Should the UN takeover Myanmar?

Why bother?

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

You know somethings wrong when the main body of the thread is shorter then the posters signature.
It is like an essay paper that merely says,


Cheese and Unicorns

Discuss


In fact I can sum this up with one letter of the alphabet. . .


Y

__________________

You've skipped a step. The UN can't take over Myanmar until someone with lots of guns tosses out the ruling junta.

No need:

__________________
*

Well that is what I am saying ... I mean basically they are letting their people die.
At what point should someone step in and take over the country.

Ok, for those who have been living under a rock for a few weeks, a cyclone devastated large swathes of Burma (or Myanmar, I'll stick with Burma for now) killing over 20,000 and the projected death toll is over 100,000. This is largely because of the appalling response of the Burmese government to the disaster.

Because of their human rights record (earlier this year there were pro-democracy protests, and the junta just ordered their troops to fire into the crowds, hundreds died) they are terrified of letting in western (or just foreign) people into the country to see the scale of their repression. As a result they are denying access to pretty much all aid workers and experts who could manage a disaster of this immense scale.

They are also refusing to let in the majority of aid into the country. Huge stockpiles are building up on the border with Thailand, they have turned planes carrying aid back and most of what little has made it through has been impounded by the Burmese authorities.

I'm trying to remain impartial here, but the fact is that the ruling junta doesn't give a peseta about their people are dying in their thousands because of the junta's prejudices and political foibles. The United Nations has a duty of care towards victims of natural disasters and there are suggestions that if the Burmese government fails to provide for its people in such a time of need, and even worse deliberately obstructs others trying to help, then more lives may be saved by kicking the junta out so aid workers can go about their business unobstructed.

The problem is that China has a policy of non-interference in their backyard and will inevitably veto such a suggestion. Also no nation really has the spine to stump up significant military force to enable a UN military operation, and even if the UN got it all together by the time troops were in the country it would already be too late.

A more realistic suggestion is to air drop aid by parachute, but due to the unpredictability and cost of such an operation it is questionable as to whether it would be more effective than the paltry amounts of aid getting through as it is.

Either way the situation is a terrible mess because of the actions of the Burmese government, and I can't see how any so called civilized society can stand idly by without making those monsters pay dearly for what they've done. This disaster was caused by natural causes, but the genocide that will ensue will have been created entirely by human neglect.

__________________
"Bessie Braddock to Churchill "Winston, your drunk!"
Churchill: "Bessie, you're ugly, and tomorrow morning I shall be sober""
the solar system

More on the country's name (changed by the military government in 1989).Map

__________________
*

You know this thread is political and will be locked by tomorrow, right?

__________________
Rovers forever! - ToSeek
"The only way to explore the universe is to go and look." - Brian Cox
Well, the best way to find out is to go there and, find out. - Raven's Cry
'Evolution and science are one thing, but you don’t mess with Yoko Ono. Everybody knows that. ' - 386sx

"...Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
...And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'..."
- Bob

__________________
*

Yeah. We should invade any country that does not do what we want them to do!! Sometimes you gotta kill 'em to save 'em!! :rolls eyes:

Not that this at all political.

They can't; Myanmar is a member (19 April 1948).

Charter of the United Nations

__________________
*

I was going to say something like that, but actually I don't think membership has much to do with it. Rather, there is no provision, AFAIK, in the charter for "taking over" a country, since that presumably means becoming the government of that country. Chapter VII of the charter outlines intervention to counter "threats to the peace" and "acts of aggression." It would be pretty hard to make a case that a governnment mistreating its own people constitutes an act of aggression. The UN charter is clearly aimed at conflicts, not human rights violations, for example.

__________________
As above, so below

yes

__________________
The world breaks everyone and afterward many are strong in the broken places. ~ Ernest Hemingway ...

Again, the thread Title morphs:From the Charter:

__________________
*

Haven't the people of Burma suffered enough?

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

The response of the British government to the Irish famine of 1845-52 was despicable. It directly resulted in Ireland losing about 20% of its population (reckoned from the census of 1841 to that of 1851). And it set in motion a process of depopulation such that resulted in its population halving by the first world war. Ireland is one of the very few places in the world that has a smaller population today than it did 200 years ago. I don't think anyone had any thought of invading Britain so that they could go in and sort it out, though of course Britain being the leading world power at the time might have put people off.

The Great Leap Forward was a self-inflicted disaster in China under Mao, who seemed (at least according to his latest contentious biography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao:_The_Unknown_Story) to have had very little concern about loss of life in the population. Plenty more where they came from, seems to have been his thought. Estimates of mortality range from 14m to 43m http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward, and that is just one of his trying little schemes, later came the Cultural Revolution. I don't think anyone had in mind invading the place to try and sort it out. Since Mao tried to avoid anyone entering or leaving the country to tell us about it, we didn't know very much about it at the time.

Than Shwe is one of the more egregiously callous national leaders at present around, with very competence in economics and development, although he demonstrates some considerable competence at remaining in charge (rather like Mao really). But actually he is rather less bad the previous chap. Ne Win was the guy who really impoverished the place by introducing the "Burmese Way to Socialism", and ruled the country on astrological principles. This resulted in bank-notes in unusual quantities such as 35 and 90; and driving on the right in an area of the world where everyone else drives on the left, so that available vehicles are mostly right-hand-drive. Ne Win also wins the prize for world's most incompetently rigged election, they managed to lose it by a ratio 20:80. He did in fact finally retire at that point, but the military just carried on running the place. Curiously a Burmese, U Thant, was secretary-general of the United Nations for 10 years during this period.

Like Iraq, Myanmar is a rather artificial construct. There is a central area where most of the people are Burmans, who are in fact rather numerous, perhaps two thirds the population, but they cover a modest proportion of the land area. But then all the way around the edges, which is rather hilly or mountainous country, are all sorts of other people, often not even in contiguous areas. The government recognises about 70 different ethnicities. (A substantial refugee problem exists in relation to one major group they don't recognise, the Rohingya.) At least in recent years the government has achieved ceasefires with nearly all of the large number of "liberation armies" that used to operate, sometimes several competing ones to an ethnic group. As we remember in Yugoslavia and Iraq, there is actually something to be said for peace. Previously there had been a situation of almost permanent insurrection by many of these various people going back as long as anyone can remember. And not all of these liberation armies have especially benign intentions, Myanmar being a big drugs-growing area.

Whilst certainly Myanmar deserves better government, can you imagine what kind of appalling crisis would be set off by an intervention?

Snipped

If one weren't careful, that would be called WWIII. Intervention is the stickiest thing for any country to do, and the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

For example, who decides when a country gets interventioned? The UN? Cant by its own rules. The US? Kinda busy with the last intervention. Russia? The have a long habit of not leaving after they show up. The EU? Them and what army? (no offence)

Then, what about other places like the one that is getting interventioned? Going after Burma may cause North Korea to decide they have nothing to lose. Half a dozen African countries might end up thinking they were in the same boat and start snipping off bits of neighbors. Then there are the Chinese and Russians. If one of them were to decide they didnt like the way the wind was blowing, they each have big armies and nukes to play with.

Hence the WWIII reference above.

In a perfect world, yes, the thugs in Burma would get tossed. Only problem is, we dont live in a perfect world

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.