Left Flank

Matthew Lee pursues the question of which countries can aid Myanmar, by what the UN calls the "right to protect" (R2P). The Burmese case doesn't fall into the four categories, genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing or crimes against humanity, that would trigger R2P. That would rule out UN action. Mark Leon Goldberg, however, advocates a less rigorous criterion: "...the international community is permitted to violate the sovereignty of a country when that country is unwilling or unable to prevent mass atrocities from being visited upon its own citizens."

Although western-donated aid is mostly stymied by Burmese authorities, Chinese and Indian-donated aid has reached Myanmar, according to Lee's reporting. Spencer Ackerman confirms this willful obstructionism, and pleads for a solution, even by force. I think Lee is onto a pertinent issue: not R2P, but how states disburse aid.

...developments this week lead Inner City Press to wonder why China does not develop and publicize its own humanitarian machinery, its own Chinese Bernard Kouchner. It could fly aid into Yangon, and film itself doing it. It could say, "we don't need these Western NGOs, we'll do it ourselves." Supposedly China hired a U.S. public relations firm to burnish its image. Where are they? Then again, the Chinese mission has not done an on-camera stakeout interview outside the Council since October 2007.

On the other hand, or foot, at the Security Council stakeout after China's Amb. Liu said that China flew into Yangon "tents and money," one wag muttered, "And guns." Still another said that the French oil industry active in Myanmar ought to be delivering aid. We will continue to explore these issues.

There's a difference between France's hunger for limelight and PRC's quiet approach. Could this be the foundation of a Bolton-PRC alliance against UN empowerment explicit in R2P? I'm not comfortable with the notion of world government, but that doesn't rule out governance. There needs to be accountability somewhere, whether it's Beijing's responsibility or aid NGOs.

After reading O'Sullivan's Shrewd Sanctions: Statecraft and State Sponsors of Terrorism (2003) about a year ago, but this was the first time I've listened to her, particularly about the Iraq War. O'Sullivan disagrees with a Democratic proposal to withdraw precipitously, because withdrawal will cause Iraqi politicians to retreat into their partisan communities and eschew the sort of nationalizing reforms Baghdad needs to enact.

Of course, that's if one argues Iraq should, or can, achieve centralized, as opposed to a federal, government.

How much it warms my heart to hear Bryan Curtis dismiss the Olympics! And, Robert Lipsyte is right-watch a sporting event, but let's not make it into a big deal. Good people have better things to do than worry-or better ways to help-the Chinese people get respect.

I've watched coverage of Senator Obama's relationship with Reverend Jeremiah Wright pinching my nose. Perhaps, as Ross Douthat argued in another diavlog, the MSM's coverage and performances, showcasing a midrange between platform wonkery and character, are as good as Americans can expect.

Yet, I'm still dismayed. I expected more honesty about all the communities in America, and I expected Obama to lead the discussion. His dismissal of Reverend Wright smacked of opportunism, from a candidate, who, although speaking of transcending race, has the rhetorical ability, intelligence, and pulpit now to distance himself from his opponents. He could speak his mind to the people, as the people speak truth to power. If Douthat is right, Obama has a much steeper hill to climb for me to trust him now. Instead, he's balking.

I worry about the compromises I will have to make between the two Democratic candidates, between two politicians whose platforms I do not fully support. Both support universal health care, so I can hold my nose and vote Democratic. But, I'll be holding my breath for four years, on foreign and fiscal reforms.

Here's an excellent discussion about Reverend Wright, probably the best I've read or heard in the past few days.

Actually, this was an active day trip. with frequent stops and tight schedules. All that was missing was the sun for most of the day and an airplane to bypass the evening traffic returning to Busan.

Starting from Boseong to breathe in the tea-scented air and climb the terraced hill, we bought green tea. Oddly enough, my wife and I were only one of two customers for tea. Mostly, mothers bought tea-flavored candy, treats, and ice cream for the kids. The green tea is excellent, BTW. Then it was on to an organic farm to pick strawberries. After lunch at Nakan Folk Village we toured what my wife called «Korea's Williamsburg». Laypeople can sleep for a night within this actual village where the venue workers actually live. Note: the brown stuff is bondaegi (boiled silkworm larvae). They're quite good, but very rich-flavored.

Lastly, we went to Sonam Temple, one of the oldest-standing Buddhist temples to survive the Japanese invasion of the 17th Century.

I told my wife, instead of planning trips around battlefields (obviously not my appealing to my wife) we should tour tea plantations. And, if there's a battlefield nearby, so much the better!

There's something evocative about B&W photos, I find.

Image via Wikipedia

A tiny dog threatened to delay the transit of the South Korean president's motorcade to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) venue at Haeundae Beach in Busan in November 2005. The comic spectacle unfolded within a scripted display of authority, where two columns of police conscripts bused from the far corners of the country faced each at attention across one of the busiest thoroughfares in the city center. Where no bus, taxi, or car dared enter, one little dog advanced unhindered in its daily routine. Finally, inevitably, almost as a farcical denouement, the most senior officer commanded a subordinate to chase down the unwitting canine on the next crossing, or else the motorcade might be halted. Captured after some difficulty, the little dog was imprisoned within his master's store, yelping as people applauded the motorcade zooming through the honor guard unimpeded. Meanwhile a barrier separated the APEC venue from the general public, who were required to produce special identification loaded with biometric technology, to gain access. On the streets farming lobbies orchestrated protests rebuffed by the deployment of water cannon and parked trailers, effectively blocking transit through the coastal road. The dog, the barrier, and the protests symbolize the character of globalization more fully than the evangelic faith in a politically and economically integrated world. When Jagdish Bhagwati advocates, that reason deserves as much of a place as the passions, he overestimates the opposition between the two human forces. «Reason and analysis require that we abandon the conviction that globalization lacks a human face, an assertion that is tantamount to a false alarm, and embrace the view that it has one.» Accepting Bhagwati's singular «conviction», though, is as unappealing as championing the dog, the barrier, or the protests. As Stuart Hampshire argues,

Rationality, prudential and moral, as a common human possession or potentiality, is most plausibly identified, as argument and counter-argument, with the just and fair weighing of conflicts of evidence, and of conflicts of desires. Every individual person has used procedures for resolving contrary pulls and contrary impulses: political conflicts and their resolution are strictly analogous.

The Dog, the Wall, and the Protesters: A Critique of Jagdish Bhagwati's Defense of Economic Globalization - Get more documents