Leanne Chaulk from Newfoundland sings Lilacs Are For Angels

As a Mega Catastrophe unfolds it is time to implement the UN's "responsibility to protect" doctrine and invade Burma now

UN's "responsibility to protect" doctrine calls on the international community to invade any country if its government is not protecting its people. This doctrine was agreed by the UN to ensure that no further Rwandas would occur.

So far the UN estimates that c102,000 Burmese have perished; some 220,000 are missing; and close to 2.5 million are in dire need of clean water, shelter, food and medical treatment. The British-based charity Save the Children Fund says that 216,000 Burmese died in cyclone Nargis and its aftermath, just 9,000 fewer than died in of all 11 countries hit by the 2004 Asian tsunami.

The paranoid regime has rebuffed most offers of aid from the international community and appears determined to keep out relief workers on the pretext that they might incite revolution amongst a hungry and cowed populace.The Burmese army has seized much of the aid, which has got through and distributed it to soldiers or sold it on the black market. The government has even obstructed the distribution of rice by some citizens.

Britain, France, Spain , Canada and the EU have been strongly critical. The criticism may be gaining in intensity but the reality is that the international community is too tardy in its response.

China as usual this week disgraced itself and obstructed efforts at the UN to pressurise the Burmese generals. Extreme pressure must be exerted on China to use its undoubted influence on the generals to ensure delivery of aid to a stricken populace. China must alter its policy of support for the Junta at the UN.

The US, Canada, Britain and France amongst others must implement the UN's "responsibility to protect" doctrine immediately and ensure the delivery and distribution of aid by military means. The time for diplomatic niceties has passed.

Many thousands have already perished because of the obduracy of the Burmese Junta. The world has a Mega Catastrophe on its hands.

Clinton and Obama policies a recipe for economic stagnation

In the Democratic presidential debate in Cleveland, Ohio both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama attacked NAFTA.

Hillary Clinton said:

It is not enough just to criticize NAFTA, which I have, and for some years now. I have put forward a very specific plan about what I would do, and it does include telling Canada and Mexico that we will opt out unless we renegotiate the core labor and environmental standards -- not side agreements, but core agreements; that we will enhance the enforcement mechanism; and that we will have a very clear view of how we're going to review NAFTA going forward to make sure it works, and we're going to take out the ability of foreign companies to sue us because of what we do to protect our workers.

Barack Obama said:

I will make sure that we renegotiate, in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about. And I think actually Senator Clinton's answer on this one is right. I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced. And that is not what has been happening so far. That is something that I have been consistent about. I have to say, Tim, with respect to my position on this, when I ran for the United States Senate, the Chicago Tribune, which was adamantly pro-NAFTA, noted that, in their endorsement of me, they were endorsing me despite my strong opposition to NAFTA.

Whilst NAFTA has undoubtedly contributed to job losses in Ohio and in other states it has also boosted jog creation in some sectors. Ohio is a major exporter to both Canada and Mexico. A withdrawal from NAFTA would hit many Ohio companies very hard and cost jobs. It would hit business confidence. In the long term protectionism will harm the US economy and encourage inefficiency. Free trade encourages efficiency and prosperity. Both Clinton and Obama are disingenuous. A withdrawal from NAFTA will not restore jobs lost in Ohio. They are cynically misleading the voters. If Obama and Clinton are really serious US business faces an uncertain future. In addition both have made promises totalling in excess of $800 billion dollars. The implications for US taxpayers are horrendous.