Rubi has answered 'for' Canada, though I'm not sure why you're associating Canada and the UK in some sort of collective responsibility toward Myanmar, which incidentally neither owe it any more than say, the US.

First, let's not get into the Northern Ireland thing here, it's something few English people understand and even fewer Americans. It's a centuries old conflict dating back to long before the US was even a twinkle in the founders eyes. It's a subject for another thread, please?

Now, Myanmar (shall we at least get the name right?); Relations between the UK and Myanmar have been frosty for years and the UK has been told in no uncertain terms on numerous occasions to 'butt out' of Myanmar's internal affairs. What would you have the UK do, invade with food parcels?

Regardless, whatever aid is offered is offered in vain, as it seems Myanmar is being less than cooperative in accepting it. This attitude has left a number of donors nonplussed, this includes the US who offered a pitiful offer of aid placed in a political context and (so I read) at one time said it would only offer additional aid if Myanmar allowed in an 'assessment team'. So please don't let the US try and take the moral high ground on this issue.

It's hard to help when the recipient is holding the door shut against such help, do the Junta think someone may steal the silverware? Myanmar asked for help, help was offered and 'refused', the Junta 'impounded' aid shipments causing the UN to suspend them - they have now resumed evidently. Their attitude is (or was) that they prefer aid in 'cash or kind', but no foreign aid workers and were holding them up waiting for Visas. Strange way to help your people.

The reality is that these aid agencies are (by and large) professional, they have done this before and are, simply put, far better qualified and able to render aid in such circumstances than a decrepit tyrannical regime with a proven track record of intransigence and indifference to its citizenry is likely to be.

This may seem rather uncharitable and somewhat cynical but with the regime's record on domestic succour being less than stellar I must wonder how much of that 'cash and aid in kind' would actually reach those who needed it. As opposed to say, bizarrely, their handing out free TVs and DVD players.

The west wants to help but it can only do so if it's allowed to. I'm sure the Junta see this as serious risk to their authority (they have no credibility left to lose), and perhaps it is, but when 1.5 million people are at risk of starvation, disease or have been made homeless that concern concerns me very little. Once the 'dust' has settled this could pre-empt a much more rapid collapse of this regime than may otherwise have been the case. Perhaps the Junta have simply seen the writing on the wall and think 'so what'?

It's an ugly situation and entirely irrelevant to the US retaining the death penalty (or not). Shame on you for using a massive human tragedy in such a cheap manner.