Bush, Brown turn up heat on Myanmar
YANGON —
World frustration with Myanmar boiled over on Saturday, with accusations of negligence and crimes against humanity over the regime’s slow-moving response to the cyclone disaster.
U.S. President George W Bush extended sanctions on Myanmar while British Prime Minister Gordon Brown denounced the junta’s “inhuman” treatment of around two million survivors battling to stay alive two weeks after the storm hit.
With the toll of dead and missing now 134,000, the pressure appeared to mark a shift in tactics in the face of the junta’s reluctance to allow a full-scale emergency effort, despite fears more people could die of hunger or disease.
“We have an intolerable situation created by a natural disaster,” Brown, whose country was the colonial power when Myanmar was known as Burma, told the BBC.
“It is being made into a man-made catastrophe by the negligence, the neglect and the inhuman treatment of the Burmese people by a regime that is failing to act and to allow the international community to do what it wants to do.”
Wary of any foreign influence that could weaken its 46 years of iron rule in Myanmar, the junta has insisted on managing the operation itself and kept most international disaster experts away.
But aid groups say the government cannot possibly handle the tragedy by itself, with hundreds of tonnes of supplies and high-tech equipment piling up in warehouses, bottle-necked by logistics and other problems.
After announcing Friday that the toll from the tragedy had nearly doubled—to 77,738 dead and 55,917 missing—state television did not issue new figures on Saturday night.
Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu wrote to Brown, Bush and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, calling on the U.N. Security Council to authorize aid drops over the objections of the generals.
He said the regime had “effectively declared war on its own population and is committing crimes against humanity.”
Jean-Maurice Ripert, France’s U.N. ambassador, told a meeting of all members of the United Nations that the situation was turning “slowly from a situation of not helping people in danger to a real risk of crimes against humanity.”
Bush announced that sanctions on the junta would be extended for a year because of its “large-scale repression of the democratic opposition.” The statement stressed it would not affect US humanitarian cyclone aid.
Faced with the mounting criticism, the junta flew some diplomats and aid workers Saturday into the heart of the disaster zone—which has been all but sealed off to the outside world.
“What they showed us looked very good,” said Chris Kaye, Myanmar director for the U.N.‘s World Food Program. “But they are not showing us the whole picture.”
One diplomat said: “It was like a steam-roller had gone through the entire delta region.”
The junta has blocked journalists from getting to the southern Irrawaddy Delta, the rice-growing region hardest hit when Cyclone Nargis hit on May 2-3, bringing powerful winds and massive waves that wiped whole villages away.
But those who have got through have returned with tales of unspeakable misery, including from some survivors who said they had received very little assistance from the government.
Survivors have also reported that the military was pushing them out of temporary shelter in monasteries, whose revered Buddhist monks helped lead massive anti-government protests last year that were eventually put down.
Navy ships from France and the United States are positioned off the Myanmar coast stocked with emergency supplies, but have not been able to enter.
The regime is said to fear a possible invasion by the United States, which has criticized Myanmar for keeping democracy activist Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest—and for its slow moves toward elections promised by 2010.
The government said this week that 99% of eligible voters had cast their ballots last Saturday in a referendum it said approved a new constitution which would bar her from office.
Her party rejected the result and said the vote should never have been held amid the cyclone tragedy. The regime has scheduled round two of the vote, in the disaster areas, on May 24.
AFP
Order by Time Order by Popularity
21 Comments
Login to comment
0
some14some
Doubt if Bush-Brown can generate enough heat to warm the hearts of Myanmar rulers. What i read in other news sources is that Myanmar govt is allowing aid workers from China, Thai, India and Bangladesh to delta region which is worst affected by cyclone. US may unload aid supplies to Thai ports and let them carry to the final destination.
0
Nyein_Chan
A well-orchestrated U.S-led military campaign of intimidation (if not invasion) is well on its way. Washington Post reports that “Three or four [war]ships began a five-day journey to a location off Burma to be available to offer aid.” (Amy Kazmin, Colum Lynch and Howard Schneider, Burma Seizes U.N. Food Deliveries, Washington Post, Friday, May 9, 2008; 9:41 AM) Its usual partner in crime Britain and its unusual partner France did NOT take very long to follow US’s lead. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced that he is going to send the Royal Navy frigate HMS Westminster to Burma. (MSNBC, May 12, 2008, 22:13) France has sent its amphibious landing ship Le Mistral from India to Burma. The French amphibious landing ship was conveniently present in the area because of a scheduled joint exercise with the Indian and British armed forces. The French amphibious landing ship will depart the port on May 15 and arrive on May 18. (Press statement issued by M. Bernard Kouchner, Minister of Foreign and European Affairs, Paris, May 8, 2008; The Website of French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Embarquement d’aide humanitaire sur le Mistral, May 13, 2008)
In order to establish a good reason of war (casus belli), the media has been making a news reports that say – true or untrue matters less LATER like the Saddam Hussein’s attempts to buy uranium – that Burmese military refused the international aid despite the life threatening situation of over one million of its own people. In order to establish a good reason of war (casus belli), the media has been feeding the public in the past several days that the Burmese military government has abused the humanitarian assistance by giving out the international relief materials as if it were theirs.
To make the stories more sensational and the casus belli most justifiable, the media didn’t fall behind. It publishes and broadcasts the sensational stories with the headlines like “Myanmar Cyclone Victims Getting Low-Quality Supplies,” “Burma Junta Steers Bad Food to Cyclone Victims,” “Burma Junta Impounds UN Aid,” “Burma Junta Impounds More UN Aid,” etc.
Romesh Ratnesar asks in Time magazine “Is it Time to Invade Burma?” (May 10, 2008) U.S (along with French Foreign Minister and the leader of British Conservative Party) has hinted a possibly legitimate reason to send their armed forces into Burmese territory: the “responsibility to protect.”
A natural disaster that causes tens of thousands of deaths, if not a hundred thousand, and that threatens a million or more, will by and large rally the shallow public opinion in support of military campaigns.
Of course, the well-orchestrated U.S military campaign was intended to intimidate (if not invade) Burma.
0
Nyein_Chan
Are the U.S warships, aircrafts and helicopters going to engage in the combat operations immediately? NOT necessarily. They are there just to encourage the population to rise up against the Burmese military government like a people’s power revolution and to discourage the soldiers from shooting in the crackdown. The regime opponents want to encourage its activists and their sympathizers with the news that ‘Americans are coming!!! Americans are coming!!!’ ‘Americans are there!!!’ coincidentally timing with the U.S, France, Britain navy warships, the buzzing military aircrafts and helicopters in sight of Burmese public. (Burmese governments can be overthrown with rumors. One of Burma’s earlier dynasties collapsed due to rumors that its enemy troops Sagaw Karens were marching to the capital.) Gordon Lubold reports that in Mae Saout, Thailand, “thousands of Burmese exiles and refugees were excited when they saw a US helicopter flying above them on Saturday…” (Gordon Lubold, U.S. helicopters cause stir in Thai town on Burma border, Yahoo News, Washington, D.C, May 12, 2008, 4:00 a.m.; Christopher Johnson, Mae Sot, Thailand Christian Science Monitor, U.S. helicopters cause stir in Thai town on Burma border, via ABC News) Melinda Liu assesses in Newsweek that “Cyclone Nargis may have done more than just wreck Burma's cities. It may also spell doom for the government.” (Winds of Change: May 19, 2008 Issue) David Montero predicts in Christian Science Monitor that “Disaster May Loosen Junta’s Grip in Burma” (May 8, 2008)
Why is the timing? The cyclone devastation can establish a good reason of war (casus belli) and the constitutional referendum is the last chance (some wrongly assume) to overthrow the Burmese military government.
Why is the media not reporting the scheming strategy of regime change in Southeast Asia by its leaders? It is partly because its journalists are no longer good at investigative journalism and thus cannot file a report on covert activities until they become full-blown and partly because the Western media is usually self-censored. How different is a self-censored media from a government-censored media? They will find out soon, alas, at the expense of my fellow Burmese when they do.
0
Nyein_Chan
Part I: Weighting the Alternative Options and the Potential Costs in Human Life
"We believe that it's going to be very difficult to reach everybody and to tackle the crisis as we would like without some outside military and civilian assets," John Holmes, the U.N.'s top humanitarian official, told reporters. (USA Today, U.N. chief slams Burma junta, May 12, 2008)
Knowing how my folks survived in the past and how good they are at their own survival, I would rather let them take the chance with some cholera, diarrhea, etc. than letting the Burmese military government confront with 4000 US marines. (Amy Kazmin and Howard Schneider, U.S. Tries to Persuade Burma to Accept Aid: Military Offers to Deploy Up to 4,000 U.S. Marines, Washington Post, Monday, May 12, 2008; 1:14 PM) If the sanitation and unclean water causes the disaster-related diseases like cholera, diarrhea, some Burmese are going to die, but NOT as many as the outside world think or NOT as many as the fighting between the troops would cause. Which water do you think my fellow Burmese in the delta region had drunk before the cyclone? Where do you think they had discarded their urines and excretions before the cyclone? Yes, the floating, decomposing, dead bodies of human and animals (a lot of them currently in the water) are unusual and thus increase the chance of disease outbreak. However, if the dead bodies were to cause us the deadly diseases, we would have never been born because our ancestors would have never been born. Where do you think our ancestors had, well into the second half of the 20th century, disposed the corpses of their loved ones if the cremation is unaffordable or the burial is unfeasible? In addition, the smelly corpses naturally repel anyone to seek their drinking and cleaning water away from them.
0
Nyein_Chan
Part II: Weighting the Alternative Options and the Potential Costs in Human Life If the advent of 4,000 US marines into Burmese territory [and probably other Western military forces to follow suit] encourages the regime opponents to make another attempt at their infamous dream of toppling the regime in a people’s power revolution, politicizing the disaster and capitalizing the presence of foreign troops, that of international aid workers and the unusual attention of international media, possibly, in case of government’s crackdown, leading to the combat operations of the foreign troops inside and the subsequent military intervention. France’s Responsibility to Protect is NOT going to fly if the international responsibility is to protect the Burmese cyclone victims. However, the interventionism of U.S and France is more likely to win a wider legitimacy if it is carried out in the name of the responsibility to protect their citizens. How many people do you think will then die as a result of fighting and shooting? The rosy scenario is that the Burmese military government in a remote location will be overthrown in no time (like Saddam’s) and the return to normalcy will be speedy and the successful reconstruction efforts will be convincing and persuasive enough to sway the public opinion later. Did they also tell you that GIs will be welcomed as liberators with flowers and candies? How many people do you think will die if the Burmese military retreat and engage in guerilla warfare (the urban guerilla warfare like in Iraq and the jungle guerilla warfare like in Vietnam)? However well-intentioned our American, British, and French friends may be in offering to send warships, military aircrafts and helicopters for relief operations inside Burma, we will have to, as we should, NO. The U.S, British and French governments should concentrate their efforts in the realistic and pragmatic ways and means to help my fellow Burmese cyclone victims rather than attempting to open up the feel-good, unrealistic, and dangerous channels of helping us. The last time the British invaded Burma to colonize us, we thought in 1885 that the British were going to remove the despotic King Thibaw and replace him with a better Prince Nyaung Yan. We were wrong and our MISTAKE cost us 60 years of British colonial rule. When the British cheated us the last time to colonize us, it is their fault. If we MAKE the same mistake twice, it would be OUR fault. Some are going to say that we deserve to be colonized. This time around, we are NOT going to welcome the foreign troops under any flag, be it British, French, American, or United Nations even if their warships were bringing in the cyclone relief materials onboard rather than a fake prince like the last time. Thanks a lot but NO, thanks again.
0
Nyein_Chan
Four Right Choices of Burmese Military Government: One More to Go
Despite its all other mistakes, the current Burmese military government has made FOUR right decisions which will be remembered as corner stones of their legacy for 20 years in power.
The first is its decisions to get and maintain the cease-fire agreements with all (possible) armed ethnic groups, ending five-decade-long armed conflicts.
The second is its decision to move the capital to further inland, saving the national government apparatus from sea-bound natural and not-so-natural dangers and possibly freeing up the future, military-influenced but elected governments from the danger of people’s power revolutions.
The third is its decision to hold constitutional referendum on May 10, 2008 throughout the country except the 47 townships the Cyclone Nagris severely ravaged.
The fourth is its decision to reject any foreign troops entering Burma even in the context of cyclone relief operations.
The first and the second decisions have been proven to be right and beneficial to Burma and her people. So shall the third and the fourth.
The Burmese military government should thus stand by its four decisions and needs to do only one more decision to establish its historical legacy: take the risk and transfer the state power to a civilian president chosen by the majority of 664 members of parliament, 166 appointed and 498 elected in 2010 elections.
May God Bless Burma!
0
Nyein_Chan
Part I: Terrain is Quite Clear but One More Thing to Do
Some might want to point out that the Burmese military government should accept the international aid workers even if it does NOT accept the U.S warships and military aircrafts. Since the referendum is over on Saturday, it is more likely to invite the international aid workers now than before. But we need to know the and reason to see if we can find a workable solution.
The constitutional referendum was scheduled (and held) on May 10. The Burmese military government wants the draft constitution ratified. Its opponents want the draft rejected (if possible, the referendum disrupted). U.S, France and Western countries support the regime opponents. U.S House of Representatives went so far as taking jurisdiction over the draft constitution of another country and passing a concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 317), calling the Administration and UN to reject the referendum (process) and draft constitution (outcome).
The military government’s possible concern was that its opponents might covertly plan to start the protests, politicizing the sufferings of the cyclone victims and capitalizing the presence of international aid workers. An AP report DOES confirm the existence of this concern. During the Saturday tour diplomats tried at every chance to tell the accompanying Myanmar minister that the government should provide more international aid access, [Bernard] Delpuech, [head of the European Commission Humanitarian Office in Yangon] said. He said the answer was: "Yes, they're willing, but they don't want the people who will create more problems." (Aung Hla Tun, Reuters, May 17, 2008, 8:15 a.m. New York Time, via Washington Post Website) In fact, the regime opponents took their first step by spreading the news that the public is angry at the military government and maligning the latter by accusing it of slow response. David Montero predicts in Christian Science Monitor that “Disaster May Loosen Junta’s Grip in Burma” (May 8, 2008)
0
Nyein_Chan
Part II: Terrain is Quite Clear but One More Thing to Do (less than 1500 characters each)
The presence of U. S and France military in the Burmese territory if possible and (already) in the neighboring countries would encourage the regime opponents and discourage the regime. The regime opponents want to encourage its activists and their sympathizers with the news that ‘Americans are coming!!! Americans are coming!!!’ ‘Americans are HERE!!’ coincidentally timing with the U.S, France, Britain navy warships, the buzzing military aircrafts and helicopters. Romesh Ratnesar asks in Time magazine “Is it Time to Invade Burma?” (May 10, 2008) (A Burmese government has been overthrown with rumors. One of Burma’s earlier dynasties collapsed due to rumors that its enemy troops Sagaw Karens were marching to the capital.) Gordon Lubold reports that in Mae Saout, Thailand, “thousands of Burmese exiles and refugees were excited when they saw a US helicopter flying above them on Saturday…” (Gordon Lubold, U.S. helicopters cause stir in Thai town on Burma border, Yahoo News, Washington, D.C, May 12, 2008, 4:00 a.m.; Christopher Johnson, Mae Sot, Thailand Christian Science Monitor, U.S. helicopters cause stir in Thai town on Burma border: In Mae Sot, home to many Burmese exiles and refugees, two helicopters stopped unannounced during a survey of the area, via ABC News)
Now that the referendum is over, the Burmese military government would more likely accept the international relief workers than before, but we need to do one more thing.
0
Nyein_Chan
Part III: Terrain is Quite Clear but One More Thing to Do
What do the regime opponents plan to do with the presence of international aid workers (and possibly media) in Burma? They know that the draft constitution will be ratified because it is the only way out of the ongoing political gridlock; that the public is going to vote for it so that they can move forward. If the regime opponents plan to take advantage of the presence of international aid workers, thinking that the military government dare NOT to disperse the protestors as it did last year and in 1988, or that if it did, it is going to face the enormous global outrage and UN Security Council’s punitive resolution and pressure, then what would the Burmese military leaders do?
Of course, in the name of reason of the state and Hobbesian dilemma, they are going to order the army and police to disperse the protestors and to shoot if judged necessary. Legally, they can do so because the emergency law is imposed for a natural disaster and legitimately because the U.S National Guards and Police did shoot some people dead in New Orleans after Katrina. The Burmese military leaders are going to and have to take a decisive action, whatever it means, even if the international aid workers are there and if they have to face later the global condemnation and UN Security Council’s punitive resolution, falling into the trap of their opponents’ infamous but unpragmatic strategy of regime change by UN Security Council’s resolutions.
0
Nyein_Chan
Part IV: Terrain is Quite Clear but One More Thing to Do
One more thing can be and need to be done in order to make the Burma’s political climate less poisonous and make its risk-averse leaders more willing to allow the international aid workers in. The Western governments will have to sternly tell its opponents not to take advantage of the presence of aid workers and not to make, during the relief operations, another attempt at people’s power revolution, and so doing could harm the international aid workers. Better yet, the Western governments can sternly tell the regime opponents what the consequences would be. The regime opponents have lost a lot of ground in Burma; they are relying mostly on their state/non-state supporters and sympathetic media in the West for their cause; therefore, they will most likely take their worthy allies’ position into consideration if such position is clearly and sincerely taken. On the other hand, the regime opponents might have never intended to take advantage of the presence of the international aid workers and make another attempt at the regime change by people’s power revolution. (I am just giving them a way out without losing face, in case they miss.) Thus, on their own accord, the regime opponents will NOT make another attempt at the regime change by people’s power revolution for the sake of their fellow Burmese cyclone victims, not due to position of their Western allies.
0
Nyein_Chan
Part V: Terrain is Quite Clear but One More Thing to Do
What if the West’s warnings are not serious or taken seriously and the regime opponents would nonetheless capitalize on the presence of international aid workers and make another attempt at people’s power revolution? The Burmese government will, euphemistically speaking, restore law and order even at the presence/risk of the international aid workers and even at the face of the severe consequences later.
So, if we can get one more thing done and I think we need to, I am pretty sure (not absolutely sure though) that the Burmese military government will invite the international aid workers so that their people could be helped faster and more effectively with better technology and more specialized knowledge. On the other hand, given the sparse knowledge of the international aid workers on local situation, like sending biscuits to storm victims and bringing in malaria drugs for the population in our delta region where the malaria has seldom taken root, the Burmese government might think that it is better to rely upon the domestic manpower. (I am just giving them a way out without losing face, in case they miss.) Nonetheless, if the West can somehow guarantee that the regime opponents won’t take advantage of the presence of the international aid workers and make another attempt at the regime change by people’s power revolution, I think that it is better to have more helping hands and, hopefully, less negative media coverage.
0
Triumvere
When dictators and autocrats rig up phoney elections, why do they always give themselves ridiculous numbers?
99% participation with 97% of the vote for the new constitution?
They are smart enought to know that "100%" will imediately give the game away, but why do they think that ~99% will fool anyone?
Why not pick, say, 73% or something similar; skeptics won't be fooled, but atleast the numbers are possible, if not plausable.
0
jeancolmar
There is no question that the regime in Burma has got to be overthrown and the military scum responsible for outrages against their people should be given fair and impartial trials and if found guilty executed as humanely as possible so that they cannot ever have a chance to get back into power.
This has to be done by the Burmese people themselves. Any outside military threats like Bush's and Brown's is going to make matters worse. As soon as there is threat of invasion the Burmese will rally around their government. Patriotism is like that, and everyone has it.
The best we can do is support human rights in Burma.
0
apecNetworks
Correct any errors
Regional jurisdiction over the Myanmar/Burma situation should first/foremost be addressed by Myanmar and ASEAN. If the scope of the disaster is beyond the ability of the two, they can petition the UN for assistance. Myanmar/Burma is a developing country and the standards of addressing the disaster must be at the home country's/regional standards, not G-8 standards. Unless the UN is now the defacto world governing body, ASEAN/Myanmar(Burma) should try to address the disaster by their own means first. ASEAN protocols take precedent - correct me if other documents take precedent.
0
Triumvere
"ASEAN/Myanmar(Burma) should try to address the disaster by their own means first."
But they simply aren't trying. The Junta does not care if hundreds of thousands die. Even if they were trying, they don't have the capability to deal with the situation. They will never "petition" for assistance because they would rather let their people die than show any weakeness or allow international powers access.
This talk of "regualtions", "precedent" and "regional standards" is all very abstract and idealized. It doesn't work in the real world. In the real world, the Burmese are dying.
Tell me this: Why is Myanmar considered a "sovereign nation" when its government is a tyrrany rules by force and against the will of the people? Does not sovereignty come from the people?
Why do you endevor to treat the junta as if it were a legitmate government?
0
smithinjapan
I am pretty much dead-against any invasions on sovereign soil, but I have to say these guys are pushing me to the brink of wishing for one. The only difference is, what I would be pushing for is not an illegal regime change or anything, but something to push past the idiots blocking the help of those suffering. This cannot be compared to Iraq; in Iraq there was no natural disaster prompting world co-ordination and help, and it was never the people of Iraq the US had in mind when they went in. Here, in this case, we have the world sick of sitting on the sidelines and hoping the Junta will let them in to HELP PEOPLE! As such, the Junta is effectively killing off its own population in the country by doing nothing but trying to keep a very superficial hold on things.
I'm not saying an invasion is needed.... but the threat of one, and they are very scared of the idea, might have to carry with it a little more grit than words so the Junta realizes how much trouble it's in. As I've said before, they have utterly screwed themselves here.... I have no doubt in less than a week we'll see them asking for international aid workers to enter 'monitored' territory... not because they give a rat's a$$ for their citizens, but because they know it's that or relinquish power completely. I just hope it goes step further and they are still condemned.
0
apecNetworks
**To Triumvere **
http://www.aseansec.org/21536.htm
I have kept tabs on ASEAN over the years, and they consider all their members as "allies" moving together for a better tomorrow even when things may not be "ideal".
0
TrueMyanmar
Nyein Chan is likely to be a Myanmar Government Servant hoping to get favors from the Generals. He wrote a lot of rubbish. e.g.,
== "I would rather let them (Myanmar Victims) take the chance with some cholera, diarrhea, etc. than letting the Burmese military government confront with 4000 US marines." ==
He is just cruel and unconcerned.
== "Where do you think our ancestors had, well into the second half of the 20th century, disposed the corpses of their loved ones if the cremation is unaffordable or the burial is unfeasible? " ==
The burial was always possible for Myanmars who passed way in the past. Throwing away bodies into the rivers must be very rare or his own imagination.
Nyein Chan also praised the Generals for making 4 right decisions.
== 1. Cease-fire agreements with armed ethnic groups, ending five-decade-long armed conflicts. ==
Actually, it is just like having 2 armed rulers in those frontier regions. (Wrong Decision no. 1)
== 2. Decision to move the capital to further inland, saving the national government apparatus from sea-bound natural and not-so-natural dangers and possibly freeing up the future, military-influenced but elected governments from the danger of people’s power revolutions. ==
Everyone in Yangon knows what happened in the first 24 hours after the Cyclone. The new capital Nay Pyi Daw ws not afected by the cyclone. But Yangon looked like a deserted city without any signs of Government Servants and soldiers. Where was the 'un-affected' national government apparatus? What were the un-harmed Generals and Ministers doing on Day One? What is wrong with ".... the people’s power revolutions"?
== 3. The decision to hold constitutional referendum on May 10, 2008 throughout the country except the 47 townships the Cyclone Nagris severely ravaged.
This is very wrong, selfish, irresponsible and immoral decision, diverting manpower resources to the Referendum which should have been postponed to a later date for the whole ountry.
== 4. The decision to reject any foreign troops entering Burma even in the context of cyclone relief operations.
Again, it is the worst decision of all, causing prolonged and unnecessary sufferings and deaths.
Nyein Chan still maintained "The first and the second decisions have been proven to be right and beneficial to Burma and her people. So shall the third and the fourth."
That is why I wrote earlier, his messages are rubbish, trying to cheat people inside and outside Myanmar.
Please Free Burma from living Hell.
True Myanmar
0
Triumvere
to apecNetworks
I am aware of ASEAN, no doubt they are applying pressure to attempt to get Myanmar to act on the current crisis.
However, regardless of what ASEAN may "consider" its members to be, I do not see anything resembling Myanmar "moving toward a better tomorrow." Infact, I see no progress at all.
If you have an example of such progress, I'd like to hear it. If not, then I'd ask you to recognize that the condition of Myanmar isn ot merely "not ideal", but, rather, abyssmal.
0
yakity
Please help the victims of natural and un-natural disasters and save human and animal lives. This is no time for politics or power.
Back to top