From the UN press briefing in Geneva on May 13:
The UN Secretary-General registered his deep concern —and immense frustration— at the unacceptably slow response to the grave humanitarian crisis in Myanmar. They were at a critical point, and unless more aid got into the country —very quickly— the people faced an outbreak of infectious diseases that could dwarf today’s crisis. The Secretary_General called, in the most strenuous terms, on the Government of Myanmar to put its people’s lives first. It must do all that it could to prevent this disaster from becoming even more serious.
From the same briefing:
Rupert Colville of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, responding to a question on the fact that it was strange that the Human Rights Council would be holding a Special Session on the global food crisis, but not on the current situation in Myanmar, said (..) there had been discussion to some extent on the possibility of talking about Myanmar, but the Council had a very full programme, including the Universal Periodic Review, so it was a pretty packed schedule at the moment and it would be difficult to fit (the issue of Myanmar human rights) in.
What do we read in this? Is the international community "begging to aid"? But not "forcing to aid" by stating more explicitely that a regime denying its citizens the "right to sufficient and effective aid" is a violation of human rights? Up to what level is this morally and ethically acceptable?
Picture courtesy AP (New York Times)