The US Must Do More for Burma

WASHINGTON -- Six weeks after Cyclone Nargis hit Burma, more than one million people severely affected by the storm have yet to receive any food, water, or shelter, and the so-called "second wave" of dying from disease, thirst, and hunger has begun in earnest. In the aftermath of the cyclone, some 134,000 Burmese are now dead or missing -- over 40 percent of who are believed to be children. And the United Nations has reported that more than one million affected victims have yet to receive any humanitarian relief.

The junta refuses to allow the use of any foreign military helicopters to deliver aid, even from such countries as Thailand and Singapore. Meanwhile, British, French, and American ships just offshore have been turned away with food, water, and personnel capable of helping hundreds of thousands. Almost four weeks after junta leader Than Shwe promised UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon that he would immediately allow in "all aid workers," to the affected areas, the junta has granted only 200 visas to UN workers and is imposing a new round of bureaucratic restrictions on foreign aid organisations to obtain access.

This is no surprise to long-time observers of Burma. Over the years the junta has made countless promises to the UN, labeled "breakthroughs" contemporaneously by diplomats, that the junta later breaks. For example, under immense pressure after last fall's Saffron Revolution, Burma committed to engage in meaningful negotiations with democracy-leader Aung San Suu Kyi, whose party and its allies won more than 80 percent of the vote in the country's 1990 democratic parliamentary elections. Once the world's attention had waned, the talks failed, both because the regime has no desire to engage in talks and it felt no pressure to make real concessions.

While the UN secretary general, the Burmese regime, and allies of the junta have urged that the question of humanitarian aid not be "politicized," the regime itself is taking every advantage of the cyclone to make permanent its grip on power to the exclusion of helping its own people. As is often the case, distraction and delay in discussing the fundamental issues in Burma only serve the interests of the regime.

The extension of Aung San Suu Kyi's house arrest is the most high-profile example of this phenomenon. Notwithstanding the UN's four prior findings that her detention is illegal and that Burmese law itself does not permit house arrest beyond five years, the junta decided to give her a sixth year in prison. Sadly, tomorrow marks her 63rd birthday and she has spent more than 12 of the last 18 years in isolation under house arrest.

In the days following the cyclone, the junta also saw no need to delay its sham constitutional referendum. Postponing the vote only in the two areas hit hardest by the storm, the results obviated the need for those in the cyclone-ravaged regions to also cast ballots. Nevertheless, the junta rescheduled the vote in those other areas. The junta has now made the extraordinary claim that 98.1 percent of the population had turned out to vote, with 92.48 percent endorsing the junta's proposal. According to the state-run New Light of Myanmar, this suspicious outcome has "washed away" the 1990 election result.

It is deeply regrettable that both Ban Ki-moon and ASEAN chief Surin Pitsuwan declined to raise the fraudulent election result or Suu Kyi's expiring house arrest in their meetings with the junta, both of which occurred after Cyclone Nargis hit the country. In so doing, they sent a clear signal to the junta that as long as they held their own people hostage, it could press ahead with their campaign to consolidate power and be assured the United Nations and ASEAN would relax any pressure for political reform. Their fundamental error was to focus exclusively on the suffering of the Burmese victims of Cyclone Nargis and to fail to recognize the political situation is equally unconscionable.

There is no doubt the United States continues to have a crucial role to play in keeping pressure on the Burmese junta, but time is running out for President George W. Bush to follow up his strong initial response. First, he should urge Ban Ki-moon to return to Burma on an urgent basis to insist Than Shwe provide the access Ban was promised. Second, to keep the pressure on the regime, Bush should work with the United Kingdom and France to request that Ban come back and brief the Security Council about the results of the discussions. And finally, Bush should press ASEAN leaders personally to make clear to Burma that while it is eager to assist, this help will not include shielding Burma from further intervention should it persist in its callous disregard of its own people's welfare. While there are no easy solutions to the current crisis let alone the long-term challenges in Burma, now is the time for action.

Jared Genser is President of Freedom Now, attorney for Burmese democracy-leader Aung San Suu Kyi, and a Young Global Leader of the World Economic Forum.

Comments

[jaredgenser]

Thanks to everyone for their comments. The crux of the perspectives expressed seem to be lets focus on helping the United States. I am all for helping the United States, but I don't think improving our own country and supporting others fighting for freedom and democracy have to be mutually exclusive enterprises.

I have not and am not calling for a military intervention in Burma. I am suggesting that what the Burmese junta is doing to its own people is inhumane -- not only in terms of its recent actions after the Cyclone, but its long history of human-rights abuses and its refusal to honor the results of the 1990 elections where the National League for Democracy and its allies won more than 80 percent of the parliamentary seats and was never allowed to take power.

With our diplomatic resources, the United States has the ability to influence the situation, and I am suggesting that we do more to apply pressure on the junta to both allow humanitarian relief and enter into an irreversible process of national reconciliation in the country. Neither are easily obtained. But I strongly disagree with those who would argue that the the people of Burma is not our problem and we should just ignore their suffering. If we are capable of doing something to help -- and it will not harm the United States -- than to turn a blind eye to the suffering means we also bear some measure of responsibility for what is

[Beaux510]

So Jared, I understand the desire to help in such a humanitarian crisis as this, but what do you do when the government of a sovereign nation (even one with the history of Burma) refuses to accept that help because of their own paranoia? Do you respect their wishes? Personally, I believe you have to, even if the consequences for that nation are horrible.

We went there ready to give. Ready to give our time, resources and effort for a strictly humanitarian cause with only the best intentions and motivations, and were turned away.

The only people who can challenge that position are the Burmese themselves.

[BadBob420]

At the risk of sounding very un-PC....Screw Burma! We can't even take care of ourselves. Washington is spending $2 billion more a day than we take in. Where do you suggest we get the extra money for Burma? Out of our ass? The Burmese people need a good old fashioned Revolt. If they don't want to take a bullir, then why should we!

[RedDogBear]

Right on! Not to mention that cries for "humanitarian aid" to countries have a way of morphing into justifications to start bombing them. The Burmese aren't stupid. They can see what we've done throughout the world. Thanks to Bush this country has zero credibility left as anything other than an imperial superpower out to dominate the world. The best thing Bush could do would be to just step back and let other countries and the UN handle this.

[Lemeritus]

I don't mean to seem uncharitable, BUT...

How 'bout we do a little something for the folks in Iowa, Illinois and Missouri? Hmmm?

[robXdion]

And yet we can't even take care of New Orleans or the Appalachian poor. We borrow money from China but they need OUR help and donations? I don't understand that.

[BLinCincinnati]

Or how about we start worrying about our own people and stop having to take care of everyone else?

Let countries like England, France, Germany, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Japan, etc that are well off financially at this point, take care of the rest of the world for a while. We still have tens of thousands homeless and stranded in New Orleans. The place is still a mess years later. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions devastated in Iowa and other states now. Huge portions of our crops are going to be wiped out. Billions of dollars in damages and repairs to homes, infrastructure, etc.

[vippy]

The USA is in dire need of helping our own people. Only if we sweep from our own door step can
we help others. At this time we need all the help we can get, we have our own disasters and our
future does not look very bright after the Republicans wrecked this country. Back to basics!
Don't tell other countries how to run their economies and human right issues if we don't abide ourselves. What a joke we have become.