolitik, I'd say in the short to medium term, the real focus has to be on reducing the number of paranoid authoritative regimes, really. More Singapores and fewer Myanmars. Neither is ideal but the former can be dealt with internationally to improve people's condition.

[iNow]

Strangely, negotiations appear to have worked better than force.

 

 

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iy-MfhLN9Q7MwtQ1VlrvexLjr2dAD90K59681

The U.S. military C-130 cargo plane, packed with 14 tons of supplies, flew out of the Thai air force base of Utapao and landed in Yangon, capping prolonged negotiations to persuade Myanmar's military government to accept U.S. help.

 

Several Myanmar Cabinet ministers, military officers and the top U.S. diplomat in Myanmar, Shari Villarosa, greeted the plane.

[doG]

What do you all think?

 

An age old political utility is to fly over oppressed regions dropping leaflets of propaganda. I suspect the same means would work to drop off relief supplies. Would the junta there shoot down such relief planes and risk a military response?

[Pangloss]

Strangely, negotiations appear to have worked better than force.

 

Well if it's worked, even coming this late and in this restricted amount, then I guess a logical question is whether the aid groups were just exaggerating about the price of waiting.

[Aardvark]

That's not actually what I said, and I chose those words pretty carefully.

 

I also choose my words pretty carefully, and you DID say that the UN needs to 'continue' it's work to eliminate authoritarian regimes.

 

I believe the UN is, in fact, working hard to eliminate authoritarian rule around the world.

 

I can't see any evidence of that. Sometimes the UN looks like a very cosy club for violators of human rights. Perhaps i am mistaken and hard work is being done on the quiet, but i'd like to see some indication of that.

 

 

But like Global Warming, I don't see that as a problem that absolutely demands to be solved overnight, or even within our lifetimes. What's required is that we move in the correct direction.

 

In general prefer the stage and timescale of history, in which the human endeavor is gradually improved over time, over the human emotional need to solve everything by suppertime.

 

I never said anything about timescales, i certainly don't think the worlds problems can be solved by suppertime. I was rather querying that the UN is infact working to solve these problems at all?

 

On a related matter, i am hearing reports that over 100,000 Burmese are dead. Naturally, the reports are unsubstantiated at this time, but this seems extraordinarily terrible, far worse than the Tsunami. I am also hearing that Aid has been impounded and stolen by the Burmese military and that soldiers have been pulling down buildings in order to sell the materials to desperate victims.

 

Even taking into account the difficulty of verifying all the details, it is clear that the Burmese regime is acting in a deliberately obstructive manner, wilfully allowing large numbers of people to die for its own ends.

 

If iNow considers that situation an example of negotiations 'working' then i can't think of how bad things would have to be to reach an example of negotiations failing.

 

I don't know what the answer is but it's become manifestly clear that the Burmese regime is so despotic as to be considered evil. I would like to see what action the UN will take to eliminate this regime, however long and slow the process might be.

[ecoli]

On a related matter, i am hearing reports that over 100,000 Burmese are dead. Naturally, the reports are unsubstantiated at this time, but this seems extraordinarily terrible, far worse than the Tsunami. I am also hearing that Aid has been impounded and stolen by the Burmese military and that soldiers have been pulling down buildings in order to sell the materials to desperate victims.

 

Even taking into account the difficulty of verifying all the details, it is clear that the Burmese regime is acting in a deliberately obstructive manner, wilfully allowing large numbers of people to die for its own ends.

 

If iNow considers that situation an example of negotiations 'working' then i can't think of how bad things would have to be to reach an example of negotiations failing.

 

I don't know what the answer is but it's become manifestly clear that the Burmese regime is so despotic as to be considered evil. I would like to see what action the UN will take to eliminate this regime, however long and slow the process might be.

 

This sort of demonstrates how these types of authoritarian regimes are unsustainable. If they can only stay in power by repressing their citizens, then sooner are later, they're going to run out of people to exploit.

[Aardvark]

This sort of demonstrates how these types of authoritarian regimes are unsustainable. If they can only stay in power by repressing their citizens, then sooner are later, they're going to run out of people to exploit.

 

Unfortunately, history shows us that it takes a very long time for authoritarian regimes to 'run out' of people to exploit.

 

If we just wait in the expectation that the regime will fail due to 'unsustainability' then we might well have a wait that encompasses decades and the deaths and suffering of countless more people.

[doG]

Well if it's worked...

 

Actually it hasn't....

 

A trickle of aid shipments arrived in Myanmar on Sunday' date=' more than a week after a massive cyclone smashed the country, but officials continued to bar major shipments to the storm's hard-hit survivors.

 

The junta is refusing to grant entry to foreign aid workers, who relief officials say are crucial to preventing more deaths from disease among an estimated 1.5 million victims of the May 3 storm.

 

In another blow to aid efforts, a ship carrying aid sank on the way from Yangon, the financial capital, to the Irrawaddy Delta, which bore the brunt of the storm.

 

The United Nations World Food Program said that only one visa had been approved out of 16 it had requested. The aid group World Vision said it had requested 20 visas and received two....

 

More....

 

Letting in a plane load of supplies and granting one or two visas to help 1.5 million victims is not aid.

[Skye]

Burma gets the odd bit of attention from the UN and fairly regular discussion in ASEAN. It goes round and round normally. The main issue is that no-one in SE Asia wants to rock the boat.

[Phi for All]

It seems likely that this is a case of a poor country that will stay poor if it's current regime continues to bleed off any chances of success. You'd think such a corrupt country would be more concerned that it's tax base is dwindling.

 

And what heinous crimes against humanity are they covering up that they don't want other countries to come over to help Burmese taxpayers survive?

[ecoli]

Unfortunately, history shows us that it takes a very long time for authoritarian regimes to 'run out' of people to exploit.

 

If we just wait in the expectation that the regime will fail due to 'unsustainability' then we might well have a wait that encompasses decades and the deaths and suffering of countless more people.

It also shows us that foreign nations have a relatively unsuccessful time of replacing authoritarian regimes for democratic ones.

 

I believe that democracy has to be an "organic" internal change. We can cripple 'evil' regimes, but a new one tends to crop up in its place. And, despite as much as we like occupying countries, we can't afford to have 2 Iraqs... no matter how bad the Myanmar or any other government seems to be.

[Pangloss]

I also choose my words pretty carefully, and you DID say that the UN needs to 'continue' it's work to eliminate authoritarian regimes.

 

That's correct. What I did not say is "overthrow". (See below.)

 

 

I can't see any evidence of that. Sometimes the UN looks like a very cosy club for violators of human rights. Perhaps i am mistaken and hard work is being done on the quiet, but i'd like to see some indication of that.

 

Well that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. It sounds to me like you're either selecting a point of view and adapting the facts to meet your ideological predisposition, or you're just not aware (or not interested) in a balanced assessment of what's been accomplished over the last 50 years. My opinion is that the demonstrable work they do on a regular basis, ranging from humanitarian effort to providing a forum for airing of grievances, both social and economic, underwrites and supports society's ongoing effort to eliminate authoritarian regimes.

 

The proof is in the pudding: Authoritarian regimes have never been more under fire and exposed on the world stage than they are today, and that's happening because of the exposure of the media matched with the social context that international cooperation provides for that exposure.

 

These may seem like small things to you, but I submit that they only seem that way because we have grown inured to them. We've begun to view the world as a single society, and that has changed our expectations. But frankly that pressure, that constant, full-awareness, much more than guns or economic sanctions, has had the primary impact on the removal of authoritarianism since the second world war.

 

But that is, of course, my opinion, and you are welcome to disagree.

 

 

I never said anything about timescales, i certainly don't think the worlds problems can be solved by suppertime. I was rather querying that the UN is infact working to solve these problems at all?

 

In my opinion the second sentence implies denial of the first, but if you're just looking for action of some kind, that's fine, and I believe that action exists, it's just not perhaps the type of action you're looking for.

 

Unfortunately, history shows us that it takes a very long time for authoritarian regimes to 'run out' of people to exploit.

 

Define "very long time". Decades? That's not a very long time in my view. Certainly a long time if you're one of the oppressed, but what's more important -- eliminating a single instance of authoritarianism at great cost and while learning nothing, or gradually convincing everyone on the planet that not only is authoritarianism bad, but it's actually avoidable -- permanently eliminatable?

 

At any rate, you've just contradicted your own claim that this isn't about "timescales". It sounds like it's very much about seeing actual accomplishment as rapidly as possible.

 

Letting in a plane load of supplies and granting one or two visas to help 1.5 million victims is not aid.

 

Yes, it doesn't really seem like it's resolved at all.

[iNow]

If iNow considers that situation an example of negotiations 'working' then i can't think of how bad things would have to be to reach an example of negotiations failing.

Please look more closely. My comment was "relative to force" the negotiations were working. In no way was I implying that what is happening right now is somehow ideal.

 

The intent of my post was to suggest that negotiation brought improvements in the situation, so how about we stop with the misrepesentations, shall we?

[ecoli]

These may seem like small things to you, but I submit that they only seem that way because we have grown inured to them. We've begun to view the world as a single society, and that has changed our expectations. But frankly that pressure, that constant, full-awareness, much more than guns or economic sanctions, has had the primary impact on the removal of authoritarianism since the second world war.

 

But that is, of course, my opinion, and you are welcome to disagree.

 

I think it depends on the dependence of that authoritarian regime on the outside world and the outside world's dependence on it. Oilacracies are able to survive, because they have a source of funding from the outside. I can't imagine how an authoritarian regime won't go broke if we were to (hypothetically) remove this source of funding.

 

I'm assuming that a nation like Myanmar is largely self-sufficient, thereby can exercise control on who comes and goes.

 

I wonder how China manages? Are we really that desperate for plastic toys?

[Aardvark]

Well that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. It sounds to me like you're either selecting a point of view and adapting the facts to meet your ideological predisposition,

 

Perhaps you didn't read my post fully then? I wrote that the UN seems ineffectual, i pointed out that it has countries like Cuba on its 'humans rights commision' which seems to indicate a certain slackness in dealing with human rights. I then said that i was perfectly willing to be convinced otherwise and shown any actual work being done by the UN to actually undermine and replace authoritarian regimes.

 

Rather than try and attack me, how about actually presenting any of the facts that support your opinion, as i asked? If you don't, it will seem to be the case that you are infact, gulity of the adapting of facts to fit ideology that you accuse me of.

 

 

or you're just not aware (or not interested) in a balanced assessment of what's been accomplished over the last 50 years.

 

Again, i asked for any facts to show what the UN was doing to undermine authoritarian regimes. Perhaps you would care to actually share any of those facts, which presumably are the basis of your opinions in this matter.

 

My opinion is that the demonstrable work they do on a regular basis, ranging from humanitarian effort to providing a forum for airing of grievances, both social and economic, underwrites and supports society's ongoing effort to eliminate authoritarian regimes.

 

You've given us the benefit of your opinion, perhaps you'd like to give us the facts that substatiate it? Or is it that when i give an opinion, i am 'selecting a point of view and adapting the facts to meet your ideological predisposition' whilst you, of course, are being perfectly objective?

 

The proof is in the pudding: Authoritarian regimes have never been more under fire and exposed on the world stage than they are today, and that's happening because of the exposure of the media matched with the social context that international cooperation provides for that exposure.

 

That's a weak argument. Yes, authoritarian regimes are, at the moment, under increasing pressure around the world. You don't however, make any causal connection between that and the existence of the UN. In what way is the UN responsible, in anyway, for the spread of democracy in, for instance, an area such as South America, where dictatorships and authoritarian regimes have mainly given way to democracy?

 

You make the point that authoritarian regimes are 'under fire', but you don't give any indication of how this is the result of the operations of the UN.

 

 

These may seem like small things to you, but I submit that they only seem that way because we have grown inured to them.

 

The spread of democracy is certainly not a 'small thing' why would you imply that i think so?

 

We've begun to view the world as a single society, and that has changed our expectations. But frankly that pressure, that constant, full-awareness, much more than guns or economic sanctions, has had the primary impact on the removal of authoritarianism since the second world war.

 

And in what way has that anything to do with the UN? All the social and economic factors you identify would exist even if the UN had never been formed.

 

 

But that is, of course, my opinion, and you are welcome to disagree.

 

How kind of you to give me permission to have my own opinion.

 

 

In my opinion the second sentence implies denial of the first, but if you're just looking for action of some kind, that's fine, and I believe that action exists, it's just not perhaps the type of action you're looking for.

 

No, there was no implied denial. I stated, quite clearly, that i was not aware of any UN action to solve these problems, i was not refering to any timetable. You are mistaken on that point.

 

 

Define "very long time". Decades? That's not a very long time in my view.

 

I define 'very long' as being several generations of human lives. We are talking about humans here, not geology or evolution. When it comes to humans being murdered and oppressed, that is a very long time. I'm saddened that you disagree.

 

Certainly a long time if you're one of the oppressed, but what's more important -- eliminating a single instance of authoritarianism at great cost and while learning nothing, or gradually convincing everyone on the planet that not only is authoritarianism bad, but it's actually avoidable -- permanently eliminatable?

 

A false choice.

 

I have not advocated eliminating ' a single instance of authoritarianism at great cost and while learning nothing' as opposed to 'permanently' eliminating authoritarianism across the planet.

 

I have queried whether the UN is doing anything to reduce authoritarianism at all. Whether it is part of the process of spreading liberty. I see precious little proof of that.

 

At any rate, you've just contradicted your own claim that this isn't about "timescales". It sounds like it's very much about seeing actual accomplishment as rapidly as possible.

 

Again, you have misunderstood my point (deliberately?). I did not say that 'timescales' are irrelevant. I said that i wasn't asking about timescales from the UN, i was asking what action the UN was taking at all. You are the one who starting trying to confuse the issue.

 

Assuming you are discussing this matter in good faith, i will reiterate my points.

 

1) I see little or no evidence that the UN is part of the process of confronting authoritarianism.

 

2) I see little or no evidence that the relatively recent spread of democracy around the world has anything to do with the UN.

 

3) I see evidence that the UN has acted in some respects as a cosy club for authoritarian regimes.

 

I have stated that i would be pleased to see any evidence to the contrawise. That i would be happy to see where the UN was actually working to confront authoritarianism. Instead of providing such information, you have choosen to insult my motivations and intellectual integrity, actions which i believe reflect on you more than upon me.

 

I believe that democracy has to be an "organic" internal change. We can cripple 'evil' regimes, but a new one tends to crop up in its place. And, despite as much as we like occupying countries, we can't afford to have 2 Iraqs... no matter how bad the Myanmar or any other government seems to be.

 

It can be very hard for an 'organic internal change' to take place when a determined authoritarian regime is prepared to use extreme force to maintain its postion.

 

You seem to have the opinion that outside nations only have two choices, fullscale military invasion and imposition of democracy, or else, stand back and wait for a 'natural' transition to democracy. Are there not other options?

[CDarwin]

This sort of demonstrates how these types of authoritarian regimes are unsustainable. If they can only stay in power by repressing their citizens, then sooner are later, they're going to run out of people to exploit.

 

I can't think of any time that's really happened. I think it might be a fundamental misconception of how authoritarian regimes work. These sorts of governments (when they are otherwise unpopular- they aren't always) stay in power primarily by making their citizens dependent upon them for survival. The repression is just a means to an end. There doesn't seem to be a point at which a regime runs out of a finite ability to exploit a population reliant upon it. That's why blanket sanctions tend not to work. By crippling a country's economy, they make the population yet more reliant on the regime in power.

 

The only people who can end a regime are people not dependent on it. Often, unfortunately, that means the powerful within the system. That's why we have so many coups de-tat. External powers are also independent of a regime, and thus we've had an awful lot of invasions in history. But it can also be a population empowered through economic development so that they can pull themselves out of poverty and desperation. If they're further given the chance to engage with the world and a (Western, admittedly) sense of human dignity, all the easier. That's where the UN has a role.

 

At least that's my meagre little theory on the functioning of autocracies. The problem with it is the number of authoritative regimes in economically prosperous countries like Saudi Arabia or, as I mentioned earlier, Singapore. My only explanation for that is that they are still popular enough so that no one is that motivated to overthrow them.

[ecoli]

I can't think of any time that's really happened.

I think it happens when some sort of weapon technology comes along that cheap and available enough that some sort of revolution can occur, with relatively little loss of life. Free access to this weapon technology again insures that an oppressive dictatorship doesn't simply replace one that was already in power.

 

Of course, if an oppressive regime controls the populations access to weapons, than this cannot happen.

 

I don't think I'm wrong about the above, but I think in the pst, simply supplying rebel groups with weapons have failed, because the general population cannot defend themselves against the rebel group just sweeping in and becoming the new authoritarian government. (that coupled with the internal support you mentioned).

 

I think it might be a fundamental misconception of how authoritarian regimes work. These sorts of governments (when they are otherwise unpopular- they aren't always) stay in power primarily by making their citizens dependent upon them for survival. The repression is just a means to an end. There doesn't seem to be a point at which a regime runs out of a finite ability to exploit a population reliant upon it. That's why blanket sanctions tend not to work. By crippling a country's economy, they make the population yet more reliant on the regime in power.

 

But, I think that still only applies if the regime has some external source of funding.

 

You can make your citizens dependent on you, but if you can't support them, then the regime isn't going to stay in power, right?