I think the frustration has had lots of countries just wanting to fly things in and drop them.

The UN wants to take care not to add a war on top of everything else and doesn't seem keen on people just dropping things from the air, lest people get into fights over what is dropped.

They just need to get the right people in to do the job and they can't really do that without permission. There are bodies decaying everywhere having just been left to rot for a week.

The worry now is of disease spreading.

7 days on and now it looks like people who originally survived are dying from lack of clean water and food.

The affected area apparently has about 19 million people and around two thirds of them are children.

UN impounded provisions are in warehouses while they removed things from planes handing one to the other and broadcasting on tv how well they are dealing with the situation and how wonderful their provisions are??

It just is unbelievable.

The Burmese ambassador to the UN has just announced that Burma will accept aid from "any corner of the world"
Myanmar ambassador: 'We will accept aid from any corner' - CNN.com

that is the link to the story

__________________
~John Locke

Discuss the Issue, Not the Poster

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not everyone is entitled to their own facts"
-Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan

"Great thoughts speak only to the thoughtful mind, but great actions speak to all mankind."
-Teddy Roosevelt

With all due respect I really don't think that such a comparison can be justified. In Berlin a city should be only hungered out, not starved to death. The communists thought that the western allies would give in before.

How many died in Berlin during that Luftbrücke, and how many died in Myanmar due to a natural disaster and it's aftermath?

They still have not agreed to allow foreign aid workers in though.

This certainly seemed yesterday to be what I was hearing was what was worrying the UN most. Burma just don't have the skill or the ability (only 6 helicopters I heard!) to do this. With the amount of people in remote areas that need to be found and the threat of disease from all the dead people and animals who need to be removed, plus obviously all the people who will need medical treatment.

They were saying yesterday that even if this happened in an area in the South of England, the UK would need outside help to deal with it.

Of course dealing with such a situation quickly is the most important thing. Again yesterday they were saying that there is a sort of 10 day thing. After this time, disease apparently becomes rampant.

So, I wonder if news services have decided to play all this down a bit to stop everyone from becoming enraged!

'On Friday Secretary General Ban Ki-moon warned of "catastrophic" consequences if Burma continues to ban most foreign aid workers from its cyclone relief work.'

'Two BBC correspondents who have travelled to the Irrawaddy delta say tens of thousands of bodies are strewn across the landscape, with houses toppled and trees uprooted.'

Both these quotes come from
BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Burma votes amid cyclone aid row

I also watched a film last night from an ITV reporter who had apparently got further into Burma than anyone else. There were dead bodies everywhere. He said the stench was awful.

The survivors were in a bad state and desperate for help.

I don't think the allowing in of some aid or even all aid is going to be the solution to this.

What is needed is people to do the distribution, to clear up and to give medical help.

I was wrong about anything quieting down in the news. It's still top of the news here despite the situation in the Lebanon.

People are now questioning why China does not put some pressure onto Burma to let people in, explaining to them why this is absolutely necessary.

People are still saying planes should just go in and drop supplies to the people, even though this would not solve need for medical help and prevention of disease....

and in an interview on BBC News24 people were discussing that if all the countries agreed it would probably only take a matter of hours to get rid of the regime in Burma and get on with the job of saving lives. The hope was that if that was suggested seriously to Burma, as a consequence to it if it refused to allow people in to help it's people, then they would probably agree without the need for force.

I should stress that this was just these people talking not Politicians or the UN whose stance has always been to try and take it gently and not frighten the regime at all.

But time is runing out.

TheStar.com | World | Burma allows some UN aid, snubs U.S. offer

I'm a strong supporter of Responsibility to Protect

__________________

This is really interesting smallpox. Yesterday I was listening to someone who I'm almost certain was a UN person saying how they were trying to get Burma to understand that all Governments had a duty or responsibility of protection towards their citizens.

I was puzzled by the words he chose as this seems more like a situation of rescue and help. It may be that this is being a bit more strongly considered than we believe.

Asia Times Online :: Southeast Asia news and business from Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam

That's exactly why Myanmar are rejecting US aid.

USA sent Special Force in Myanmar in 2003. They dropped them in Northern Myanmar jungles, but their mission failed. This is one of the reasons why Myanmar moved their capital from coastal Yangon to inlands. It is also not surprising Myanmar officials accept only American aid, but not people.

Well Responsibility to Protect can be evoked anytime the state is unwilling and incapable of providing the basis of security to their people. Human security can be vague and include such things that are directly needed for life. So when people are starving and hurt, and the state refuses to help them because it puts its own national image and politics above the well-being of the people, the state has essentially failed.

__________________