ShareThis Page
News

Aiding Myanmar

| Wednesday, May 7, 2008

Perhaps humanitarianism can trump totalitarianism in Myanmar.

A Saturday cyclone has left more than 22,000 dead in the former Burma. More than 40,000 more are missing. Up to 2 million people are said to be homeless. And the numbers could keep climbing.

The brutal and repressive four-decades-old ruling Myanmar junta did nothing to warn the populace of the approaching storm. It is not unfathomable to wonder if it was by design to stifle a burgeoning dissent movement.

And despite the government's mistakes, the world is begging to respond. Not to aid and abet thuggery, mind you, but to attempt to ease massive suffering that easily could unhinge a nation, if not a region.

Those rushing to aid the Myanmar people are not so foolish as to send millions to the military government to siphon off for its own use. The United States, the European Union, the United Nations and others have pledged their assistance through recognized humanitarian agencies. They are urging others to do the same.

After some initial resistance, the Myanmar government appears ready to accept it -- even with doses of well-placed criticism for its myriad failures, even from a normally apolitical U.S. first lady.

Still, if civility begets civility, here's the test case to prove it.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me