China Matters

China Hand looks at the math of the Myanmar cyclone and doesn’t give France a passing grade. Also examined is the as-yet unreported but vital $2 billion question: getting the monsoon rice planting in the ground in the next five weeks. The Myanmar government is thinking about it, but is the West paying attention?

Thanks to the brave embeds of France 24, we are treated to another update on the French helicopter carrier Mistral.

When we last saw the Mistral, it had spent a week sailing futilely in circles in the Bay of Bengal while waiting for the French government to round up rice and supplies in India for it to haul to Burma.

This unfortunate delay undercut the narrative that it was the Burmese government’s deficiencies in French-style compassion, competence, and cran that were impeding the flow of aid to the Irrawaddy delta. The Mistral arrived at the delta two weeks after the storm—hardly an impressive achievement.

It turns out that getting meaningful aid to hundreds of thousands of victims in an area the size of Austria that’s had its infrastructure devastated by a colossal storm isn’t as simple as picking up the phone and ordering delivery of one million crepes Italian—even for a self-styled superpower.

Imagine that.

Another part of the narrative that got lost was the whole “responsibility to protect” forcible distribution of aid thing.

In an indication that even President Sarkozy has turned his back on the profoundly unrealistic gambit, Bernard Kouchner was reduced to venting his displeasure at Burmese government callousness and UN Security Council cowardice in a Le Monde op-ed, instead of availing himself of the official podium of the Foreign Ministry.

The Mistral is cooling its heels outside Myanmar territorial waters, awaiting the outcome of negotiations concerning the delivery of its cargo.

I expect that the Myanmar government is stolidly insisting that the Mistral sail up to Yangyon for a humiliating port visit, while the French are holding out for something with a little more camera-ready elan—something that involves French marines zooming into the delta in little boats and hand-delivering boxes of French aid to desperately grateful survivors.

In its latest report (look for French Ship Mistral Ready to Help), France 24 filmed officers of the Mistral obligingly peering through their binoculars toward Myanmar with expressions of frustrated valor, like bulldogs gazing longingly at the window of a butcher shop. Since it was raining, the exercise had purely symbolic value: “They can’t quite see it...but it’s there”.

Yeah, I get the picture.

Actually, what interests me is the contents of the Mistral’s hold.

The France 24 report states that the Mistral is carrying enough food to feed 100,000 people.

Not true.

The Mistral sailed from Chennai with only 400 tons of rice, instead of the 1,000 tons originally announced.

According to the Indian media, a French rear admiral aboard the Mistral stated :

"As per the orders from our government, the humanitarian aid is being assembled in Chennai and it consists of a two-week supply of emergency rations for 60,000 people."

The aid consists of 400 tonnes of rice, 10,000 20-30 litre jerry cans of water, 400,000 water purification tablets, 20,000 protective tarpaulins, 10,000 mosquito nets, 10,000 sets of cooking utensils and emergency medicines, he added.

According to the FAO, citizens of Myanmar are major consumers of rice—because they have very little else to eat. On average, they consume 20 kg of rice per month.

The Mistral’s 400 ton load of rice would, under normal circumstances, feed about 40,000 people for a fortnight. To meet the 60,000-person target, rations would be cut down to one pound per person per day—providing about 75% of the normal adult requirement of 2,200 Kcal per day. Two weeks of starvation rations, even if presented with Gallic expertise, ingenuity, and flair, is going to test the patience of even the most grateful aid recipient.

Maybe French calculations had something to do with the difficulty of rounding up rice and the desire to come up with an impressive number of aid recipients notwithstanding, but I doubt it.

More likely, disaster planners realized that Myanmar has plenty of rice.

In the last few years, Myanmar, despite years of economic mismanagement by the junta, has returned to its traditional role of rice exporter.

Before the storm, it was on track to export 50,000 tons of rice per month.

According to the starvation-ration standards of French generosity, feeding the entire population displaced by the storm—upper estimate 2.5 million—would require 2.5 million pounds of rice or 1250 tons per day. Two weeks’ disaster relief would require diversion of 17,500 tons of rice. That’s less than 5% of the surplus traditionally available for export. Although it’s not clear how much stored rice was destroyed by the storm, the FAO doesn’t expect famine, although temporary local shortages are possible.

It would be understandable if French disaster planners looked at the aid that the Myanmar government could be expected to deliver—rice—and adjusted its planning to cut back on the supply of Indian rice and instead provide more of what Myanmar didn’t have: water, water purification tablets, medicine, and shelter materials.

Of course, to rely on the Myanmar government to deliver rice and then publicly flay them for not delivering stuff it didn’t have would be a touch hypocritical.

But rice is important, because it is at the center of the true, key issue of international aid to Myanmar: assisting the regime in planting the crucial monsoon-period rice harvest.

This kind of recovery and rebuilding operation—not grandstanding demands that foreign workers handle distribution of aid in the immediate aftermath of the storm—is the true measure of international assistance after a disaster.

The Myanmar regime fully recognizes the importance of the critical monsoon paddy, and the need for foreign assistance in order to get it planted.

I might point out that growing rice is Myanmar’s main business, a major source of export revenue, the key to social stability and, therefore, a primary focus of the Myanmar government.

Contra the Western reporting of a corrupt and callous junta happy to trample on the corpses of its citizens just to keep its jackboots supple and shiny, it seems that the government’s rice boffins have been working hard on the monsoon paddy problem.

In a development that should spark the long-awaited spoink of cognitive dissonance for Western reporters who are obsessed with the “junta refusing aid” meme, Myanmar has already requested aid, in a timely and specific manner, to get the monsoon planting in.

Reuters reports (carried by this particular outlet under the typically sloppy headline, Cyclone hits 20% of Myanmar rice fields--FAO; actually, according to the FAO, 20% of the rice fields in the region that produces 65% of Myanmar’s rice were hit; that’s 13%; as a bonus error the article incorrectly states the monthly per capita rice consumption in kg i/o pounds):

With rice stored from the previous harvest likely badly damaged as well, it was critical to get farmers back on the land to plant a new crop, FAO regional chief He Changchui told Reuters.

"There is not much time. The planting season has started already. We need to have the funds and resources to bring the farmers back," He Changchui said in an interview.

"The consequence is very clear that we might have food shortages if we don't plant today," he said, estimating a 50-day window to get the crop planted.

Myanmar's agriculture ministry says it needs $243 million for rice seed, fertilizer and to rehabilitate paddy fields after the cyclone flooded 5,000 square kilometers (1,931 square miles) in the delta.

The ministry estimated 650,000 hectares of paddy mainly in delta and around the former capital of Yangon were damaged out of a total 3.2 million hectares, He Changchui said.
Some of the funds raised from donors will go towards buying 97,000 tons of seed, including 6,000 tons of salt-tolerant varieties, he said.

With monsoon rains on the way, the FAO hopes they will wash away much of the salt left by the cyclone's 12 foot (3.5 meters) sea surge which inundated prime rice-growing areas in the delta.

Myanmar grows about 30 million tons of rice per year in summer and the bigger monsoon paddies. If none of that 13% of farmland gets planted in time for the monsoon (an unlikely scenario), then the government is looking at a shortfall of perhaps 2,500,000 tons of rice and a shift from Myanmar becoming an exporter of rice to an importer in 2008. If rice is trading at $800 a ton, then successful recovery from Cyclone Nargis and getting the rice crop in is the $2 billion question. And that’s $2 billion the regime doesn’t have.

That’s what the Myanmar junta is obsessing about. It’s a matter a vital interest to them to get the farmers back in the fields with seed and fertilizer.

And maybe that’s really more important than letting in Western NGOs to point fingers at deficiencies in the relief effort, or giving the French Navy a feel-good photo op on the Irrawaddy delta.

The interesting question will be, will the West step up as a donor to help save the monsoon rice harvest, despite the fact that a successfully-executed recovery operation in the delta will probably strengthen the rule of the junta? or will the West sulk in its tent like brave Achilles, while letting Myanmar flounder—or, what is more likely, seeing ASEAN handle the Burmese crisis and China and India supplanting the West in a leadership role in Asian disaster relief?

Labels: Kouchner, Mistral, Myanmar

Aaah...from China Matters’ lips to Gordon Brown’s ear.

I wrote a couple days ago how I expected the Myanmar story to evolve:

...Western withholding of aid to continue, demands for intrusive and unnecessary access to intensify, and criticism of government to escalate during recovery and reconstruction phase of cyclone relief when problems of relief can be blamed on the incompetence and corruption of the Myanmar government instead of the magnitude of the natural disaster.

Today, UK Prime Minister Brown unburdens himself to the Beeb, as reported by the Guardian:

"This is inhuman. We have an intolerable situation, created by a natural disaster," Brown told the BBC World Service. "It is being made into a manmade catastrophe by the negligence, the neglect and the inhuman treatment of the Burmese people by a regime that is failing to act and to allow the international community to do what it wants to do.

"The responsibility lies with the Burmese regime and they must be held accountable."

Emphasis added.

I particularly enjoyed the line “failing to...allow the international community to do what it wants to do.” I think he meant to say “failing to...allow the international community to do what it can do”. Freudian slip, perhaps?

It will be interesting to see how this all ends.

At the very least the crisis offers the liberal and conservative West the opportunity to enjoy a shared spasm of excruciating righteousness that no reasoned discussion of the mechanics of disaster relief and the need to coordinate with the regime controlling the local military and civil organs, no matter how odious, can diminish.

From the Guardian again:

The Foreign Office minister, Lord Malloch-Brown, who is currently in south-east Asia, also criticised the junta for blocking foreign aid.

"We are way behind the curve compared to any other international disaster in recent memory," he said. "I cannot recall a relief operation where... the international response has been subjected to such delays."

Perhaps Lord Malloch-Brown should catch up on his disaster history.

For his edification, and for that of the faithful and patient readers of China Matters, here’s Wikipedia on the closest analogue to the Cyclone Nargis disaster: not the Boxing Day tsunami, about which everybody seems to have powerful opinions but faulty recollections, but the great Bhola Cyclone disaster that claimed 300,000 lives in what is now Bangladesh but at the time (1970) was East Pakistan. I’ve snipped and highlighted a few of the better bits.

In the ten days following the cyclone, one military transport aircraft and three crop-dusting aircraft were assigned to relief work by the Pakistani Government. The Pakistani government said it was unable to transfer military helicopters from West Pakistan as the Indian government did not grant clearance to cross the intervening Indian territory, a charge the Indian government denied. By November 24, the Pakistan Government had allocated a further $116 million to finance relief operations in the disaster area. Yahya Khan arrived in Dhaka to take charge of the relief operations on November 24. The Governor of East Pakistan, Vice Admiral Asham denied charges that the armed forces had not acted quickly enough and said supplies were reaching all parts of the disaster area except for some small pockets.

A week after the cyclone's landfall, President Khan conceded that his government had made "slips" and "mistakes" in its handling of the relief efforts. He said there was a lack of understanding of the magnitude of the disaster. He also said that the general election slated for December 7 would take place on time, although eight or nine of the worst affected districts might experience delays, denying rumours that the election would be postponed

International response
...

India became one of the first nations to offer aid to Pakistan, despite the generally poor relations between the two countries, and by the end of November had pledged $1.3 million (1970 $6.9 million 2007 USD) of assistance for the relief efforts. The Pakistani government refused to allow the Indians to send supplies in to East Pakistan by air, forcing them to be transported slowly by road instead. The Indian government also said that the Pakistanis refused an offer of military aircraft, helicopters and boats from West Bengal to assist in the relief operation

CARE halted aid shipments to the country the week after the cyclone hit, due to unwillingness to let the Pakistani Government handle distribution. However by January, they had reached an agreement to construct 24,000 cement brick houses at a cost of about $1.2 million (1971 USD, $6.1 million 2007 USD). American concerns about delays by the Pakistan Government in determining how the relief should be used, meant that $7.5 million (1970 USD, $39.7 million 2007 USD) of relief granted by the US Congress had not been handed over in March. Much of the money was earmarked to be spent on constructing cyclone shelters and rebuilding housing. The American Peace Corps offered to send volunteers, but were rebuffed by the Pakistani government.

Thank you, thank you, Wikipedia.

International aid took weeks to get to East Pakistan for a variety of infrastructural, political, diplomatic, trust, competence, and mismanagement issues.

The picture of a fragile, unpopular, and desperate state dealing as best it can but to no one’s satisfaction with the humanitarian, political, and military consequences of an overwhelming natural disaster is a familiar one, is it not?

That part about Pakistan holding its general elections despite the cyclone is a delicious langniappe. Noto bene, Lord Malloch-Brown.

If His Worshipfulness is indeed aware of the history of cyclone disasters in South Asia--as I expect he is, since Pakistan is a piece of the old empire--he knows that the Bhola Cyclone helped catalyze East Pakistan’s movement for independence as Bangladesh—a movement that was actively encouraged by India and, more than anything else, poisons relations between Pakistan and India to this day.

Maybe that’s what’s going on here: gumming up the international aid process so that, at the very least, the Myanmar regime will be prevented from gaining any undeserved domestic political advantage from a successful relief effort--and perhaps kickstarting Burmese democracy by arousing popular fury at an inadequate response by an overwhelmed regime.

That would be kind of...nasty. Wonder if anybody might report that.

Perhaps Bernard Kouchner and David Miliband are determined to show the world what humanitarian regime change is all about.

But it’s more likely that Gordon Brown’s strong talk may be a temporary political expedient dictated by his dismal current poll standing and the need to obtain a little of that muscular humanitarian cred.

In any event, we can rely on the Western media soldiering on in its pursuit of the Myanmar story, oblivious to the cognitive dissonance that its own reporting creates.

My favorite pairing for today:

Item 1:

Yet in this devastated land there remains little evidence of any government help. This weekend hundreds of people were lining the roads which run south of Rangoon, peering expectantly into passing cars and begging for help.

Item 2:

Myanmar's junta kept a French navy ship laden with aid waiting outside its maritime border on Saturday, and showed off neatly laid out state relief camps to diplomats.

The stage-managed tour appeared aimed at countering global criticism of the junta's failure to provide for survivors of Cyclone Nargis, which left at least 134,000 people dead or missing.

The junta flew 60 diplomats and U.N. officials in helicopters to three places in the Irrawaddy delta where camps, aid and survivors were put on display. The diplomats were not swayed.

"It was a show," Shari Villarosa, the top U.S. diplomat in Myanmar, told The Associated Press by telephone after returning to Yangon. "That's what they wanted us to see."

So, which is it? Zero government presence, or a regime that can throw together three Potemkin villages in the Irrawaddy delta after the worst disaster in the nation’s history?

Cyclone Nagris has devastated an area of Myanmar the size of Austria. It’s a disaster any way you slice it, and it would still be a disaster even if the Myanmar regime invited in George Bush, Gordon Brown, and Nicolas Sarkozy to personally supervise the relief.

The only people who really know what’s going on in there are in the Myanmar government. And it looks like we aren’t going to listen to what they have to say. And even if we listen, we aren’t going to believe them.

We much prefer the reassuring sound of our own indignant voices.

Labels: Myanmar

From the Annals of Burma Relief

Remember the Mistral?

That’s the French naval ship that Bernard Kouchner announced would deliver aid to Burma whether the Burmese junta liked it..or not!

The Mistral was supposed to arrive in Burmese waters the middle of this week on its unilateral mission of mercy.

But it’s not there.

What happened?

This unintentionally hilarious English-language video on the France 24 outlet (look for the clip French Ship Ready to Help) and reports from the French embassy provide the answer:

The Mistral has been steaming around the Bay of Bengal in circles...because it didn’t have any rice in its hold...which it has to buy from India...and is only now completing loading at India’s port of Chennai...and it hopes to reach Burma Sunday...on the two-week anniversary of the cyclone.

That's not a spectacular improvement over the relief efforts of the Myanmar junta.

I particularly enjoyed the insouciant Gallic resignation of the quartermaster guy (note how the camera zooms in on the evocative hand gesture addressing the profound irony of a modern French warship needing rice to make it to its destination) on the Mistral, who says:

We have no choice but to wait. The rice hasn’t arrived yet. When it comes, we have to load it up pallet by pallet, bag by bag and make sure it’s ready to be delivered...properly. The delays are incredible!

C'est incroyable!

Yeah, well somebody tell Bernard Kouchner.

Next time you order up a humanitarian invasion...don’t forget the rice.

Labels: France, Kouchner, Myanmar

From Bad...to Bad?

[Correction: A sharp-eyed and helpful reader has pointed out that the excerpt from the Christian Science Monitor quoted below refers to aid teams from two separate Taiwanese organizations, not just Tzu Chi, as I erroneously stated. The group referenced in the first paragraph of the quote is Ling Jiou Mountain Buddhist Society. In a separate AP article, the society’s Burma-born Master Hsin Tao had some interesting things to say about the relief effort:

Myanmar, also known as Burma, has come in for heavy criticism from the international community for failing to take full advantage of food and other aid it has been offered.
...
But Hsin Tao said Myanmar's military rulers have mobilized soldiers and civilians to transport aid materials by ships or helicopters to the cyclone victims spread out along the country's west coast.

The materials include those sent in by foreign countries, he said.

"They rejected international aid workers out of distrust of the foreigners," he said. "They try to handle the relief work by themselves as much as possible because they don't have the time to deal with external criticism."

"Foreigners may not be able to conduct effective relief work because the villages are in remote areas and many bridges were swept away in the flood," he added.

Thanks again to reader KH for the information and the link.
CH 5/19/08]

The Myanmar meme in the Western press has evolved from “Myanmar isn’t letting in aid” to “Myanmar isn’t letting in aid workers”. Now another iteration is in order.

According to AP:

In a clear sign that politics is playing a role, the junta granted approval to 160 relief workers from India, China, Bangladesh and Thailand, which have rarely criticized Myanmar's democracy record.

So, it’s time for an upgrade to “Myanmar isn’t letting in Western aid workers”.

Wait a minute.

The U.N. has applied for visas for about 100 U.N. international staff in Myanmar, and close to 40 have been granted, Holmes said. International staff of non-governmental groups have obtained at least 46 visas, he said, while Myanmar's immediate neighbors -- Thailand, Bangladesh, India and China -- have been allowed to send in 160 humanitarian workers.

They are letting in Western aid workers!

There’s only one more step up the pyramid: “Myanmar isn’t letting Western aid workers with visas go to the disaster area”.

Courtesy of London’s Times, under the somewhat ungrammatical headline Burma kicks out aid foreign workers:

The Burmese authorities have sealed off the cyclone disaster zone from the outside world, expelling foreign aid workers and placing multiple checkpoints along roads into the Irrawaddy delta, to the despair of foreign diplomats and aid workers.

There. All better!

But that’s still not the whole story:

One British NGO (non-governmental organisation), the medical charity Merlin, has been allowed to keep a foreign presence in the southwestern city of Labutta, where the organisation had a longstanding project. The rest, including UN organisations such as the World Food Programme and UN Development Programme, must rely on their Burmese staff.

So, it looks like the indictment of the Myanmar regime will have to read: “Myanmar isn’t allowing certain aid workers affiliated with organizations without an existing local presence to go to the disaster area”.

Despite the heroic efforts of the Western press, it looks like the “missing aid worker” angle might be put to bed pretty soon.

It’s a good thing, because the whole idea that Western aid workers are indispensable to disaster relief in the initial rescue period (and their absence is evidence of criminal and callous incompetence by the government of the afflicted region) is wrong and misleading, as well as something of an insult to the local people and organizations who, in any disaster, provide the bulk of first-responder disaster relief.

Let’s see how the Times throws a little condescending love their way:

Many of them are well trained and competent but, according to aid workers in Rangoon, experienced foreign experts are also required to oversee logistical planning and to operate technical imported equipment such as water purification plants.

In addition to “well trained and competent”, how about “skilled, dedicated, and armed with an intimate knowledge of local conditions and immense reservoirs of experience and tact in dealing with local institutions”.

How about “willing to risk their lives and their health working incomprehensibly long hours trying to save their neighbors”.

And how about “can speak the frikkin’ local language and can walk up to someone and get something done without convening the UN Security Council and a Berlitz seminar”.

Anyway.

But even if the ability of local organizations and foreign NGOs to mount a disaster relief operation without the guidance of Western aid workers is ever conceded, Burma-bashing headline writers will always be able to find grist for the mill:

Courtesy of the AP, the scare headline:

Some cholera confirmed in cyclone-hit Myanmar

But the article goes on to say:

"We don't have an explosion of cholera. Thus far the rate of cholera is no greater than the background rate that we would be seeing in Myanmar during this season," [WHO representative Maureen Birmingham] said.

Wow. What a ... non-story.

And, if the Myanmar government is hoping that a stage-managed tour of the delta will demonstrate to the West that it has the situation in hand, well, don’t be surprised if Western perceptions of its performance continue to run the gamut from incompetence to outright deceit:

Some foreign diplomats have also been invited by the regime to visit the delta on Saturday, said Shari Villarosa, the top U.S. diplomat in Yangon. She did not provide details.It is not clear how much access the diplomats will have outside the conducted tour.

Still, it will be the first time diplomats will be seeing first hand the effects of the cyclone as well as the highly criticized relief delivery effort by the government.

Don’t get me wrong. Myanmar governmental disaster relief is probably worse than most. But the disaster is worse than most. And the time when foreign supplies and aid workers can play a really meaningful role is during the recovery and reconstruction stage--which is starting now.

Complaining about the alleged shortcomings of the junta during the initial rescue and relief stage is not helping one little bit.

The real story of what’s going on there should probably be:

Inadequate Myanmar government disaster response exacerbated by resistance of UN and Western NGOs and governments to providing unconditional aid to despised regime. Observers expect Western withholding of aid to continue, demands for intrusive and unnecessary access to intensify, and criticism of government to escalate during recovery and reconstruction phase of cyclone relief when problems of relief can be blamed on the incompetence and corruption of the Myanmar government instead of the magnitude of the natural disaster. Thousands suffer and die as West exploits crisis in attempt to bring junta to heel.

But that doesn’t make for a punchy, informative headline.

You know, like:

Burma refuses aid

We might have an effective Myanmar policy—one that doesn’t force it even deeper into China’s sphere of influence--if accurate reporting allowed us to understand the weaknesses, strengths, and priorities of the regime in light of the challenge of Cyclone Nargis and design a joint response to the disaster.

But based on the instinctive and intellectually lazy junta bashing in the Western press encouraged by the posturing of the US, UK, and France, I’m not holding my breath.

In the credit where credit is due department, however, I would like to acknowledge an interesting and informative report by the Christian Science Monitor concerning the effectiveness of Asian NGOs in Burma, focusing on a Taiwan Buddhist organization, Tzu Chi, that operates both in Myanmar and in the PRC:

Yet as Western relief workers waited anxiously in Rangoon and outside Burma, a team of Taiwanese aid workers arrived in Rangoon to deliver emergency food and discuss further assistance with Burmese authorities. Headed by a Burmese-born Taiwanese monk whose foundation runs charities in Burma, the group carried in nine tons of aid, among the first such deliveries. A second three-ton airlift is due Friday.
...
The Tzu Chi Foundation, the largest NGO in the Chinese-speaking world and a rising player in global disaster relief, has sent 15 volunteers from neighboring countries to Burma to work with more than 100 local staff to distribute aid, says Her Rey-Sheng, a spokesman for the group and a full-time volunteer.

Tzu Chi also got permission this week to set up a distribution center at a Buddhist temple in Rangoon and work with monks there. It's planning a fund-raising drive for reconstruction projects.

But this kind of reporting is still the exception rather than the rule.

The Myanmar government is certainly noting the contrast in coverage of the horrific Chinese earthquake.

Certainly nothing along the lines of “China refuses to admit foreign aid workers”, although to date it has only allowed in one team from Japan and declined offers from South Korea and Australia, stating that the relief effort needs supplies only.

And not too much about “Official corruption and shoddy construction turned schools into death traps”, though I have a feeling that will come up later.

One reason is undoubtedly that Western reporters, instead of sitting in hotel lobbies listening to NGO staffers bitch about the godawful regime, have been on the scene and caught up in the heroic narrative of cataclysm, rescue, tragedy, hope, and the desperate race against time.

And I have a feeling that China’s managed junket to the disaster area will yield better press than Myanmar’s.

Observe China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Qin Gang’s assiduous stroking as the foreign press champs at the bit in Beijing to cover the story:

Q: The Foreign Ministry is organizing foreign journalists for field report. What is China's purpose of organizing this trip within a couple of days after the earthquake?

A: You are right in saying that we are to arrange a batch of foreign journalists to cover the disaster. And this is because we keep receiving such demands from foreign journalists. We fully understand your feelings. Time, for rescue work, means life; for journalists, means news and efficiency. That's why we have exerted great efforts and overcome various difficulties to make this happen. Despite the hardship in the afflicted area with infrastructure including transportation and communication seriously destroyed, we had timely and effective consultation with local authorities, and conveyed your aspiration to them. We are glad to be able to make the arrangement within a short period of time.

As a matter of fact, there are already quite a few foreign media working in the field, the initial statistics say there are 35. Our relevant departments are ready to help you with your work, and we hope that your report will help the international community see the real situation in the disaster area, the efforts of the Chinese Government and people, the entire Chinese nation fighting together in a unified dedication to save people's lives, and also many countries' support and assistance to us.

The situation in the disaster area is very difficult. For journalists heading there, I wish you success with your work, and please take care of yourselves. In case of any difficulty or emergency, don't hesitate to contact our colleagues from the Foreign Ministry and the local governments. They are ready at all times to provide you with necessary and timely assistance and help. [emph. added]

Yeah, don’t hurt yourself tripping over any corpses while you’re rushing to file.

Actually, I’ve got a hot story for Western newsies in China. And you’re right on top of it!

Here it is: Chinese government cynically diverts precious disaster relief facilities to arrange unnecessary junket for scoop-hungry foreign journalists to death zone in order to obtain favorable coverage!

Wonder when we’ll read about that in the papers.

Labels: China, Myanmar

At the invitation of Japan Focus, I wrote an article about the alleged nuclear facility in Syria.

Since the Syrians steadfastly deny that there was a reactor at al Kibar and the physical evidence has been bombed, buried, and dismantled into oblivion, I ended up writing more about the creaky Non-Proliferation Treaty regime that the International Atomic Energy Agency and its Director General, Mr. ElBaradei are charged with safeguarding.

The article is entitled Twilight of the NPT? and it’s available here.

The NPT was originally conceived as a disarmament/peaceful use of nuclear energy/better world kumbaya group hug sort of thing.

But that hasn’t really happened.

The current IAEA mission is more of a projection of US security concerns and an effort to protect the nuclear monopoly of the US and its friends and allies.

ElBaradei is caught in the middle as he tries to advance the IAEA’s traditional mandate of promoting safe and peaceful exploitation of nuclear energy and the United States—the IAEA’s biggest funder and most active stakeholder—uses the IAEA mechanism to impede the spread of any nuclear capability to our antagonists, especially in the Middle East.

ElBaradei and the Muslim nations of the Middle East appear to have a symbiotic relationship.

ElBaradei needs the Muslim nations to demonstrate the IAEA’s relevance in dealing with states that the US can’t or won’t negotiate with; and the Muslim nations need ElBaradei as their sole, shrinking portal to a legal, internationally acknowledged nuclear capability.

And, I suppose, one could say that the United States needs the IAEA for the imprimatur of international legitimacy it provides for Washington’s unilateral nuclear concerns, but the fact is that the US has spent more time and energy sidelining the IAEA than it has spent basking in the agency’s multilateral aura.

One of my favorite ElBaradei-related media quotes concerns the revelation that the United States’s NSA wiretapped ElBaradei’s phone in an unsuccessful search for dirt that could be used to deny him a third term.

It elicited a resigned shrug from the IAEA:

In Vienna, where the IAEA has its headquarters, officials said they were not surprised about the eavesdropping.

"We've always assumed that this kind of thing goes on," IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky said. "We wish it were otherwise, but we know the reality."

Yeah, whatever. Fuggedaboutit.

As the Washington Post put it, “eavesdropping, even on allies, is considered a well-worn tool of national security and diplomacy”.

The message that nuclear wannabes in the Middle East would have extracted from this incident, other than the unwelcome image of a “well-worn tool”, would be threefold:

First, the IAEA is transparent, or at least highly vulnerable, to penetration by US intelligence services and the IAEA lacks the capability, funding, and/or will to protect the security of its communications.

Second, it should be assumed that the content of any communication and the result of any site visit will find its way to Langley or the NSA.

Third, any nuclear program, peaceful or otherwise, has to be kept secret from the IAEA during the planning and construction phases when it is most vulnerable to US challenge and disruption.

So, the conclusion I have drawn from Syria’s bizarre decision to build a secret nuclear facility within bombing range of the Israeli air force is that Syria wanted a nuclear capability and believed that if they built a facility small and plausible enough to be presented as a harmless civilian project, they could reveal it prior to fueling and get it blessed by ElBaradei and the IAEA with little more than a stern tongue-lashing (and, possibly, an understanding wink).

Of course, that possibility was forcibly pre-empted by Israel’s bombing raid.

Labels: IAEA, Syria

The drumbeat of demands that international aid workers get visas to enter Myanmar continues.

But some of the rationales seem a little shaky :

Mike Pattison, a logistics official from World Vision, said non-specialists could not set up large water purification systems or choose sites for food warehouses that can be defended in riots.

From some personal experience a while back, I recall the leading weapon in disaster relief water purification is still good, old-fashioned chlorine a.k.a. household bleach, applied to tainted water in large amounts. The portable plants that dispense it are designed to be simple, fail-safe, idiot-proof, and intuitive to a garage mechanic (of the kind that is found in the motor pools of every army in the world, including Myanmar’s).

Maybe things have changed, and a foreign expert is needed to puzzle out a complicated English-language manual and push the right buttons on a sophisticated and delicate device. If so, too bad. That’s the wrong way to go.

Of course, the second rationale, “non-specialist could not...choose sites for food warehouses that can be defended in riots” gave me a chuckle.

Is World Vision telling me they are better at planning for food riots than the notorious Burmese army?

I’m looking forward to the scene in that upcoming Hollywood blockbuster, The Tears of Nargis, where Leo DiCaprio and a brave, outnumbered band of Oxfam volunteers (including one comely but feisty female staffer in a tight, sleaveless top) protect a precious hoard of rice from a rampaging mob of hunger-crazed Burmese refugees. “Remember, non-lethal force only! We’re here to help these people!”

Snark aside, I would say that the “foreign aid worker visa” issue is pretty clear.

Foreign NGOs suspect that the Myanmar government isn’t doing everything it can to save the victims of the cyclone.

They’re probably right.

Given the magnitude of the devastation, the limitations of transport and access, and, to be sure, its disregard for suffering and the value of human life, the Myanmar government is probably engaged in a brutal process of triage, having written off the prospects of survivors in the hardest-to-reach part of the delta and positioning troops and supplies to take care of those who can make it out to towns and monasteries that weren’t razed by the storm.

And I also suspect that the main result of letting NGO aid workers into Myanmar would be a flood of finger-pointing stories fed to the international media about the incompetence, corruption, and cruelty of the junta, and precious little in the way of effective coordination and execution between two groups that despise each other.

So I’m not surprised that the Myanmar regime is extending the middle finger to the clamoring NGOs whose primary effect, if admitted, will be to increase international condemnation of the junta’s rule, provide hard evidence of misbehavior and/or callous disregard to undermine the domestic authority and prestige of the government, and, at the very least, serve as a drain on the limited transport, English-language capability, attention, and patience of the regime.

As I've said before, it would be nice if the media disentangled the humanitarian, human rights, democracy, and geopolitical threads of the Myanmar disaster, instead of assuming they are identical or equivalent. But I don't see that happening.

Instead, I see wasted talk, effort, and lives.

Labels: Myanmar

...in the wake of Cyclone Nargis

News reports on the aftermath of Cyclone Nargis reported on a “huge concession” in the matter of a U.S. C-130 loaded with 17 tons of aid that landed at Yongyon International Airport in Myanmar.

Casual observers will be forgiven for believing that the “huge concession” was the Myanmar regime giving permission for the plane to land.

That’s a forgivable misunderstanding.

The mis-reporting by the international media concerning the state and conditions of aid supply is less forgivable, given the intensely judgmental reporting it has dispensed on the Myanmar situation.

Apparently, there is a “huge concession” involved--by the United States.

It involved shelving the US demand to link aid to access to the scene by its disaster relief teams.

And that concession should be fully and accurately reported, since it has significant implications for disaster relief in Myanmar, and the fate of tens if not hundreds of thousands of refugees afflicted by the cyclone and its aftermath.

Because it means that the Bush administration has probably bowed to the advice and experience of the US military and abandoned its efforts to use the prospect of aid to extract concessions from the Myanmar regime.

I have not found any reporting on the subject, but it appears that US demands that its USAID team in Thailand be admitted into Myanmar as a pre-condition for releasing the aid has been quietly dropped.

[Update: The Guardian confirms it:

The US determination to have its own personnel oversee the distribution of its aid supplies rather than "dump" them at Rangoon airport appeared to have evaporated yesterday even as a senior USaid official continued to insist it was vital.
...
Initial talks that would have allowed Save the Children to take control of the US consignment faltered when the regime said it would take charge. A Burmese government spokesman, Ye Htut, said later that the US aid had been transferred to military trucks and was due to be ferried by helicopter to the delta within hours.]

My criticism of the United States for insisting on entry for its disaster relief experts—and the support for forcible humanitarian intervention predicated on that insistence, most notably by France’s Bernad Kouchner--attracted some heated criticism in the comments to my previous post on the subject.

However, even if the Myanmar regime’s provision of aid is more dilatory, dishonest, and corrupt than usual, the unconditional aid approach pursued by China and Indonesia—even if their motives are less than disinterested—is more valid and correct than the US demand for access by its disaster relief specialists, supposedly to ensure that aid is distributed properly.

The 2004 Boxing Day tsunami disaster was studied intensively in terms of the effectiveness of response by different organizations.

The Tsunami Evaluation Coalition, or TEC, concluded that, by far, the vast proportion of immediate disaster relief was provided locally, first by survivors on the scene and then by the national government.

Aid distribution is best handled by the local government.

And that’s why the Chinese—who, between earthquakes, typhoons, and periodic massive flooding of the nation’s heartland, probably have most disaster relief mobilization experience than any other country—are just flying planes in and dumping supplies on the tarmac.

Granted, having the Myanmar junta paw over your precious supplies, relabel them for photo ops, and divert some of them to keep the military fat and happy is not the most pleasing option—but there really aren’t any better ones.

By the time international organizations set up, they are best positioned to assist in post-disaster recovery—not in rescue.

NGOs suffer from their lack of familiarity with local conditions, poor coordination of effort, and the fact that they poach useful local personnel and resources for competing missions.

The rapid access to remote locations and heavy lift capability offered by foreign military forces is tremendously useful—when it is deployed in coordination with the national military of the affected state.

The idea that the world community can brush aside a hostile state and erect an efficient human relief infrastructure in conditions of utter chaos as lives hang in the balance is a fantasy.

Foreign NGOs not already operating inside Myanmar don’t know Myanmar. Even the ones that do have a foothold inside the country possess minimal independent capabilities.

Even to try to operate effectively, they need to monopolize scarce local resources of interpreters, liaison staff, and communications personnel—and attention--even if they come complete with their own transportation infrastructure—which they don’t.

And, of course, in a police state, all foreign visitors need their own set of minders anxiously observing the activity, reporting to home base, and awaiting instructions.

When one considers the limited number of English speakers inside Myanmar, and the fact that the regime is scrambling to coordinate aid with its short list of genuine friends while it conducts its referendum and deals with an immense natural disaster and tries to restore power to the capital and keep a political lid on things, the idea that the government might be unwilling to shoulder the burden of welcoming a group of intruders from a hostile power is understandable.

The same problem applies to the genuinely important and useful role of foreign militaries in the disaster.

The United States might have a bulging folder of plans for invading Myanmar, but when it comes to rescuing its citizens as opposed to destroying its military, we’re going to need the help of Myanmar’s army to communicate, plan, and receive, secure, and distribute supplies on the ground.

The US military’s hands-on experience in the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia is enlightening.

The tsunami struck the rebellious province of Aceh which, please note, was under martial law, off limits to any meddling by international do-gooders, and an environment of mortal peril for any foreign journalist who dared venture there.

For the first two days, the Indonesian government sealed off the province from outside contact as they secured the scene and made sure they had a handle on any political upheaval the disaster and the appearance of foreign services, media, and forces might trigger.

Then they let the US military come in and conduct operations in coordination with the Indonesian military—who, I might point out, are a lot closer to the Myanmar military than to the Boy Scouts in terms of their humanitarian attitudes, particularly toward rebels and dissidents.

It didn’t hurt, of course, that the Indonesian military are, for all their conspicuous faults and brutality, our buddies, and we can always pick up the phone and talk to them.

The TEC report (pg.43) noted:

The TEC Coordination Report (2006) found that most of the international military contingents in Indonesia had their tasks allocated by the military, thus coupling the immense foreign logistics capacity with detailed local knowledge.

As a result, one of the few areas of the Muslim world in which attitudes towards the United States have improved since 2002 is in Indonesia’s Aceh.

With this background, I can sympathize completely with Secretary of Defense Gates’ refusal to consider operations inside Myanmar without the regime’s permission.

And I agree with this compassionate and realistic proposal from a military man:

Retired General William Nash of the Council on Foreign Relations says the U.S. should first pressure China to use its influence over the junta to get them to open up and then supply support to the Thai and Indonesian militaries to carry out relief missions. "We can pay for it — we can provide repair parts to the Indonesians so they can get their Air Force up. We can lend the them two C-130s and let them paint the Indonesian flag on them," Nash says. "We have to get the stuff to people who can deliver it and who the Burmese government will accept, even if takes an extra day or two and even if it's not as efficient as the good old U.S. military."

By contrast, it is difficult to have any respect for Bernard Kouchner’s declaration that France would distribute 1,500 tons of rice aboard the destroyer Mistral without the cooperation of the Myanmar regime and, indeed, that "France would not consider entrusting aid to the Myanmar authorities".

Even if the French had cutting edge intel and accurate maps of Myanmar, they don’t work any more in the aftermath of the cyclone. Villages, landmarks, even the land itself have been washed away or are under water.

And I don’t think the French fleet is particularly well-equipped with Burmese interpreters, either.

I’m left with the picture of the French navy pitching supplies on a random mudbank while the band plays the Marseilles and white-faced mimes comb the devastated countryside for an audience to instruct and uplift with the sublime universal language of gesture.

When I also consider that Kouchner proposed his “responsibility to protect” invocation of Security Council intervention in full knowledge that the Chinese would instantaneously reject his proposal, and every atom of oxygen and iota of attention devoted to promoting it was a profound and deadly waste of time and lives, his empty gestures looks more like shameless grandstanding to his international pro-democracy constituency than the sincere effort of a genuine humanitarian.

So the international community is left with a menu of miserable choices.

Either entrust millions of dollars of aid to a corrupt regime that will undoubtedly exploit some of it to strengthen its own position...

...or spend valuable hours and days trying to push the regime aside to conduct a rescue operation that, without the assistance of the local government, would probably be doomed to failure.

The bitter fact is that this dilemma was, to a certain extent, brought upon the international community by itself, because of the contradiction between aggressive democracy promotion and humanitarian engagement.

Perhaps Samantha Power and the international values-based foreign policy community could have an interesting debate on this topic:

What happens when you devote all your energies to ostracizing and alienating a distasteful regime...but then find out that you need that regime to deliver aid to the very people you’re trying to save?

I am willing to believe that the Myanmar regime is godawful, incompetent, and corrupt.

And I get the feeling that its main strategy for disaster relief is for the survivors to walk or crawl out of the muck to assembly points where the government can feed and shelter them with a minimum expenditure of effort and resources.

And I remember—though I have yet to see it mentioned—that a cyclone can lead to regime change: when Pakistan’s halting response to the disastrous Bhola cyclone of 1970, which claimed as many as 500,000 lives, helped catalyze the separatist movement that gave birth to Bangla Desh.

But what I see in the western media is the cynical and lazy urge for a feel-good narrative of the noble West beating up on the detestable Burmese junta.

The sloppy reporting and irresponsible rhetoric reminds me of the rough justice the press meted out to Saddam Hussein in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. We all remember how satisfying it was to spread tales, no matter how untrue or unlikely, about that unsavory thug, his evil deeds, and his diabolical plans.

And some of us remember how much blood and treasure could have been saved if we had bothered to be accurate about Saddam’s capabilities, objectives, and intentions.

So, when the US ambassadress contradicts the official Burmese reports of the death toll and says as many as 100,000 could be dead, I’m inclined to give her credence.

But I also wonder: how can she know, trapped in her embassy in Yongyon in the aftermath of a natural disaster that has not only disrupted communications—it has caused entire land masses to disappear?

And, when the Oxfam fans the fear of an epidemic affecting 1.5 million people, I recall this sidebar from the TEC report on the 2004 tsunami (pg.53):

One of the recurring myths of natural disasters is that outbreaks of disease inevitably follow disasters...a recent review of over 600 geophysical disasters since 1985 find only three instances where such disasters led to epidemics...This is hardly surprising as disasters often lack the aggregation of populations [which are believed] to be a factor in the biology of epidemics.

So, when I look at the Myanmar catastrophe, I see a deadly mixture of confusion, fear, anger, and callous opportunism...on both sides.

Labels: Myanmar

To Seek Geopolitical Advantage from Myanmar’s Crisis

For the impassioned interventionist, Myanmar has it all: a corrupt and despotic junta, a gallant pro-democracy princess, and brave, battling monks. Now it’s got a colossal humanitarian crisis that throws the failures and flaws of the detested regime into sharp relief.

One thing it doesn’t have: a government so callous and shortsighted it will refuse international aid in order to preserve its own rule.

However, this is a line that the United States and its allies are pushing, apparently in an effort to delegitimize and weaken the Myanmar regime and maybe tally up a regime change success on the cheap, courtesy of an unprecedented natural disaster.

As a result, we may sacrifice an important source of credibility and leverage in Asia—America’s perceived willingness to provide apolitical disaster relief—and open the door for China to supplant us in this key role.

A casual Western reader could be forgiven for believing that the Myanmar regime is refusing to accept international aid in the aftermath of Cyclone Nargis.

From Reuters:

In Myanmar, desperate survivors cried out for food, water and other supplies nearly a week after 100,000 people were feared killed by Cyclone Nargis as it roared across the farms and villages of the low-lying Irrawaddy delta region.

"We're outraged by the slowness of the response of the government of Burma (Myanmar) to welcome and accept assistance," U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, told reporters.

"It's clear that the government's ability to deal with the situation, which is catastrophic, is limited."

France’s Foreign Minister, Bernard Kouchner, suggested that the UN Security Council invoke a “responsibility to protect” (designed for cases of genocide) to override Myanmar sovereignty and enable relief operations inside the country without the government’s permission.

Asia Times’ Southeast Asia editor Shawn Crispin (who bills himself as “Asia Hand”...hmmm) completely jumped the shark in my opinion with a piece entitled “The case for invading Myanmar”:

Should the junta continue to resist foreign assistance while social and public health conditions deteriorate in clear view of global news audiences, the moral case for a UN-approved, US-led humanitarian intervention will grow... the deteriorating situation presents a unique opportunity for Bush to burnish his foreign policy legacy... it is almost sure-fire that Myanmar's desperate population would warmly welcome a US-led humanitarian intervention, considering that its own government is now withholding emergency supplies... Now, Cyclone Nagris and the government's woeful response to the disaster have suddenly made that once paranoid delusion into a strong pre-emptive possibility, one that Bush's lame-duck presidency desperately needs.

Easy, tiger.

A more balanced view of Myanmar affairs -and one that doesn't fit with the narrative of criminal dysfunction by the Myanmar regime-- might be gained by looking across the tarmac at Yongon International Airport.

YANGON, May 7 (Xinhua) -- A special big aircraft carrying 500,000 U.S. dollars' worth of relief materials from China arrived at the Yangon International Airport Wednesday afternoon as part of China's one million dollars' emergency relief aid to cyclone-devastated Myanmar.

The 60-ton relief supplies, carried by a Boeing 747-400 aircraft, include compressed food, tents and blankets.

May 7 is two days before “the first big aid flights” (according to AP) arrived. The China mission was a development that the Western press apparently missed.

China subsequently pledged an additional $4.25 million in aid, making them the largest pledged donor as well as the largest provider of actual aid to date, as far as I can tell.

The Western response?

Well, as of May 9, if you type “China aid Myanmar” into Google, the first hit you get, from ABC News :

“Is China’s Aid to Myanmar a PR Stunt?”

Actually, politics is all over the issue of Myanmar relief, and most of it is coming from the Western countries.

In an interesting coincidence, President Bush happened to be awarding a medal to Aung San Suu Kyi and used the opportunity to throw a few rocks at the government we’re supposedly negotiating with in the midst of a titanic humanitarian disaster:

President Bush spoke at a ceremony where he signed legislation awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to democracy advocate Aung San Suu Kyi.

"This is a fitting tribute to a courageous woman who speaks for freedom for all the people of Burma and who speaks in such a way that she's a powerful voice, in contrast to the junta that currently rules the country," Bush said.

Returning to the troubles of the UN and the Western governments in getting their aid into Myanmar.

Per the Independent:

"We will not just bring our supplies to an airport, dump it and take off," said [The World Food Programme's regional director Anthony Banbury]. "This is one reason why there is a hold up now, because we are going to bring in not just supplies but a lot of capacity to go with them to make sure the supplies get to the people."

In other words, the UN, the US, and some Western governments have made delivery of their aid contingent upon getting visas for their teams of experts to accompany the aid and supervise its distribution.

Reasons given range from “the Myanmar government is overwhelmed” to “otherwise the aid will go to feed the army instead of the people” (which some will recognize as a reprise of the accusations that North Korea diverts food aid to feed its army while its people starve). [Western insistence on letting the aid teams in probably has something to do with an unwillingness to see Myanmar negotiate large quantities of unconditional assistance, gain an undeserved economic and political windfall, and thereby strengthen its regime—CH, 5/9/08]

The aid kabuki theater continued, with the United States pledging $3 million in aid, but not to the Myanmar government. Instead, it was put in the hands of the USAID team waiting in Thailand for permission to enter:

The White House said Tuesday the U.S. will send more than $3 million to help victims of the devastating cyclone in Myanmar, up from an initial emergency contribution of $250,000.
The additional commitment of funds, announced by press secretary Dana Perino, came as Myanmar continued to resist entry for a U.S. disaster assessment team. The Bush administration said permission for such a team to enter the Southeast Asian nation and look at the damage would allow quicker and larger aid contributions.

In the meantime, the decision was made to funnel $3 million more to the disaster-stricken zone. Perino said the money would be allocated by a USAID disaster response team that is currently positioned in Thailand.[emph. added]

In a USAID press conference, some reporter was able to get to the nub of the issue, despite Director of Foreign Disaster Assistance jefe Ky Luu’s dogged attempts to tap-dance around the issue of tying aid to access:

QUESTION: I’m sorry, one more question. Well, why not just give everything through the UN and allow the UN to distribute everything? Why does it have to go through U.S. transport planes or U.S. assets? Why not give everything to the UN and have them -- you know -- through the World Food Program, through all their agencies, seeing as how their planes are being allowed in now?

MR. LUU: Well, not all their planes are being allowed in.

QUESTION: Well, there are several at this point.

MR. LUU: They have received, what we’ve been told, permission for four flights and for food. They are similarly situated, as are our other colleagues, in terms of being able to bring in staff. As I said here, the UNDAC team, they were only allowed to grant visas for four staff, so – the point being is if there’s a large infrastructure that we can support, we will look at that option. But the point is that it shouldn’t be narrowed in scope. Everybody has to become involved and we hope and urge that the regime will allow the access to take place as soon as possible.

The Jakarta Post picked up on another report indicating that it seemed more important for the United States to get its people rather than its food and supplies into Myanmar:

While directly pushing Myanmar to admit international disaster relief, the United States has asked Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Japan, India, China and others to use "any leverage" they may have with Myanmar to allow relief teams into the country, AFP reported.

It’s easier to say “Myanmar is dragging its feet on aid” than “Myanmar desperately wants the aid but we are withholding it until we get what we want”, but that’s what’s happening:

And that leads to scenes like this:

The U.N. World Food Program said two planeloads of supplies containing enough high-energy biscuits to feed 95,000 people were seized Friday, prompting the world body to say it was suspending aid flights.

Later, WFP chief spokeswoman Nancy Roman said the flights would resume on Saturday while negotiations continued for the release of the supplies.

Myanmar's government acknowledged taking control of the shipments and said it plans to distribute the aid itself to the affected areas.

Compare and contrast:

Three Red Cross aid flights loaded with shelter kits and other emergency supplies landed in Myanmar Friday without incident.

"We are not experiencing any problems getting in (unlike) the United Nations," Danish Red Cross spokesman Hans Beck Gregersen said.

The International Red Cross is apparently a trusted and established channel for channel for distributing aid into Myanmar.

Canwest reported:

While many relief groups continue to face delays in helping the cause, Red Cross groups have been able to access some victims and distribute aid to some areas.

Michael Annear, Southeast Asia Regional Disaster Management Co-ordinator for the International Red Cross, said the organization did deal with some hassle in starting its operations, but things are improving.

"Initially, there was some slight delay (on obtaining visas)," Annear said during a conference call Thursday, "(but) we've been quite successful in developing a system with the Myanmar embassies in other countries and also working from within the Myanmar Red Cross, who is working closely with the government to get approval for individuals to come in."

The personnel from the International Red Cross would be in addition to the Myanmar Red Cross, which has about 27,000 local volunteers working to help victims since the cyclone hit last Saturday.

The organization has a permanent delegation of workers in Yangon, with external experts also coming in to help. More technical delegates are expected to arrive Friday and through the weekend.

Annear says the familiarity local Red Cross volunteers have with the area and its culture are an asset in distributing materials - purchased locally - to the most vulnerable regions.

The Chinese Red Cross is also working with the Myanmar Red Cross Society to funnel aid into Myanmar.

In the case of supplies, it would seem to be the right thing to flood Yongyon airport with supplies on a dump-and-go basis and hope that the Burmese regime has strong enough instincts for compassion and self-preservation and the Red Cross has enough access and capability to push the food and equipment out to the afflicted areas.

The Burmese regime may be more corrupt and inept than most, but totalitarian regimes tend to be rather good at disaster relief, when the security mechanisms for monitoring and control can shift to humanitarian outreach. Its performance in this unprecedented national crisis will be a key test of whether it can continue to cling to power.

When one looks at the Western response in detail, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Western governments are exploiting the suffering to dramatize the weaknesses of the Burmese regime and undermine its legitimacy and rule—and that the Western media is enamored of the narrative that the United States can stand in judgment of the rest of the world on disaster relief *cough* Katrina and humanitarian intervention *cough* Iraq to the point of self-delusion.

That’s not a narrative that Myanmar’s Asian neighbors are particularly interested in.

One could draw the conclusion that, in the matter of Cyclone Nargis, self-serving outrage is a monopoly of the Western powers, but meaningful assistance is not.

While reporting the high-profile complaints of the UN, Europe, and the United States, the Independent noted in passing:

Navy ships from India and planes from Japan, Thailand, Singapore, Laos and Bangladesh have arrived in recent days with medicine, candles, instant noodles, raincoats and other relief supplies.

From Bangkok, Canwest acknowledged that aid was arriving, and reported the self-inflicted difficulties faced by the Western countries:

Only "friendly" governments such as China, India and Thailand have been allowed to help so far, and even they have been limited to delivering supplies and leaving.

This kind of "drop-off assistance" does not sit well with many Western governments, however. After years of ignoring calls for reform and sloughing off punishing sanctions, most governments do not trust the Myanmar generals to distribute the aid on offer, rather than stockpile it for themselves and the military.

The Western-powers versus Asia dynamic played itself out in an interesting way in the UN Security Council.

The French representative dutifully followed up on Bernard Kouchner’s “responsibility to protect” scheme by floating the idea of Security Council intervention in an e-mail.

China, Russia, Vietnam, South Africe, and Indonesia publicly slapped it down.

Indonesia, one might recall, was a major beneficiary of foreign assistance in Aceh following the devastating 2004 tsunami and might be considered sympathetic to the idea of accelerated and forcible humanitarian access.

But it drew the opposite conclusion, according to Xinhua:

Based on Indonesia's past experiences in dealing with disasters, especially the 2004 deadly tsunami, [Indonesia’s UN ambassador] Natalegawa said that most probably the aid delivery efforts were hampered by conditions in the field. "It's quite possible that the obstacles hampering the relief assistance delivery are not caused by political things, but by the complexity of conditions in the field," he said.

Indonesia went on to state:

"We think there are other better forums to discuss the humanitarian dimension of the Myanmar situation," Indonesian Ambassador Marty Natalegawa told reporters ahead of a Security Council meeting."There is a already a readiness on the part of Myanmar to open itself to assistance," he said. "The last thing we would want is to give a political spin to the technical realities and the situation on the ground."

The Chinese went public with their displeasure, and even the chief UN aid guy was cool to the idea.

Beijing's deputy permanent representative, Ambassador Liu Zhenmin, made it clear that China, which has veto powers on the council, opposed any involvement of the U.N. Security Council.

"The current issue of Myanmar is a natural disaster," he said. "It's not an issue for the Security Council. It might be a good issue for other forums of the U.N."

Liu said the council should not politicize the issue and should "let the humanitarian assistance go on."

U.N. humanitarian affairs chief John Holmes has indicated that the French approach would not be helpful and could be seen by some as confrontation.

Western diplomats acknowledged that it would be difficult to persuade skeptics on the council about the need for getting the council involved. Council diplomats said Washington was among the most supportive of the French idea.

One might say that the West overreached, scored an own goal, gave up the moral high ground, picked up a stone to throw and instead dropped it on its own foot, or (insert suitable metaphor here) by pushing Kouchner’s over-the-top proposal.

One might also say that the people of Myanmar would have been better served by a prompt release of aid that erred on the side of compassion and trust, instead of wasting time at the UN Security Council on futile jibber-jabber concerning the fantasy of forcible humanitarian intervention or haggling over the access of our experts.

Instead, intensive diplomatic efforts could have been devoted to negotiating a genuine, life-saving measure: permitting US helicopter crews to fly humanitarian missions to cut-off villages.

Asian disaster relief is, interestingly, an important role for the United States military, in particular the U.S. Navy.

Since we are technically at peace with all of the states in the western Pacific and Indian Oceans—at least until the next war—the Navy needs an excuse to keep steaming around there, making port calls, and making the case for a sustained US military presence out there.

One mission the US Navy has claimed is humanitarian assistance in the wake of natural disasters, most conspicuously and successfully demonstrated in the case of the case of the 2004 tsunami.

The Navy has a ship in the area, the Essex, that could provide 19 helicopters with cargo lift capability, and it would be nice to see them deployed to get supplies to people desperately clinging to life in the flooded Irrawaddy delta.

Unfortunately, USAID’s Ky Luu, got a little carried away and proposed that the US military drop supplies without permission of the Myanmar government.

Secretary of Defense Gates, who seems to be the sole voice of reason in the Bush administration these days, quashed the idea, stating:

"I cannot image us going in without the permission of the Myanmar government."

Presumably, Secretary Gates drew the conclusion that nothing would discredit the humanitarian mission of the US military in Asia quicker than unapproved operations.

Nobody’s going to welcome the 7th Fleet in the region if they are worried about helicopters full of Marines buzzing across the horizon to “rescue” some pro-US rebel group from an attack by government forces on the pretext of a rainstorm.

Even under the most favorable of circumstances, a deal on US forces flying missions into Myanmar would probably be unachievable.

But, given the unnecessary and quite possibly cynically deliberate two-step on admission of US and UN aid workers, it’s impossible, and many people may die as a result.

In the wake of the disaster and the politicized Western posturing, I think that there will be an assessment that an effective, non-US disaster relief capability needs to be present in the region—from Indonesia, India, or China.

The Chinese may be quick to jump on the opportunity.

As the AP pointed out:

China is a relative newcomer to major international disaster relief operations and its armed forces, despite their vast size, have limited capacity for quickly delivering supplies beyond its borders.

Beijing may decide it needs something like the Essex sailing around in the Pacific with helicopters on deck, ready to offer disaster relief both to its close and unpopular allies like Burma and any state that wants to avail itself of the resource—and not only for humanitarian reasons or to provide more opportunities for the display of Chinese soft-power benevolence.

A Chinese disaster relief capability would also deny the United States another pretext for a significant military presence in the west Pacific and Indian Ocean, and give the Chinese military forces humanitarian cover for development of their blue-water and regional force-projection capabilities.

And, when the Western posturing on Myanmar is recalled, Asian states might be willing to swallow their suspicions of Chinese military reach and accept Beijing instead of the United States as a primary provider of regional disaster relief.

That’s not good for us.

Even if the Myanmar regime collapses as a result of the post-cyclone chaos, that win may not be enough to compensate for the loss of US standing and prestige in the region.

Labels: Myanmar

Tsewang Rigzin, the head of the Tibetan Youth Congress, is getting some unwelcome attention from the Chinese press.

From the English People's Daily :

As the current president of the Tibetan Youth Congress (TYC), Tsewang Rigzin recently had an interview with the Milan-based Italian newspaper, Corriere Della Sera, and voiced stunning words that left people gasping with awe and bewilderment. For the cause of "Tibetan independence", he said, the use of human bomb for revenge is a direction of development.

I'm afraid I can't improve on that English.

All I can provide is the automatic Google translation of Tsewang Rigzin's interview with Corriere Della Serra on March 27, which gives us:

Not now. Maybe in a few years. But could the moment for the Tibetan resistance movement to adopt the way of suicide bombers already in vogue in the Muslim world. Suicide attacks in Lhasa: it seems to contradict everything from half a century featuring the figure of the Dalai Lama and the struggle of his people against the 'Chinese occupation.

But for Tsewang Rigzin, from four months president of the Tibetan Youth Congress, is "a development that possible. "Everything is open. It is a fact that non-violence preached by the Dalai Lama there leads nowhere. On the contrary, has enabled the Chinese espellerci [to expel us] from our homeland and to continue the genocide of our cultural and religious traditions. So could soon get the 'time to change strategies to combat ", argues in his office tree in the hills of Dharamsala, where the Tibetan government in exile. Born in India in 1971 by parents refugees, moved after 12 years in the United States, from one year Rigzin has left his wife and two children to devote himself to his mission of leading the Tibetan movement stronger among those not linked to the Dalai Lama.

Your goal? "Restoring the 'independence of our country, at every price. But we have to hurry. Each day that passes away our goal, species after the construction of the railway that since 2006 more easily connects Beijing to Tibet ".

The Dalai Lama threat to resign if the violence continued anti-Chinese. "He has already threatened other times. Please note that the initial events, March 10, were peaceful. Chinese police has infiltrated agents in the crowd to discredit the movement. Were they who foment violence ".

What is your response to those who say that the world sympathy for your cause is mainly due to non-violence? 'I answer that pacifism has led us on a blind alley. About us speaks only so incidental, limited. We are forgotten by the international community. Many fine words and then nothing. We look instead as they felt the Palestinians and activists in Iraq thanks to the suicide attacks. L 'attention of world media is all for them. "

Yes, but attention does not mean support. "We are in a desperate situation. If non-violence was winning would mean that our cause is. Instead we are losing. "

Worldwide growing voices of those who would boycott the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games. "We hope that in so many to follow the 'example of President Sarkozy. But it would be better if the Games were boicottati tout court. [I’ll go out on a non-Italian speaking limb and guess this means “it would be better if the entire games were boycotted.”]

The China accusation of racism against its civilians in Lhasa. "I am sorry that civilians are involved in the clash. But the responsibility is the Chinese government, which encourages its people to occupy our lands. At the end will have to go, just so we can get our country and peace. "

Not good.

Not a good idea for Tsewang Rigzin to kick back in his “office tree in the hills”—apparently his office amid the tree-lined hills of Dharmsala, though the idea of an office tree is ridiculously charming—and talk about how his differences with the Dalai Lama go beyond independence vs. autonomy to violence vs. non-violence

And not a good idea for Tsewang Rigzin to use his press availability to complain that the international community isn't giving the Tibetan movement adequate attention—because it isn't violent enough.

In case there is some misunderstanding, when I report on the Tibetan People's Uprising Movement—a coalition of five Tibetan emigre NGOs including the Tibetan Youth Congress—I don't give credence to the Chinese accusations that TPUM or TYC are terrorist organizations with training camps, fighters, and the means or strategy to coordinate violent actions throughout the Tibetan regions of China.

There is plenty of local anger and courage to spark sympathetic demonstrations and violent confrontations against Chinese rule throughout Tibet without outside direction.

But I do see the Tibetan Youth Congress as media provocateurs—who might have been tempted to do some dangerous dabbling inside Tibet.

Specifically, I wonder if TPUM encouraged a non-violent protest in Lhasa in order to provide a compelling Tibetan backdrop for its campaign to embarrass and pressure China on the occasion of the Beijing Olympics--and then watched the situation spin out of control into rioting and violence thanks to some unknown and unknowable combination of anger, hooliganism, and police provocation.

Especially when I read Tsewang Rigzin's statement (the translation seems to be accurate but I've appended the original Italian at the end of this post for interested readers):

Please note that the initial events, March 10, were peaceful. Chinese police has infiltrated agents in the crowd to discredit the movement.

I think:

Discredit what movement? Is he claiming the March 10 demonstrations in Lhasa were related to the Tibetan People's Uprising Movement? And, given the the lack of advance notice of the protests in the Bokhar and the speed with which chaos subsequently enveloped Lhasa, what privileged perspective from Dharmsala enables him to characterize the “initial events as peaceful”. How does he know?

His remarks make it sound like the initial demonstrations were planned in Dharmsala.

Not good at all, especially since the Indian government has absolutely no interest in being accused by China of providing a safe haven on its soil for Tibet independence militants planning actions inside the PRC.

Tsewang Rigzin was also a featured presence in the Chinese edition of People's Daily, in the context of a vitriolic attack on the Tibetan Youth Congress.

His remark about suicide bombers was skewed to make it sound like the Tibetan Youth Congress's immediate action plan, instead of hypothetical musings from the office tree:

“西藏抵抗运动要采取自杀式暴力手段来进行”

“The Tibet resistance movement shall adopt violent suicide measures to proceed.”

The article takes it from there, with allegations that, needless to say, I haven't seen anywhere else:

On March 15, the Tibetan Youth Congress convened a meeting in Dharmasala and unanimously passed a decision “to immediate organize guerillas to secretly cross the border to initiate armed struggle” and set plans to dispatch people, money, and arms,and inflitrate across the China-Nepal border along secret ways scouted before the onset of the current disturbances. The chairman of the Tibetan Youth Congress, Tsewang Rigzin, acknowledged that that they wre prepared to sacrifice an additional 100 Tibetan lives in order to secure victory.
...

Specialists told reporters, on March 20 Tibetan Youth Congress Chairman Tsewang Rigzin convened a meeting in Dharmsala and announced “Violent activities have basically achieved the expected results in awakening the awareness of resistance within the Tibetan areas of the country, and eliciting a high level of attention in the international community toward the Tibetan question. However, resistance activities cannot cease. These activities are merely a prelude to this year's resistance activities.”

After these dubiously sourced allegations, the kitchen sink: accusations of operating terrorist training camps and contacts with the “terrorist, Xinjiang splittist” East Turkestan movement.

And the payoff:

“Experts say that, because of its long history of violent behavior, the Tibetan Youth Congress has already reached the point of return, and is inexorably sliding into the chasm of terrorist behavior.”


The article tiptoes up to the point of directly accusing the Dalai Lama ( Zhong Nan Hai-ologists, please take note that the phrase "Dalai Lama clique" explicitly excludes the Dalai Lama himself; when China wants to reference or criticize him personally, it's usually “the 14th Dalai Lama ” or “the Dalai") of having a secret understanding with the Tibetan Youth Congress by which he takes the high, non-violent road and TYC takes the low road to promote Tibetan independence.

Experts are quoted as asking :

The guiding directive of the Tibetan Youth Congress clearly states that it is to respect the correct leadership and guidance of the Dalai Lama. If that is the case, how can the Dalai Lama himself say he has lost control?

The inevitable conclusion—the demand that the Dalai Lama denounce the Tibetan Youth Congress and institutionalize and exacerbate the already deep and dangerous split between moderates and radicals in the Tibetan community—comes in the last paragraph:

"Of course, we want to discriminate between the majority of the 30,000 members of the Tibetan Youth Congress and a very small number of key cadres. Many members do not advocate violence”; the specialist said, if the Dalai Lama sincerely wishes to improve relations with China, he should truly discard the advocacy of Tibetan independence, stop splitting the country, stop planning and inciting violent actions, stop disrupting the Beijing Olympics, and truly put a stop to the violent activities of the Tibetan Youth Congress and condemn its terrorist intimidation.



One might think that the designation of TYC as a terrorist organization and a demand that the Indian government suppress it can't be far behind.

But the tenor of this paragraph indicates that the Chinese government is willing to let the Tibetan Youth Congress survive and satisfy itself with the condemnation of “a very small number of key cadres”.

Among that “very small number of key cadres” is undoubtedly a certain president of the Tibetan Youth Congress who made some injudicious comments while on Indian soil concerning the legitimacy of violent struggle,and whose political future is now in doubt.

È bene tenere conto che le manifestazioni iniziali, il 10 marzo, furono pacifiche. Please note that the initial events, March 10, were peaceful. La polizia cinese ha infiltrato agenti tra la folla per screditare il movimento. Chinese police has infiltrated agents in the crowd to discredit the movement. Sono stati loro a fomentare le violenze». Were they who foment violence ".

Labels: Tibet, Tsewang Rigzin