Natural disasters can have a reconciliatory effect on relations between unfriendly states. Two examples are the Izmit earthquake in Turkey in 1999, which helped to improve ties between Ankara and Athens, while the Indian Ocean tsunami in late 2004 helped to bring Aceh separatists and the Indonesian government to the negotiating table.
As horrifying as the death tolls for natural disasters can be, one upside has always been the expression of support and sympathy from other countries and the provision of emergency aid and services to the afflicted. The political gains that derive from reducing acute human suffering allow dueling states to admit to their limitations and join hands in the service of higher principles and practical need.
Then there’s Myanmar.
Cyclone Nargis wrought terrible destruction on the south of that country last week, and the death toll is of such staggering proportions that Myanmar’s military regime must be held directly responsible for much of the suffering.
The Myanmar regime knew Cyclone Nargis could hit sensitive areas, yet virtually nothing was done to prepare for what was in store. Even allowing for the region’s poor infrastructure and vulnerability to flooding and storm surges, the reaction of the authorities to the drowning of the Irrawaddy delta has been appalling in its negligence. In the civilized world, these authorities would warrant prosecution for manslaughter.
The UN has already described the Myanmar junta’s obstructionism over visas for relief workers as “unprecedented” in the context of “modern humanitarian relief efforts.” The junta’s rejection of US aid and services, while not surprising, is even more irresponsible, especially given the splendid work of the US military in the aftermath of the Indian Ocean tsunami.
The dire situation facing survivors would challenge even the best equipped relief teams. With Myanmar refusing to admit aid workers — even those with UN accreditation — and demanding that donor countries naively entrust the military with money and supplies, it therefore appears all but certain that the death toll will rise dramatically and unnecessarily.
Myanmar has a number of friends in the region who have helped it weather the other storm of trade sanctions and diplomatic isolation. Even China, which has been one of the junta’s staunchest supporters, might be wondering whether the incompetence and negligence of the Myanmar government during this disaster — rivaled in scale only by North Korea’s mishandling of famine — will damage its interests if the junta does not pick up its game. Even so, there is little sign that Myanmar will take any notice of the growing anger at its ruinous conduct.
Locking up democrats and rigging constitutional ballots are reason enough to rebut the Myanmar junta’s legitimacy. But with this latest natural disaster, and the man-made disaster to follow, there is no other choice for the world community to make: the junta must be censured in the UN for spurning the most basic responsibilities of government.
Punishment is another matter: How to deal with the junta without hurting ordinary people or offending its allies is a dilemma that has haunted responsible nations for some time. It is clear, however, that the current strategy of tolerating the junta’s excesses and rewarding suppression of dissent with trade that bolsters the military are of no benefit to the Burmese.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations