Left Flank

International Crisis Group has always impressed me with its sober analyses. Although I've only skimmed the full report, the one paragraph on the anti-US beef protests impressed me for a pithiness that manifests the limited salience of the events better even better than any photograph.

The government, however, has been paralysed by street protests and the opposition boycott of the new assembly, which officially convened on 30 May 2008. Street demonstrations began shortly after President Lee's decision to reopen the domestic market to U.S. beef during a summit with President George W. Bush only days after the April elections. U.S. beef imports were the catalyst for the protests, but they grew as citizens opposed to numerous other policies joined, with the result that Lee increasingly became their target.

The missing element involves comparing the legitimate protest, and its collateral grievances, with global movements opposed to food shortages and hydrocarbon prices.

Also, I would point out a more compelling «debate» between Gord Sellar («Catholics 1, Riot Cops 0») and Scott Burgeson («A Funny Thing Happened to Me on the Way to City Hall Tonight») than I've read elsewhere. I only wish I had encountered it earlier.

The official death toll in Myanmar is, as of Friday, 77,738 (and approximately 56,000 missing). According to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, over 60,000 planeloads of aid have been delivered. Ban called the situation a "human tragedy".

Yet, in an interview on PBS, Secretary-General Ban, discussing the recent international debate over "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P), called R2P "important", but related to criminal acts. Ban distinguished between political and humanitarian matters, and refused to consider R2P in the humanitarian context of the Burmese emergency. This contradicts what John Boonstra argues:

The debate over R2P in Burma, of course, is essentially a political one, as the issue is no longer the death and destruction caused by Nargis, but that caused by the exacerbating and obstructionist tactics of the country's ruling junta. As Gareth Evans, the author of the report establishing R2P, wisely reminds us, intervention in the case of a natural disaster is only even possible under the aegis of R2P if a government's calculated disregard for its citizens amounts to a crime against humanity. The doctrine was not intended as a shortcut for the international community to provide relief in desperate cases of natural disaster.

On PRC, Ban characterized the post-earthquake situation as "humanitarian", and then commended the Chinese government for its performance.

The R2P debate is more about UN "inside baseball" and NGO assertiveness than helping Myanmar or PRC. If any state is so deficient in its relief capabilities, western states, as expert as they consider themselves, should catch them up. But, this is all a horrendous red herring. It's development, stupid! If it were not for the fact, that developing states, like Myanmar and PRC, have burgeoning populations in disaster-prone areas, there would be less need for more relief capabilities. The UN needs to lead on sustainable, environmentally-sustainable development away from marginal areas, not create world government.