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
I am not convinced by the thesis that natural disasters can by themselves effect welcome political change. At the most, they can sometimes act as a catalyst, as was most likely the case in East Pakistan; as Mark Pelling and Kathleen Dill put it in a paper for Chatham House two or three years ago, the most one can hope for is that ‘they put into process potentially provocative social processes’, which might lead to a more strenuous form of agitation. And it would seem to follow from this that the more readily the Burmese government allows outsiders into their country, and the more effectively these outside agencies are seen to operate, the greater the chance for change.
That said, Bangladesh would most likely have clawed its way to independence without the 1970 cyclone and, arguably, the most exacerbating factor in encouraging dissent there was the government’s geographical remoteness from the afflicted area. The Burmese capital Rangoon, meanwhile, copped the full brunt of the cyclone. Elsewhere there has been little evidence of long-term political change occurring in the wake of disaster. It is true that the Sumatran tsunami probably hastened the speed with which the Free Aceh Movement (GAM), which had been fighting a long and at times extremely violent guerrilla war, agreed to discuss peace terms with the Indonesian government. And it is true too that the eventual peace agreement, brokered by the west, has pretty much held even until today. But equally, both the GAM and the government in Jakarta were already on trajectories which made some sort of agreement highly likely, even before the tsunami wrought its devastation.
For Burma, the best hope is that the charities and the UN go in and open up the country in a manner which has not been possible for 30 or so years. But I would not bet that this will happen.
More articles from: Rod Liddle | this section
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
Martin Vander Weyer looks ahead to next week’s Pre-Budget Report and reflects on George Osborne’s contentious remarks about the devaluation of sterling. It looks like Gordon Brown is getting away with his borrowing binge — leaving the Tories isolated
The movie W. did not provide the crude anti-Bush agitprop that the reviewers craved, says Rod Liddle. This was precisely its strength: we need to get inside the minds even of those we most deplore
In the wake of Cameron’s decision to drop his pledge to match Labour spending, Fraser Nelson and Daniel Fin kelstein of the Times trade rhetorical blows over the issue that is gripping and troubling the Conservative party as it adjusts to the transformed economic context
Bryan Forbes remembers listening to Churchill as a 14-year-old evacuee and now looks with envy at Obama’s capacity to galvanise hope. Where are his UK counterparts?
The first takeaways originated about 150 million years ago, says Christopher Lloyd; global travel is pretty ancient, too. And as for democracy...
Sarfraz Manzoor finds a sense of liberation as he travels to Durness in Scotland, slipping out of the clothes of his ethnicity, and exploring what it means to be British
James Delingpole meets the Gurkha veterans seeking citizenship rights in the courts and says that, this time, the government has picked the wrong fight
Christina Lamb interviews the husband of the late Benazir Bhutto, Asif Ali Zardari, who hopes to be named President of Pakistan this Saturday
The measures on ‘gas-guzzling’ cars, policing of wheelie bins and surcharges on plastic bags are based on scientific fads and, often, the government’s greed for taxpayers’ money, says Rod Liddle. The Third World won’t pay the price, and nor will big business — but we will
Both Britain and America are reluctant to admit it but, says Fraser Nelson, our most pressing foreign policy problem is what to do about Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state in which terrorists have taken sanctuary
Build your own Sky package online. Sky TV, Broadband & Talk only £17.
Subscribe to Sky from £16 a month. Get free equipment and free broadband - Join Now. Sky HD - be amongst the first to have it - order now.
Build your own Sky package online. Sky TV, Broadband & Talk only £17.
Subscribe to Sky from £16 a month. Get free equipment and free broadband - Join Now. Sky HD - be...
PORTA METRONIA, ROME Standing high on the top of one of the seven hills of Rome- the Coelian- this unique
ROME and PARIS: over 350 holiday rentals apartments listed: visit www.romanreference.com and www.parisreference.com or call +39 0648 903612.
Goldsmiths by Design Welcome to Ruffs! You have found a company of Goldsmiths that specialises in the manufacture, amongst other
Spectator Business | Apollo Magazine
Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2008 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
gerry
May 7th, 2008 6:09pmAnother 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 9:37amThank 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 7:47pmYes, 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.