Host: This is "On The Line," and I'm Eric Felten. Weeks after a cyclone devastated Burma's Irrawaddy Delta, the military junta that rules Burma finally agreed to allow neighboring Asian countries to organize international relief efforts. According to the United Nations and the Red Cross, more than 100,000 people died in the cyclone and its aftermath. Hundreds of thousands more are in grave danger, facing starvation and disease, and yet the Burmese regime has refused to allow the United States and other nations to race relief supplies directly to the people in the coastal region. The U.S. Navy has ships in the region from which helicopters have been ready to airlift food, water, and shelter to the storm-ravaged area. What little aid Burma has allowed in has been flown to Rangoon, and some international aid organizations have complained that the Burmese army has been diverting aid to its own use.

"Burma's response to the cyclone," says First Lady Laura Bush, "is just the most recent example of the junta's failure to meet its people's basic needs." I sat down earlier with the First Lady to talk about the crisis in Burma and U.S. efforts to deliver aid to the Burmese people.

First Lady Laura Bush, thank you so much for joining us. I appreciate you taking the time. How serious is the situation in Burma?

Mrs. Bush: From everything we know, it sounds like very, very serious. I think the U.N. has estimated that maybe about eighty percent of the people who've been affected by the cyclone have not been reached with any sort of help. Of course we don't know that much because not that many people have been allowed in and not a lot of press coverage, really, in the delta where the cyclone hit. So what we're doing is obviously just estimating how many people haven't been reached. The United States has been very active in trying to help. I think so far about forty C-130s have landed in Rangoon with supplies for the people of Burma, and we hope and pray that those supplies are reaching the people who really need it. We're working through, as you know, international associations like the U.N. or UNICEF or the World Food Programme or ASEAN -- that group and all the NGOs. There are some very good NGOs on the ground, which is encouraging.

Host: What has the U.S. been ready to do, capable of doing, and what more could the U.S. be doing if the regime in Burma allowed the U.S. in?

Mrs. Bush: The U.S. could be doing a lot if they were allowed in. We do have Navy ships that are off the coast of Burma that are equipped with a lot of things for a disaster. They have big desalinization trucks that they could drive off and make clean water, fresh water for people, out of salt water, and I think that would be very important. Obviously, there's food on some of these ships as well as plastic sheeting -- all the things you'd need to try to build some sort of structure if your homes have been destroyed -- mosquito nets, other things that people might need, so -- helicopters -- I mean, that’s the really important thing. There are helicopters that could lift people out of bad situations or could bring supplies in to people that were not being able to be reached because of high water or other sort of destruction.

Host: The official regime newspaper said this week that they wouldn't accept U.S. aid directly from the U.S. because it "comes with strings attached," and those strings are "not acceptable to the people of Myanmar." Are there any strings attached?

Mrs. Bush: No. There would be absolutely no strings attached with this aid. The people of the United States want to help the people of Burma. They really want to be able to help, and we have a lot of ways to help. We do have a disaster-relief team that's still waiting in Thailand, that's never been able to get a visa to get in. There are no strings. But I will say even though the official newspaper said that, we have not heard that officially. And so I still want to urge the military rulers to let the United States, let the people of the United States, help, because we can help in such a very successful way because of the equipment that we have that's available that people could use.

Host: Is the international community doing enough to try to persuade the regime in Burma to open up the country?

Mrs. Bush: I think so. I mean, people are speaking out all over. A lot of leaders have spoken out and urged them. But, on the other hand, Ban Ki-moon is supposed to be -- He'll be there this weekend, I think, in Burma from the U.N., and so at least if we can channel our help through the U.N., through ASEAN, through the countries that are acceptable to Burma -- The point is to try to be able to get help to the people who need it. And so I hope that we'll be able to do that if the military generals will not allow direct help from the United States. Now, obviously, they have allowed and accepted at least forty C-130 transport planes full of supplies, and so I hope they'll at least continue that if not really letting these Navy ships come in with all of this equipment that they have that could be so helpful.

Host: Is there confidence that the aid being taken to central locations being delivered by the transport planes is getting where it's supposed to go? There've been reports from aid organizations that there's concern that some would say the aid is being siphoned off to the ruling military.

Mrs. Bush: We just don't know that. I mean, I just don't have any way of knowing whether that's true or not. I just want to urge the government of Burma to make sure people get this help, that it's just so important that people be helped, and I urge them to allow the international community to help in every way they can.

Host: Reuters was reporting this week that the military has been sending trucks through the countryside in which they've had loudspeakers telling people not to wait by the roadside for aid because to beg from donors would tarnish the dignity of the nation. How grave a challenge is there not only getting the aid into Burma but getting it where people are able to access the aid and aren't pressured to stay away from the aid?

Mrs. Bush: That is one of the reasons we want those disaster-response teams from everywhere, even if they don't want the United States team, but these other teams that are experts in trying to figure out how to get aid to people. If some -- And some have been allowed in, I think, from Thailand and India, which is good news, because they can help in organizing this relief so that people really are reached with the relief, and that's very important. But one of the things I think the far-reaching issue, and maybe this -- if this is true about the asking people not to tarnish the reputation of Burma -- The far-reaching issue for the people of Burma and the one that the United States is very concerned about is that the people of Burma be able to live a life, a free life, where they have a government that really does support them and responds to their needs, and that's always been the issue that many in the international community -- many governments as well as many individuals -- have with the ruling military in Burma, and that is to try to urge them to open up their process, to become an open country, to join the rest of the world and not be so isolated that it makes it difficult to reach the people, both in the case of a disaster like this or just in general, in everyday life.

Host: Are the people of Burma learning anything new about their government?

Mrs. Bush: I don't know that. It's very, very difficult to tell, because they're not open, and that's what we want. We want to be able to have an interchange with the people of Burma, not only to be able to help now but to be able to have a friendship and to have Burma join the rest of the world.

Host: Now, there's some who have said that there should be no criticism of the Burmese regime in the context of trying to get aid there. Should -- In the course of the aid-relief efforts, should it just be, you know, sort of hands off and no criticism of the regime at all?

Mrs. Bush: You know, if that would make the regime accept aid, and I'm sure that that's the point, but the regime knows that many, many countries have been critical, that many leaders of many countries have already been critical long before this -- this disaster. I think it's just important now to focus on the needs of these people whose lives have been destroyed by the cyclone and try to get as much aid as possible there. But I think we can't lose sight of the real long-term goals for Burma, and that is a free Burma and a democracy that can be a part of the world.

Host: What can the U.S. do next? Are there other avenues of trying to help?

Mrs. Bush: Yes, and we'll continue to work with all the international organizations that are allowed in Burma -- the World Food Programme, ASEAN, UNICEF, all of those. We can channel our aid through them as much as we can. All the good NGOs that are on the ground working -- I hope the Burmese government will continue to let these C-130s come in with supplies, and I really hope they'll let these Navy ships come in, because they've got equipment that can't come in any other way. It couldn't come in a C-130.

Host: And how can the U.S. reach out to the people of Burma? Is there any way to reach them directly and let them know the concern and the urgency that's felt here about getting help to them?

Mrs. Bush: I hope we can reach out this way, through VOA, through Voice of America. I hope the people of Burma who have the opportunity to listen to Voice of America and other radio stations that come into Burma know that the people of the world are watching and that we are aware of their suffering and that we are doing whatever we can. The whole international community is doing what we can to reach out to them and to help them. I think it's important that they know that there are many, many Americans who, not only through our government but through private NGOs, are trying to contribute money or other ways, other supplies, other ways to try to help the people of Burma.

Host: First Lady Laura Bush, thank you so much for taking the time.

Mrs. Bush: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thanks a lot.

Host: To talk more about the reaction of Burma's regime to the desperate need of the Burmese people, we're joined now by Ellen Bork, Senior Program Manager for Human Rights at Freedom House. And joining us by phone from Bedminster, New Jersey, Gordon Chang, journalist and author of books on China and North Korea. Welcome, and thanks for joining us. Ellen Bork, the First Lady is at pains to not suggest to the regime that the U.S. would do anything that would be threatening to the regime in the course of trying to get aid to people. That's not been the response from everyone. The French foreign minister has declared that the Burmese junta's failure to meet the needs of its people who are dying as itself a crime against humanity that requires the U.N. to forcibly take aid in if the Burmese regime will not allow aid organizations to come in as fully as they need to be in. What's your sense of that reaction?

Bork: I think both reactions are appropriate in light of both countries' postures in the region. I commend Mrs. Bush again for taking an interest in this and conveying the intense U.S. interest in helping the Burmese people. I think what the French foreign minister's remarks convey is the absolute frustration of the international community not only with the Burmese regime but, frankly, with those institutions, international institutions, that have not yet confronted Burma on any number of questions and, most recently, this disaster. ASEAN, which is now trying to --

Host: Which is the organization of Asian states.

Bork: The Association of Southeast Asian Nations. And I'm sure we'll get into this a little bit later, but I think that the French foreign minister's reaction just shows that none of the existing institutions have yet, under their current guidelines, so to speak, for dealing with Burma have really yielded any success.

Host: Gordon Chang, are you there by phone?

Chang: Yes, I am.

Host: After the French foreign minister's comments about the need for the United Nations to go in forcibly, if need be, China -- Chinese officials -- made a point of stressing that Burma is a sovereign nation and suggesting that any talk of going in against the wishes of the regime would be off the table. What's China's position on what's going on in Burma?

Chang: China has always taken a position that the world should not interfere in other countries' problems, and so in the middle of this month, they said the same thing -- that we must respect the junta's decision not to accept aid from the international community. In the case of Burma, I think that Beijing wants to support the government for a number of reasons. One of them is it wants a friendly regime on its borders, but also it wants access to waterways that Burma can provide. And also, it wants to keep Burma in its camp so that it is not a friend of India. So, there are many geopolitical and strategic decisions. The Chinese government doesn't care at all about the plight of the Burmese people who have suffered terribly in the past weeks because of the cyclone.

Host: Ellen Bork, what's your sense of that? Is China in a position to change what's happening in Burma?

Bork: I think China's diplomatic and other support to the Burmese regime has certainly led the junta to believe that it can withstand a lot of international pressure, and, notwithstanding any minor adjustments that China's making, it's really one of the leading factors in preventing significant leverage from being applied to the Burmese.

Host: Gordon Chang, what about the point that the French foreign minister had made about using the phrase "crimes against humanity," that we recognize, in the case of Rwanda, that leading a massacre where people are being hacked to death is a crime against humanity? But how does one determine this when what is happening is not an act of commission but rather this act of omission, of sort of leaving people to die?

Chang: It is an act of omission, but also commission as well in the sense that the Burmese regime has specifically told the United States, France, the international community not to help, not to provide food, not to provide shelter or anything else that the people need, and because of that, this is, of course, a natural disaster, but I think most of the deaths really have been the result of the actions of the Burmese junta. So at this point, it does look like a crime of humanity because tens of thousands of people are dying who didn't need to suffer. And I don't know how else you can define it. There are obviously no firm and specific guidelines, but this certainly offends everybody's sensibilities.

Host: And yet, as I spoke with the First Lady, Ellen Bork, the regime seems to be telling people not to, you know, wait by the roads for aid to get there, that this is somehow embarrassing to the regime, and so people should, you know, not gather where they might be able to get aid.

Bork: Yeah, the regime seems to be protecting itself on all fronts. You'll remember they didn't warn effectively of the coming cyclone, largely, perhaps, because they were so keen to carry off the referendum on their new constitution, which they hope will cement them in power for even longer than they've been now, since the 1990 elections that actually returned, overwhelmingly, Aung San Suu Kyi's party. I think Gordon's right. I think it's become a series of acts of neglect and now of really kind of criminal contempt for the welfare of their people.

Host: Gordon, any sense of how much the people of Burma know about the reason they're in the plight they're in?

Chang: Especially in the last three or four days, we have seen reports that the Burmese are getting upset at their government because a little bit of information is indeed filtering through. There's a lot of self-help on the part of monks and others, and the government is actually trying to prevent some of these Burmese from helping their fellow citizens. So, as this progresses, I think that we will see a loss of support for the government, because, even as isolated as Burma is, people are starting to understand what is happening here, because news does filter in, and, in a sense, I think we are going to see a change in at least the political calculus of many important segments of Burmese society, if not this week, if not next week, but certainly soon. This has got to change the country because of the magnitude of the suffering.

Host: Ellen Bork, what's your sense on this?

Bork: I largely agree with Gordon. I'm just worried. I think this is so debilitating, physically -- this emergency. I think -- And the disease that appears to be predicted, stemming from any crisis, let alone one that's as badly managed as this, is very daunting. So, you know, I think this brings us to a discussion of "At what point does the international community have had enough?" I mean, it really is extraordinary. And I don't know what the answer is on Mr. Kushner's suggestion. I think it's interesting it comes from, I believe, the founder of Médecins Sans Frontières. This is a doctor. I hope that he begins a round of diplomacy to discuss exactly this question and how people can help the Burmese people who may not be physically able and are so traumatized to actually change things at this point.

Host: And, Gordon, this has happened nearly at the same time that there's a devastating earthquake in China, and China, rather than closing in on itself in the face of that disaster, seems to have taken a different approach and perhaps opened up more than people would have expected.

Chang: The Chinese initial reaction to open up -- it allowed relatively freer reporting, both by domestic and foreign media. But we've seen in the last few days or so worrisome developments, because the government propaganda machine, which really had lost control of the media, has now tried to reassert itself, to dominate coverage, and also, you know, we saw the Chinese government at first refuse foreign assistance which could have been crucial. It eventually let about four or five foreign teams into the country, but by then it was largely too late. So there have been improvements in the way China interacts with the world, but also, you know, it certainly has an approach which is not entirely satisfactory. You know, hopefully in the future, China's reaction will become even better, but this is not an entirely good story that we're witnessing.

Host: Ellen Bork, your sense?

Bork: Yeah, I think Gordon's right to focus on the loss of control that this -- China knows that its citizens have cellphones and so on, and this kind of globalized community that they're somewhat a part of is a real factor in the way China responds. But I think as a question of loss of control, they did issue the typical media directives with Communist party -- Communist sort of dicta about the disaster, and what we really saw was people ignoring those, and that, I think, is the phenomenon that we should be focusing on.

Host: Gordon, we just have a few seconds left, but is it that sense of loss of control that may be driving the Burmese regime to be closed in?

Chang: I think that they see what's happening in China and they don't like that and they think that the best way to hold on is to constantly exercise repression, and they see that the Chinese government is being pushed around by its people, and, certainly, that's the last thing that the junta will tolerate.

Host: I'm afraid that's gonna have to be the last word. We're out of time. But I'd like to thank my guests -- Ellen Bork, Senior Program Manager for Human Rights at Freedom House; and joining us by phone from Bedminster, New Jersey, Gordon Chang, journalist and author of books on China and North Korea; and also the First Lady, Laura Bush. Before we go, I'd like to invite you to send us your questions or comments. You can reach us through our website at www.voanews.com/ontheline. For "On The Line," I'm Eric Felten.