Disaster aid for dictatorships

The tragedy that has beset Burma has according to the BBC now claimed 22,000 lives with another 41,000 missing. The cyclone has destroyed so many populated areas near the coast that the need for emergency aid and assistance is clear. In many countries it would be a simple matter of the relevant government allowing government and non-government aid agencies in to provide shelter, food, clothing, water and medical assistance to those now on the brink of their lives, but this is Burma.

.

Burma is a military dictatorship, a particularly nasty one, and has been so since 1962. It suppresses dissent with little mercy, and the military exists primarily to keep the government in power. It is notable how absent the military has been during this civil defence emergency, clearly it doesn't exist to help the population.

.

You see there is little point giving aid or money to the Burmese government - for the simple reason it wont do anything with it except to enrich itself. It is corrupt and murderous, and few want this regime to do anything short of collapse. It is telling that the French government has been explicit about this, with French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner saying that only 200,000 euros is being donated because "we don't really trust the way the Burmese ministry would use the money". Indeed.

.

The USA has promised to come to the assistance of Burma, but only on condition that US disaster assessment teams can enter and be in control of searching for missing people and handing out aid. The Bush Administration too doesn't want the Burmese government restricting or taking any of the aid. No doubt some will accuse it of wanting to spy or not caring about the Burmese people - the same accusers probably also protest Burmese human rights, so are never happy.

.

Of course the World Food Programme of the UN is throwing food aid at the country, who knows how much of that will be quietly taken by the regime to keep the military fed in fear of insurrection. The United Nations, after all, is morally blind to whether a member state is a dictatorship or a free country.

.

So what SHOULD be done? Should Burma be, despite the toll, left to be, on the basis that aid will more often than not be confiscated by the military, and that any aid sustains the regime as much as the public? Is it not possible that the cyclone could weaken the regime enough that it can allow for some civil insurrection to bring it down? After all -the biggest problem Burma has is not the cyclone - the military government has impoverished, killed and imprisoned the population for decades.

.

Or should aid flow, on the basis that most Burmese have neither the means to resist the regime, and are facing certain death without food, shelter and medical help? Is it better for them to see western aid agencies and organisations giving help directly, and it is simply human benevolence to help those who can't help themselves in a time of dire need?

.

I say the latter, but conditionally. It is tragic to simply ignore what has happened, but Burma has to accept aid on the terms of those who offer it. That means if the US is willing to send in teams of experts at rescue and groups to rehabilitate destroyed villages, it does so on its terms. It means bypassing the military and if there is interference, then aid workers should leave. There is ample testimony that North Korea took western aid during the 1990s floods for high level party and military first, with many people receiving next to nothing. This can't happen in Burma. Medicins Sans Frontieres is one private aid agency that withdrew from North Korea out of frustration that it couldn't deliver assistance directly to those in need. If the Burmese authorities wont accept this, then the blood of the Burmese people will be on their hands again. Certainly the few media outlets the Burmese can access (illegally) should broadcast this loud and clear (BBC World Service and Voice of America in Burmese).

.

So if you wish to donate to aid efforts for Burma, be warned. Donate to private charities that are careful to use their own people to assist people directly, not donate to government. That means ignoring UN organisations.

.

I note also that the hosts of the Olympics this year have said nothing in their official organ about helping "Myanmar" but have faithfully reported their fellow dictatorship's news. Yes, the People's Republic of China is such a great world citizen isn't it?

Dr Cullen's logic impeccable

Around 30-40% of you still trust a fair bit of your income with this man. Would you trust him spending your money to buy food, clothes, entertainment? Would you trust him to select a partner for you? So why do you trust him to buy you a pension, insurance against sickness and unemployment, accident insurance, health care and education for your kids?

.

Just take this comment from the NZ Herald on why he justifies taking your money to buy locomotives, wagons and rail ferries "There were many benefits to the Crown being owner including that the taxpayer buyback meant "we won't be seeing profits flowing out of the country"". Why did he bother using the last five words?

.

He also said "a properly integrated rail system could not be run at a profit without some degree of subsidisation by the Government " again why use the last eight words? A profit with a subsidy is not a profit.

.

Oh and by the way, why would you trust Bill English and John Key to spend your money on exactly the same things? Especially since they wont dispose of this new taxpayer liability. Meanwhile ACT is condemning it, condemning National but not saying what it would do. What's that about? What's wrong with the "P" word Rodney?

Tame Iti gets to be a thespian

Yes, I know it's obvious to mention this, but who else could get bail on firearms charges that would allow you to leave the country so you can act in a play in Europe?

.

Tame Iti is a communist, and has a long history of siding with totalitarian thugs and long has wanted separatism for Tuhoe (wish I actually don't mind as long as private property rights are respected and there is no claim on the NZ taxpayer) as seen in this video.

.

However, his politics don't matter as much as how the oppressive occupiers allow him to go on a global trip as a thespian, despite firearms charges (which admittedly may not exist under a libertarian government).

Wellington transport plan reasonable

Well the Greens are unhappy (but building a road and not building a steel church - I mean light railway - means that is guaranteed), but the plan itself as reported in Stuff isn't half bad. A new flyover at the Basin Reserve (long been planned and necessary) will make a big difference as will widening Wellington Rd and Ruahine St. Bus lanes through town and down Cambridge and Kent Terrace could do some good (especially if taxis and trucks are allowed on them too), so all in all a reasonable way to spend some fuel tax.

.

The ridiculous light rail fetish, which few of the enthusiasts accurately cost on a per passenger km basis, should be killed. However, second Terrace Tunnel and Mt Victoria Tunnel would be good - but there is no talk of tolls which could fund them. I'd argue that State Highway 1 could be privatised and that would incentivise construction of a decent bypass as it could have variable tolls by time of day, but there is little appetite for this in Wellington.

.

Oh and while the Wellington Mayor is enthused, note no MPs will get fired up about modest good road projects - they don't see votes in them (unlike Peter Dunne's fetish with Transmission Gully), so they often get neglected. Not even the Transport Minister, Annette King, whose electorate would benefit enormously from improving the roads between the city and the airport, is too interested - but then maybe she's looking at what her job is after the election?

NZ Herald hits rail issue on the head

Today's NZ Herald editorial has made the point that is ignored by the anti rail privatisation church:

.

"If those private owners who put their money into the assets did not maintain their investment, there must have been a reason. They would surely have not let those assets deteriorate if rail was truly competitive with road transport and capable of realising a good profit. Passenger services would not have ended if people had viewed trains as a preferred means of transport. Most recently, Toll had been unable to make the business afford the rent that the Treasury wanted for use of the Crown-owned track network. Clearly, there was a significant distance between the profitability of the rail service and the cost of infrastructure maintenance."

.

Absolutely furthermore "People will also take some convincing that modernisation, in itself, will make rail attractive to customers. Evidence supplied by Wisconsin Central and Toll suggests there is a substantial, perhaps unbridgeable, gap between it and roading in purely economic terms."

.

So you see, it was economically rational to run down the railway system. It simply wasn't worth it. Unless of course you believe the nonsense about the environment, or you want a train set to run.