A Stitch in Haste

When word first started to emerge that a major cyclone had hit Burma, the first thought of many of us was, "Here we go again..."

"Again" not only in the context of the natural disaster, but also in the context of the authoritarian disaster:

The death toll from Cyclone Nargis, the deadliest in Asia since 1991, rose to nearly 22,500 with an additional 41,000 missing, even as Myanmar's leaders continued to refuse entry to U.S. disaster response teams.
...
The disaster's scale has drawn a rare acceptance of outside help from Myanmar's generals, who spurned such approaches in the aftermath of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami.

The ever-escalating death toll from the cyclone continues to be "new news." The paranoid insanity of Burma's military dictatorship is not, as I chronicled after the Boxing Day Tsunami in a piece originally published 16 February 2005:

---

Slate has a Bush-bash piece on Burma essentially asking why we are not effecting regime change in what has been described as the second worst dictatorship in the world.

Nobody in Washington loses sleep over Burma policy. Burma isn't a vital oil supplier like Saudi Arabia, we don't do much trade with Burma as we do with China, and there are no al-Qaida operatives to kill and capture as in Pakistan. Our hard interests in curbing Burma's massive opium production, preventing Burma from becoming a full-fledged Chinese satellite state, and tapping its modest oil and gas reserves are low priorities. Washington is happy to apply economic sanctions on Burma in the name of high-minded principles because those interests are small in comparison to the magnitude of human rights abuses in the country. And, oh yeah, we have other regional headaches, like figuring out what to do with North Korea.

This seems to me to be a case of wanting it both ways — the U.S. is wrong on regime change because we do it at all, and it's also wrong because we don't do it enough? Go figure.

Anyway, I found it utterly stupefying that such a piece could have not one word about the current, and far more important, scandal regarding the international community and Burma — the ludicrous "official" tsunami casualty count of 90 — not 90,000, but 90.

Leave it to a self-described "grassroots" newspaper (and Canadians, no less!) to do the real reporting:

Refusing all international aid, Burma's authorities have not let any international monitors enter its borders, even to assess the damage.
...
The [Burmese junta] SPCD has [a] reputation for downplaying disaster, and for keeping stringent control over outbound media.

Condemned by critics for outlawing fax machines, censoring television broadcasts and taking prisoners of conscience, Burma has been called the most information-starved country on earth. One example involved an attack on the convoy of Nobel Peace Laureate and democratic opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, during her brief release from house arrest in 2003. Eyewitnesses estimated some 60 dead in the ensuing clash, while the SPDC reported only four.
...
On August 8, 1988, at the height of three-weeks of carnage, junta soldiers opened fire on thousands of unarmed demonstrators in the streets of Yangon. Reporting some 500 dead ... the massacre of 8-8-88 is believed by ambassadorial staffs that witnessed it to have claimed over 10,000 lives — more, that is, than Tiananmen Square.

They claimed 500 dead, it likely turned out to be over 10,000. That's a factor of 20, which would imply not 90 tsunami casualties, but 1,800 — and if you're going to lie by a factor of 20, then why not 200 or whatever number suits your dictatorial fancy?

Not to be a Broken Window type, but the tsunami provided a unique opportunity to make some real progress in ending the Burmese nightmare. The international political community, and the international charitable community, are dropping the ball. Which doesn't stop fools from laying it all at the United States' doorstep.

How very sad.