There is a
strange article on Burma in today’s New York Times, bylined “The New York Times,” which purports to show the beginnings of a political opening in that country, mainly in the form of increased government cooperation with foreign aid and relief organizations. If the junta has loosened its grip somewhat in that regard, good. But there’s a whiff of revisionism running through the piece.
In the days after the cyclone, the generals who run Myanmar did not know what, literally, had hit them. The scale of the disaster was beyond their imagining — and then beyond their acknowledging. French and U.S. naval ships carrying aid supplies waited just offshore for more than two weeks while the generals dithered. Finally, lacking permission to deliver the aid, the ships withdrew.
“The generals thought it was just another typical cyclone, where the army would hand out some rice and a few tarps and that would be it,” said a senior U.N. program director who spoke anonymously for fear of angering the government. “The regime made some shocking mistakes early on, really horrible, when they blocked the aid. But these were decisions driven by national pride. They thought, ‘We can handle this on our own.’ With all the international furor, they finally realized, ‘This is way, way too big for us.’ And after that, they did a lot. A huge national response occurred.”
Reporting done immediately after the cyclone made it pretty clear that the junta indeed knew a huge cyclone was coming and warned nobody. Then they compounded that crime by punishing the affected population further. Burmese who have set up independent aid initiatives in the delta have been
jailed. What of their fate? The Times should have sought and reported this information.
Then there’s this quote from a Doctors Without Borders representative:
“You can work here [in Burma] very well, and to say that you can’t is a lie,” said Frank Smithuis, a physician and the longtime country director for Médecins Sans Frontières. “Look, the human rights record is shaky, yes, and it’s politically nice to beat up Burma, but the military has actually been quite helpful to us.”
Shaky? The human rights record is utterly deplorable. It’s “politically nice to beat up Burma”? As if denouncing the regime’s appalling abuses is something frivolous, fashionable. I understand, Mr. Smithuis has to deal with the generals in order to get things done. I admire MSF and I’ve given them money. But soft-pedaling the critique of this government in such a way, and implying that human rights advocates are the troublesome ones, is galling.
And to award the military high marks for being helpful — this reminds me of a Chris Rock routine mocking an indignant African-American parent who says, “I take care of my kids.” Rock shouts in response: “You’re supposed to take care of your kids!”
The article reports a possible change of tone from the Obama administration, which I support. One of the president’s best
Inaugural lines was this: “To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.” As is often the case, Obama’s position is my position exactly. I’m far from sure it makes sense to isolate a regime bent on isolating itself. However, there needs to be a clear accounting of the regime’s crimes, above all a constant awareness that the current rulers decisively lost an election in 1990. The fact that nearly 20 years later, after willfully and heartlessly bungling the cyclone response, they’re finally allowing some food and development aid through, does not qualify them for any humanitarian awards.
