Download the Kiva toolbar! - (what's this?)

May 23, 2012, 06:13:53 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register (it's quick and free!) for full access to all community features and functions, including instant messaging and message viewing preferences.

Login with username, password and session length

Cool Forum Options
: Not available. Login or register :)
: Popular Topics on Kiva Friends

Kivapedia
: View recent changes on Kivapedia
: Online shopping that helps support Kiva
: List of Kiva microfinance institutions
: List of Kiva group lenders
: Kiva Timeline : More...


.
Welcome to Kiva Friends, an active community for Kiva users, staff and supporters. Don't know what Kiva is? Read this!
   
   Home   Search Calendar Help Tags Login Register  

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Down
  Bookmark This  |  E-Mail This  |  Print It  
Author Topic: Burma (aka Myanmar)  (Read 9826 times)
0 Members and 3 Guests were last seen viewing this topic.
KivanSteven
Kiva Supporter
near Niagara Falls NY
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 2294



View Profile
WWW
« Reply To This #20 on: May 20, 2008, 10:47:19 AM »

Is Burma a member of the UN?

Also, what could really transpire between Burma and the world if the US and other countries entered Burma to assist and rescue these people?  Burma has absolutely no upper hand, nothing to use against the world, no threats to make, no real military or power to stand on.  They would be crazy to raise a single weapon against US or UN humanitarian workers, or against American ships and planes.  So what is the hold up?  Maybe the precedent set by the world entering a sovereign country?  Is the loss of life worth preventing a new precedent from being set?
Logged

I find not direction in the readings of those with whom my eccentricities are similar, but rather validation.

My only solace is that I find a peaceful place where I might be resigned to my depriving loneliness.
Sherri
Kiva Supporter
Ontario, Canada
*****
Gender: Female
Posts: 507


Web Developer

View Profile
WWW
« Reply To This #21 on: May 20, 2008, 01:44:51 PM »

Burma has allies and/or other countries that would not look kindly on the precedent set by one country tramping on the sovereignty of another (though whether the current Burmese government has legit sovereignty is laughable). China for example is not too keen on the US marching in there to deliver aid, because China has a history of being poorly equipped to handle natural disasters in their own country. So they would not welcome the US marching into China to deliver aid. So China is not backing the US/UN whispers of going in there against the Burmese government's will. And China has veto power (I think) against any such UN initiative.

It's a tangled political web. Though I can't see the US actually doing anything like this, especially since Burma doesn't have any oil that needs 'saving'.

And no, Burma/Myanmar is not a member of the UN... because their government is not seen as being legit.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2008, 01:47:05 PM by Sherri » Logged

cpbailey
Kiva Supporter
*****
Posts: 2083



View Profile
« Reply To This #22 on: May 20, 2008, 02:35:47 PM »

I think an individual going into Burma would sorely stick out, and it would be at risk of life and limb.  It is a mess.  As long as the need to hide how inept a country is exceeds its need of self-preservation...hmmm, sounds like someone in need of rehab!  Continuing to do what is harmful and denial about the need to change the course.  Advice is often that the individual needs to WANT to change.  Sometimes there are innocent victims in either case. 

And don't even suggest arming the people to overthrow the government.  Oh, boy...that worked so well in other countries!

Colette
Logged
Soriak
Kiva Supporter
New York
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 281


View Profile
« Reply To This #23 on: May 20, 2008, 03:57:16 PM »

And don't even suggest arming the people to overthrow the government.  Oh, boy...that worked so well in other countries!

It's not the worst strategy. Just have to remember the follow-up. For example, the US proxy war with Russia in Afghanistan worked extremely well - and was also very necessary. (the soviet occupation was responsible for over a million Afghan civilian deaths) After the Russians were driven out the money dried up though, which created a power vacuum and gave rise to the extremist warlords. Some money towards education and post-war reconstruction would have saved us a lot of trouble now... but funding for small, peaceful activities is always harder to come by than the more spectacular projects.

Not that I'm generally in favor of overthrowing governments, but there are a few candidates where it might just work. In Burma, for example, the people had an election that the other party won - they largely ended up in jail. I don't think there'd be a massive uprising if the junta were removed from power and the legitimate elected officials put in its place instead. (or an election were held immediately)
Logged

Do you BOINC?
cpbailey
Kiva Supporter
*****
Posts: 2083



View Profile
« Reply To This #24 on: May 20, 2008, 04:57:23 PM »

Irking China seems like waking a giant...so I don't know.  Bush would have to be downright stupid to do that.  He isn't that stupid.   Wink  Undecided

Colette
Logged
KivanSteven
Kiva Supporter
near Niagara Falls NY
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 2294



View Profile
WWW
« Reply To This #25 on: May 20, 2008, 05:33:34 PM »

There is a reason they are paranoid of the outside world, especially the US, because the idea of sovereignty, obviously a legitimate one for every nation, is the only thing that could stop another nation from installing the democracy that was intended by the people within that country some time ago.  From what I understand and have read they are a very weak small unit regime.  Of course wouldnt want to upset China who would oppose anyone doing much of anything in Burma, even if humanitarian, due to its proximity to China itself.

Maybe Burma fears that a large world presence in the country would encourage their own people to rise up in that they may feel they symbolically have the protection and safeguard of any American or UN troops or aid workers.

Also any nation that is not represented by the UN should not have the courtesy extended to them to speak before the UN and set terms and conditions for what the UN can or cannot do to help these people, if at all.  Last year Burma's ambassador to the UN was Kyaw Tint Swe.  Not sure if that remains the case presently.
Logged

I find not direction in the readings of those with whom my eccentricities are similar, but rather validation.

My only solace is that I find a peaceful place where I might be resigned to my depriving loneliness.
Peter S
Kiva Supporter
CA
*****
Posts: 2059



View Profile
« Reply To This #26 on: May 21, 2008, 01:11:28 AM »

Is Burma a member of the UN?
[...]

Yes, Burma/Myanmar is a member of the UN, as Myanmar, see http://www.un.org/members/list.shtml#m  The UN allows member states to call themselves what they like, but of course the English transliteration of the name of the country is a highly controversial issue.  The opposition take the view that the illegitimate military junta had no authority to make the official change in 1989 from Burma to Myanmar, see here. Referring to the country as Myanmar subtly endorses the legitimacy of the junta, which is why for example the US Department of State's list of world countries has it as Burma. I have not checked how the likes of the New York Times and CNN justify referring to Burma as Myanmar, when other prominent.media such as the BBC and The Washington Post consistently refer to it as Burma.

[...]
 Burma doesn't have any oil that needs 'saving'.
[...]

Well perhaps not in quantities sufficient to make it worth liberating, but it does have oil and gas, much of it exported to Thailand and China, representing a significant proportion of Burma's foreign earnings, and sustaining the junta in power.   This page at the Human Rights Watch website, headed "Burma: Foreign Oil and Gas Investors Shore Up Junta" is very informative on that issue - http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/burma/drilling/  For anyone who doesn't have the time to get to grips with the information there, you might want to be aware that the French oil company Total, with its US partner Chevron, has exploration and exploitation interests in Burma, as does for example the South Korean industrial giant, Daewoo.  Their participation tends to be dressed up as "constructive engagement", but sometimes they don't even bother to try to justify it. "Politics is politics. Economics is economics" says the representative of Daewoo Corporation, and Jean François Lassalle, Total’s director of external relations for exploration and production, stated last year that “it is difficult to condemn the ongoing repression because Total is not a moral or political authority..."  Those quotes are from a PDF linked on the hrw.org page referred to above.

To see how those oil and gas revenues, stolen by the junta from the people of Burma, get wasted on absurd luxuries, see this 2006 piece by Dan Rivers of CNN, on the occasion of the wedding of Senior General Than Shwe's daughter


Logged

verba volant, littera scripta manet
Sherri
Kiva Supporter
Ontario, Canada
*****
Gender: Female
Posts: 507


Web Developer

View Profile
WWW
« Reply To This #27 on: May 21, 2008, 07:18:02 AM »

Yes, Burma/Myanmar is a member of the UN, as Myanmar, see http://www.un.org/members/list.shtml#m 

Oh, they are in the UN!? I stand corrected. I could have sworn I heard the news talking about how Burma/Myanmar is trying to get in. Hmm.

I didn't know that about the oil in Burma. That's what I get for picking up my 'facts' from news satire.  Roll Eyes

Speaking of oil. MSN Canada has an interesting 'what if' article looking at what would happen if oil was $3/litre (roughly a little more than double what it is now). http://finance.sympatico.msn.ca/investing/insight/article.aspx?cp-documentid=7494346
« Last Edit: May 21, 2008, 07:23:04 AM by Sherri » Logged

Patricia SF
Kiva Supporter
*****
Posts: 713


Medicine Buddha (painting by Tibetan refugee)

View Profile
« Reply To This #28 on: May 27, 2008, 03:40:34 PM »

I did donate to Avaaz.org a few days ago after talking to one of their staff.  He tried to assure me that the money would reach the people without the Junta's knowlege.  I'm still not clear on how this can be possible, but I wanted and had to do something to help these people.

Hi all,

I'm posting the following hyperlink for those interested in how avaaz.org is attempting to transfer the aid money without the junta's seizure.  I find the inner workings interesting.

http://www.avaaz.org/en/burma_aid_report/5.php


Thank  you.

Patricia
Logged

Check out Postcrossing to send a postcard and receive a postcard back from a random person somewhere in the world!

www.postcrossing.com
Sengbe Pieh
Kiva Supporter
Plymouth, Minnesota
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 1234



View Profile
« Reply To This #29 on: May 30, 2008, 08:55:12 AM »

Let Them Eat Frogs
Burma's junta is willing to let its people starve while relief waits just offshore.

Washington Post Editorial Friday, May 30, 2008;

"THE SEARCH for food begins just after dawn," the Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday from a small, devastated village in Burma. "Each day, men, women and children fan out into paddies flooded by seawater, littered with corpses. Like prospectors working claims, they scoop up the muck in their bare hands and finger through it for grains of unmilled rice swept away by the cyclone. When their luck is good, they discover red chile peppers or small onions in mud reeking of the dead. Then, they can have condiments with their next meal of rotten rice and coconut meat."

If only those villagers had read the New Light of Myanmar! The official newspaper for the military junta in charge (Myanmar being the generals' name for the country) this week assured its readers that everything was returning to normal in Burma's Irrawaddy Delta. And, the junta also assured its readers, hunger could not be a problem, since farmers can gather water clover or "go out with lamps at night and catch plump frogs."

This might be funny were it not obscene. In fact, according to editor and columnist Aung Zaw of the exile magazine Irrawaddy, more than half of the 2.4 million people affected by the cyclone have yet to receive aid. Meanwhile, a U.S. naval task force consisting of the USS Essex and three other vessels has been steaming in circles offshore since Cyclone Nargis swept through Burma on May 2 and 3. According to Adm. Timothy Keating, head of the U.S. Pacific Command, the task force could deliver 250,000 pounds of relief material per day, by plane, helicopter and amphibious landing craft. "And the kids out there, the young sailors and Marines, are desperate to provide help," Adm. Keating said Wednesday. "Some of them have experience with the tsunami at Aceh. Some of them have experience with Cyclone Sidr in Bangladesh last Thanksgiving. So these guys, they know what they're doing and they know how much help they can provide just that quick. . . . And there would be significant materiel going ashore within an hour, I'd say."

So why are those villagers still scrounging? "As yet," Adm. Keating explained, "we don't have permission from Burma to conduct those operations."

That's right. Since the cyclone that left more than 100,000 people dead or missing, Burma's generals have found time to conduct a phony referendum to make military rule permanent; issue a decree extending the house arrest of democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi; detain many other democracy activists and ordinary civilians and monks trying to deliver aid to cyclone victims; harry and repulse foreign correspondents (the Los Angeles Times reporter quoted above had to file anonymously); and complain that foreign governments are being stingy with "reconstruction" aid. But the junta continues to prevent the kind of large-scale relief operation that the country needs, allowing in just enough private aid workers to defuse international pressure.

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was right to visit Burma and press the junta to admit more aid. But he was wrong, in explaining why he didn't say much there about Aung San Suu Kyi, to urge a "focus on people, not politics." It is politics -- the generals' politics -- that is killing uncounted numbers of children in Burma's delta. It is the generals' politics to rebuff emergency relief while demanding reconstruction loans that could make the junta richer. And it is the generals' politics that is forcing villagers to strain the mud for rotten rice while tons of clean food float unused not many miles away.                                                                                   


Burma's Rulers Sink To New Low                                                                                                                                     
Miami Herald Editorial Friday, May 30, 2008
In an appalling display of contempt for international public opinion and their own people, the generals who rule Burma have extended for one year the house arrest of democracy activist Aung San Suu Kyi. This completes a trifecta of tyranny for the junta. Over the past few weeks, it has denied access to international-aid workers following a devastating cyclone, held a sham referendum designed to tighten its grip on power and prolonged the punishment of the world's only imprisoned Nobel Peace Prize laureate. How's that for telling the world to go fly a kite?

Ms. Suu Kyi has been a target of the junta ever since she and her pro-democracy allies won the parliamentary elections of 1990 but were kept from taking office. She has spent 12 of the ensuing 18 years in jail or under house arrest. This time around, the generals didn't even bother to file new charges against her, as the nation's own laws dictate when extending an expired sentence. They did it because they can. They're used to thumbing their noses at the rest of the world and getting away with it.

Tuesday was also the anniversary of the abortive 1990 elections, prompting a few of Ms. Suu Kyi's allies to make a brave public protest against her detention. Most of them were immediately hauled away by the police -- par for the course in this forlorn country.

The mistreatment of Ms. Suu Kyi is symbolic of how little the junta led by Gen. Than Shwe cares for civil liberties, but hardly the only -- or worst -- abuse committed by the rulers. Out of paranoia or mere disdain for their own people, they have refused to cooperate fully with aid agencies trying to help victims of Cyclone Nargis, which left some 134,000 dead or missing.

The United Nations estimated that only 42 percent of the 2.4 million affected victims have received aid. On Wednesday, a frustrated U.S. Navy Adm. Timothy Keating, chief of the U.S. Pacific Command, said he probably will withdraw a group of naval vessels from nearby waters soon unless the government allows the ships to offload their relief supplies.

Despite the devastation, the junta forged ahead on May 10 with a vote on a new constitution that strengthens the power of the generals and bans Ms. Suu Kyi from holding public office -- ever. They claimed that 98 percent of voters turned out and that more than 92 percent endorsed their charter.

As absurd as this claim is, the generals will probably get away with it, as they have with previous power grabs, until the international community comes together at the United Nations or a similar forum to denounce the junta and demand freedom for Ms. Suu Kyi and better treatment for the people of Burma.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Up
  Bookmark This  |  E-Mail This  |  Print It  
 
Jump to:  

 
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Thanks to PixelSlot
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.139 seconds with 23 queries.