Don’t expect the cyclone in Burma to have benign political side-effects

07 May 2008

Rod Liddle says that there is a natural hope that the interventions of the UN and charities in the disaster-stricken country will open it up. But history does not support such optimism

A few score miles across the border from the old British colonial outpost of Cox’s Bazar in modern Bangladesh (an agreeable beachfront town which was itself smacked about by a cyclone in 1991), lies the benighted country of Burma — or Myanmar, take your pick — with its own handily funnel-shaped Irrawaddy river delta, anxious to receive ministrations from whatever tropical storm cycles are doing the rounds in that particular, stricken part of south-east Asia. The cyclone which hit the country last weekend has left perhaps 60,000 people dead, so far as we can tell.

Superficially, at least, there are similarities with the cyclone of 1970. A repressive and authoritarian government criticised for its secrecy, abuse of human rights and lack of democracy. A tardiness bordering on indifference towards the plight of its citizens. An incompetence in responding to the disaster and the intimation of dark motives on the part of its government ministers for refusing to acknowledge the scale of the problem. And a suspicion towards those Western governments and aid organisations which have expressed a wish to help. Foreign countries which want to help ‘will have to negotiate with the foreign ministry and senior authorities’, said the government spokesman Maung Maung Swe, a little haughtily. The generals are not known for their love of outside interference: back in 2004, they lied about the extent to which Burma had been affected by the Sumatran tsunami (eventually admitting that perhaps ‘40 to 60’ people had been killed, while some witnesses put the figure at perhaps ten times that amount) to the extent that they were initially left to cope alone by the aid agencies and official offers of help were rejected.

Even now, despite a more welcoming approach this time around from the foreign ministry, there is still the impression that the Burmese government would rather see its own people die than allow in meddling charities and the UN. And in the nastiest, most pragmatic terms, for the sake of its own survival as the world’s second or third worst government, it is probably right to be wary of outsiders coming in. Like North Korea, Burma’s government survives by imposing an almost total isolation upon its citizens.

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3 Next page

More articles from: Rod Liddle | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (3)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

gerry

May 7th, 2008 6:09pm Report this comment

Another contributing factor is, as with the Boxing Day tsunami, that the mangrove swamps which would have afforded some protection, had been destroyed.

Ilan Kelman

May 11th, 2008 9:37am Report this comment

Thank you for an excellent article with solid analysis. Liddle's comments are supported by extensive academic research into "disaster diplomacy" http://www.disasterdiplomacy.org But in this case, the media have been clamouring for the story that Cyclone Nargis will inevitably cause political change in Burma. Liddle avoids that bandwagon, presenting instead a realistic picture.

David Preiser

May 12th, 2008 7:47pm Report this comment

Yes, well said. One also hopes that people will apply this lesson to things like Ahmadinejad's appearance at Columbia University, the New York Philharmonic's appearance in North Korea, and the upcoming Olympics in China. Probably not, though.

Post comment