May 21, 2008

Burma is in crisis. The U.N. sends ... condoms

Yeah. Seriously.

Bangkok - The United Nations will send nearly a quarter of a million condoms into cyclone-hit Myanmar to help needy survivors with no access to contraceptives, a UN official says.

So far, the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) said it had sent 72 800 condoms to survivors struggling to maintain their family planning after the storm hit in early May.

A total of 218 400 condoms would be delivered, UNFPA aid advisor Chaiyos Kunanusont said.

"We don't want regular use of contraception disrupted. An emergency usually damages the health system, so people don't have access to condoms and contraceptives," said Chaiyos.

The U.N. is so dysfunctional, they can't get food and doctors into Burma to help the tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of suffering people. But their priority in "medical care" is Operation Condom Drop. Wouldn't want the Burmese to produce more suffering children, now would we?

And Bush's FEMA is held up as the international poster child of screwed up disaster response. Sheesh.

(HT: K-Lo at The Corner)

Posted by Dr. Zaius at May 21, 2008 01:27 AM | TrackBack
Comments

Cripes. UN heads up asses so far that the tops of the heads are coming up to the shoulders.

I hear they are planning to study race relations in the US.

Posted by: john 2000 at May 21, 2008 01:33 AM

It is with that same fundamental wisdom that the UN and Al Gore will rule the world; I for one can’t wait.

Posted by: Hamilton at May 21, 2008 04:46 AM

Gosh, I sure hope they were the edible kind.

Posted by: Anonymonkey at May 21, 2008 10:02 AM

Great for water balloon fights too! I wonder if UN has a stance on waterballooning? hmmmm

Posted by: john 2000 at May 21, 2008 10:08 AM

Sorry, I'd like to respond to the issue at hand, but I couldn't get past the fact that this dispatch was issued from Bangkok.

Posted by: Poochucker at May 21, 2008 12:32 PM

I hear starvation and ricketts are great contraceptives on their own, without wasting all that rubber.

Posted by: Wry Mouth at May 21, 2008 06:18 PM

Seriously? SERIOUSLY? Does the UN actually think that the survivors are worrying about contraceptives when they have no food or water to survive; with farmers not only struggling to keep their families alive, but crying over ruined crops which were their livelihood? SERIOUSLY? Family planning? SERIOUSLY??? Who put "unbelievably ignorant" in their water?

Posted by: Skye Rivers at May 21, 2008 09:48 PM

i work for an international NGO and just left myanmar, and would like to point out that UN staff on the ground have been working tirelessly for over three weeks to do everything in their power for those in need.

yes, they face an immense beaurocracy and a the crippling force of the junta, but no, condom dropping is not in any way their first priority. the top priorities as defined by cluster groups coordinating activities, are food, nutrition, water/sanitation, shelter, agriculture, logistics, protection of women and children and education.

no, the UN does not think that survivors are worrying about contraception, they are simply aware of the fact that people have sex, and that disease transmission and additional family members are not a particularly favourable contribution to dire emergencies. there is no condom cluster group, no family planning cluster group.

the UN has been collaborating with and recording the activities of over 20 INGOs. their coordination, despite its imperfections, has been invaluable to essential activities of INGOs, which have reached over 1,000,000 of the people in need. is this enough, no. nothing could ever be enough. but it is what we've been able to do as fast and as well as we could thus far.

Posted by: concerned at May 26, 2008 10:27 PM

concerned,

Glad to hear your perspective. Thanks for visiting and commenting -- and thanks even more for doing all you can for those poor, suffering people.

I still think it's absurd that offering contraception to the Burmese at this moment is even a consideration. And I think it points to some of the weaknesses and drawbacks of INGOs and the U.N.

The U.S. military, which is not subject to the bureaucracy of the UN and NOGs, moved quickly to save lives after the 2004 tsunami. I realize they are different situations, but the U.S. military was on the ground doing the good and hard work of saving lives before INGOs got their boots on.

Good luck to you, and God bless your good work.

Posted by: Dr. Zaius at May 27, 2008 01:09 PM
Statistics