မႀတ္တမ္းမႀတ္ရာ လုပ္ေဆာင္မႁ
Censorship, Dictatorship and Nargis
Global Voices online, which collects bloggers from around the world, linked to these pictures from the Democratic Voice of Burma (http://english.dvb.no/photo1.php). [The death toll from Burma's devastating cyclone has now risen to more than 22,000, state media have said, on Tuesday, 6 May 2008. Some 41,000 people were also missing, three days after Cyclone Nargis hit the country, according to state radio. The report came as aid agencies begin what they expect to be a big operation to help hundreds of thousands said to be without clean water and shelter.]
Tropical Cyclone Nargis made landfall as a Category 4 hurricane in Myanmar May 2, 2008.
posted by Zephyr Teachout on 05/05/2008 @ 7:41pm
The Burmese citizens are in a horrible place to handle the disease and chaos following the cyclone. Burmese access to the internet is one of the most restrictive in the world, with over 11 percent of all sites blocked according to 2005 testing by the Open Net Initiative. The Burmese press is notoriously restrictive, making communication, including disaster and reconstruction information, across towns very difficult. In 2000, the World Health Organization ranked Burma 190th out of 191 countries for public health care.
On one Burmese blog today was simply this call:
HELP! Critical Week Urgent Need Help Burmese Stop diarrhea and diseases Food and Shelter Clothing and Cash Proud and ignorant people Time to welcome the helping hands!
Water is unfit to drink, 10,000 may be dead, and aid agencies are struggling to figure out how to help.
These videos from Burma seven months ago come again to haunt us.
The political stranglehold in Burma is now strangling the survivors, who need edible food and clean water and accurate information.
The Democratic Primary and Burma
In September, Hillary Clinton's website shows no evidence that she reacted to the extraordinary protests by the monks in Burma. Here is Barack Obama's September statement:
While, ultimately, change must come from within Burma, the international community has an important role to play to signal strong support for the courageous Burmese people. I have supported sanctions against Burma and welcome the additional sanctions the President announced at the UN General Assembly. But far more needs to be done -- immediately. It is not enough for the US to act alone. We must take the lead in working with the other key international players, particularly ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations), India, Japan, the European Union, and especially China, to join the United States in pressing for the peaceful resolution of the current crisis in Burma and making clear the junta should not use force against peaceful protesters, including Buddhist monks.
"As the people of Burma stand up, we must stand with them."
The Presidential primary, post-Edwards, has been a disappointing forum for serious discussion of domestic policy. (Obama is right to call Clinton's "gas tax holiday" a gimmick--a condescending one at that, which supposes that people do not recognize the difference between structural and short-term relief--but his own domestic proposals can sound like the epitome of anti-climax after his rousing descriptions of what people are capable of.) However, the campaigns' debate on foreign policy is a serious one, not limited to Iraq and Iran, and the disaster in Burma gives us another opportunity to reflect on those differences.
For Clinton, the job of President is Commander in Chief and Trade Czar in Chief, and the daily work is a mix of protection and business. For Obama, the job of President is both Commander in Chief and diplomatic leader, and the job of the President is to actively engage in discussion, build the ties that enable diplomacy, and strengthen the power and legitimacy of the United Nations.
Why would that matter now, when one of the worst storms in history hits a country like Burma? Because the Burmese tragedy is tied to the Burmese government's repressiveness, which is enabled, in turn, by the power of China in the United Nations and in the international community, which is in turn enabled by the increased weakness of the United States as a moral leader in the world.
The basic premise of Obama's foreign policy is moral leadership and diplomacy, whereas the basic premise of Clinton's foreign policy is protection and strength. Protection and strength, no matter how smartly wielded, do not get us to a new international consensus with which we are better equipped to help countries like Burma.
We cannot stop cyclones, nor can we end all dictatorships, but we can return our international policy to one of moral leadership, and it will make a difference, at some small moments, in some of the worst disasters in the world.