Let's "Bomb" Myanmar -- with Rice

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates stated earlier this week that he "couldn't imagine the United States dropping aid by air" to the million displaced people of Myanmar "without permission from the Myanmar government." "It's sovereign air space, and you'd need their permission to fly in that air space," U.S. Joint Chiefs Chairman Michael Mullen explained to reporters. Such airdrops of urgently needed supplies like food, water and medicine have been suggested by, among others, Ky Luu, director of the U.S. Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner. However, so far at least, they've not been carried out. The reluctance to send in food and medicine, whether or not a given government grants permission, raises an important issue concerning humanitarian aid and even more generally, international relations in the 21st century.

The best way to get quickly to the point is, oddly, to visit the family. Once upon a time, it was widely agreed that one's home was one's castle, and that whatever happened in one's home was nobody else's business. In legal lingo, one had a very high expectation of privacy in one's home. Feminists changed this expectation, arguing that when one had reason to believe that child or spousal abuse is taking place inside the home, intervention was justified. Thus, if neighbors hear someone being thrown against the wall and cry for help, we--the community, the authorities--should rush in, whether not the homeowner put out a welcome mat. In short, the right to be free from oversight behind closed doors is not absolute. The same should now be applied to international relations.

Once upon a time, when a king converted his people from one religion to another, say to make them into Catholics, other nations--Protestants in this case--interfered to promote their religion. The results were very bloody civil wars in many parts of Europe. They came to an end (more or less) in 1648, when the various nations signed several treaties known together as the Peace of Westphalia, which entailed a commitment not to interfere in the internal affairs of another nation. Since then, the notion of national sovereignty has become almost sacrosanct. Thus, few things get Americans more exercised than claims that the UN (or some other party) is intruding on the sovereignty of the United States. And, when Saddam violated the sovereignty of Kuwait--most people around the world rallied behind those who rolled him back. This is in sharp contrast to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which many of the same people viewed as a violation of Iraq's sovereignty.

True, as a major scholar, Stephen Kranser from Stanford, pointed out in his book Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy, sovereignty was never fully respected. But this observation, along with its implications for policy, was lost on most people, the media included. Sovereignty was regarded as a touchstone of international relations.

A turning point of sorts came in 1996 when a Sudanese diplomat by the name of Francis M. Deng, troubled about--of all things--the resistance of some nations to efforts to provide their people with humanitarian assistance, published a book entitled Sovereignty as Responsibility. Deng argued that if a government does not protect its own people, it forfeits its right to sovereignty; in other words, that sovereignty was not absolute, but on the contrary, conditional. In order for sovereignty to be respected, a nation had to be good citizen of the international community.

This idea caught on. First it was embraced by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, established by the Canadian government; then by Kofi Annan, then Secretary General of the UN, who asked rhetorically: "If humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebrenica--to gross and systematic violations of human rights that affect every precept of our common humanity?"

Nowhere does this point apply better than in disaster-stricken Myanmar. An invasion would cause only more casualties on both sides. Nor should we bomb its obstructionist military, as temping as this might seem. However, if the authoritarian rulers of this country (or any other) continue to endanger the lives of many hundreds of thousands of their people by refusing to accept badly needed food and medicine, then the international community should act. It should provide food and meds by air drops. Too often nations bomb nations--killing thousands in the name of one value or another. Such bombings must pass a much higher test before one can judge them as justified. "Bombing" food and meds--to save lives--should come much easier. Like right now.

Amitai Etzioni is Professor of International Relations at The George Washington University and author of Security First (Yale, 2007) www.securityfirstbook.com He can be reached at [e-mail]

Comments

[research]

Pallets can also safely be dropped from high altitude now with GPS smart parachutes.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0QMG/is_3_36/ai_n19296138

[research]

high altitude small package air drops do work:

http://www.qmfound.com/air_bosnia.htm

[kawika]

Lets Help Missippi its a good Republican State...while weere at it lets make Louisiana Governments (Democrat) look bad...No aid for 3 years....What;s the difference?

[kawika]

Yeah why not ...the same way we helped New Orleans!

[batguano]

Good piece on this tragedy and failure by the world community.

ASIA HAND
The case for invading Myanmar
By Shawn W Crispin

BANGKOK - With United States warships and air force planes at the ready, and over 1 million of Myanmar's citizens left bedraggled, homeless and susceptible to water-borne diseases by Cyclone Nagris, the natural disaster presents an opportunity in crisis for the US.

A unilateral - and potentially United Nations-approved - US military intervention in the name of humanitarianism could easily turn the tide against the impoverished country's unpopular military leaders, and simultaneously rehabilitate the legacy of lame-duck US



President George W Bush's controversial pre-emptive military policies.

Myanmar's ruling junta has responded woefully to the cyclone disaster, costing more human lives than would have been the case with the approval of a swift international response. One week after the killer storm first hit, Myanmar's junta has only now allowed desperately needed international emergency supplies to trickle in. It continues to resist US and UN disaster relief and food aid personnel from entering the country. Officially, 60,000 people have died; the figure is probably closer to 100,000.

read the entire piece here; http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/JE10Ae01.html

[eyecon]

Throw Condi From the Plane. On the surface that solves numerous problems until Bush selects the next schmuck.

[Steamboater]

Nobody voted for the thugs who rule Burma so the hell with them and we should just drop as much food etc as can into the country. Leave it up to the junta and they'll steal everything and the people in Burma will continue to die. One word from China could solve all this but China doesn't give a crap. All it cares about is it's precious propaganda Olympics and that should be BOYCOTTED!

[FogBelter]

Mr. Etzioni ... the people of Burma should expect the same amount of support from the impotent world community in their hour of need, that the people of Darfur have received in theirs.

Why do we even pretend, anymore, that man operates by higher principles? Slogans and platitudes is all it ultimately amounts to.

[batguano]

If the world community had any resolve, testicular fortitude or integrity, they would take the fat-cat junta scum generals OUT. Whether it means military action to restore the legitimate democratically elected gov of Aun San Suu Kyi or draconian restrictions on anything the dictators do outside Burma, or any action to end their illegitimate rule and aid the typhoon victims, it should be done NOW! The world must act forcefully when a handfull of thug "generals" and an admittedly large military, put millions of civilians at risk of starvation and epidemic disease. The only thing we will get though is more mumbled begging, handwringing and cowardice in the face of a disaster of epic proportions. Hey, we do business with Burma and their despicable scum rulers and supporters, and that's important.

[julieeiluj]

What needs to be done when petty regimes who brutally oppress their people come into existence is DISCORPORATE them. How can the world sit by and watch as a bunch of over stuffed excuses for human beings in wretched uniforms dictates to the world's humanitarian effort. This is a time for military action. Human life it sacred until it seeks to destroy life. At that point the life that seeks to destroy life is meaningless and should be discorporated.

[armadillious2002]

So how is it that we can get all kinds of goods to Myanmar but we couldn't even get bottled water to the people in New Orleans?

[CocteausTwin]

Sorry typo following this post -- "Mr. Etzioni"

[CocteausTwin]

Thank you Mr. for the excellent article and analogy.

I am glad Gates holds such "high moral" views. What a tool!

[abigail1]

I am sure there are right and just reasons why this idea is wrong, but at this moment I can't think of any that are good enough to stop us from doing it and couldn't agree more with bombing Burma with food and water filters and medicine and tents and whatever anyone can think of that might help.

[Bluedog12]

Condi wouldn't appreciate this suggestion.