There's clearly a humanitarian crisis taking place which could be 'easily' be solved if we weren't so scared of using a bit of 'muscle'.
The military junta would, so it seems, rather see their people die than let 'the West' into their country.
So we have a choice, do we respect the wishes of a sovereign nation knowing that it will lead to the needless deaths of thousands whilst not upsetting the international balance of power; or do we get the guns out and force medicines, food and other aid on a nation that clearly needs, all the while running the risk that tensions may well escalate to a level that noone can be bothered with. Lest we forget, as soon as the US start to flex their might, certain nations will always perceive it as an agressive act, regardless of its intentions.
There's a Grauniad article somewhere that (surprisingly?) argues we should use force, but I can't find it right now.
Should we use military force in Burma?
There's clearly a humanitarian crisis taking place which could be 'easily' be solved if we weren't so scared of using a bit of 'muscle'.
The military junta would, so it seems, rather see their people die than let 'the West' into their country.
So we have a choice, do we respect the wishes of a sovereign nation knowing that it will lead to the needless deaths of thousands whilst not upsetting the international balance of power; or do we get the guns out and force medicines, food and other aid on a nation that clearly needs, all the while running the risk that tensions may well escalate to a level that noone can be bothered with. Lest we forget, as soon as the US start to flex their might, certain nations will always perceive it as an agressive act, regardless of its intentions.
There's a Grauniad article somewhere that (surprisingly?) argues we should use force, but I can't find it right now.