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 comnet@gwu.edu
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
LOL. Nice word picture. Bombs away then!
People have no grasp on how difficult and how inefficient mass airdrops are. We did this during Bosnia Herzogovina (high altitude drops delivering Meals Ready to Eat). The environment was benign compared to Myanmar.
In B-H, the people didn't need potable water, but in Myanmar they do. Very difficult to airdrop water without it breaking to pieces. And besides what the people need are ways to filter the water that is available and make it safe to drink, cook, and wash with.
If we really care about the innocent loss of life what we should do is take the Burmese government at its word, deliver the aid to airports they choose and let them distribute it. If they fail or use it inappropriately the culpa is theirs not ours.
What we could insist on is for them to allow us to set up crisis response groups (in the old days known as airlift control elements) who would control the airhead, handle the parking of the aircraft and the cargo offload. Since most of it will be palletized they would ensure the pallets get back on later aircraft to be used again.
Not as simple as you make it.
A couple of things worth pointing out.
The Myanmar regime has threatened to shoot down any aircraft trying to airdrop supplies without its approval. They possess enough surface to air missiles (SA-2s and man portable shoulder launched) and fighter aircraft (to include MIG 29s and F-7s) to make their threat credible to a transport aircraft that is flying low and slow conducting an airdrop.
The other thing about airdrops is without people on the ground ensuring a safe drop zone, people will get killed or supplies end up in inaccessible places.
The international community lacks the will to militarily go into Myanmar, topple the dictatorship, and provide humanitarian relief. What will happen instead is half a million or more will die.
I wish the Bush administration had demanded that aid be sent to New Orleans after Katrina.
Literally bomb them with humanitarian aid!
do all over the area at once, so thugs can't control it.
Make sure the packages as small light and padded so as not to break or harm folks.
It might work!
It's worth a shot.
From Beirut to Burma, speaking of Rice, where's Condi?
I think it is a beautiful sentiment. The author's bomb with Rice! and all. But - really - what would happpen. We drop food,water etc + the people are afraid of it or run to it and the tyrannical junta points guns. I really don't think the net result would be any good. They need intrinsical change - an overthrow of these animals. Tho with China propping up the Junta - it would be tough.
Myanmar doesn't have oil. Therefore, it is of no interest to the Bush administration.
Burma has oil.
The Bush administration has dispatched Air Force planes, Navy ships, and supplies to Thailand and offshore of Burma. They are waiting on permission from the Burmese government to let them into the country. The Burmese government has denied permission..
So your comment is 100% fact-free. Congratulations.
Burma has oil! I can hear W thinking right now.
Too bad the international community wasn't allowed to help the victims of Katrina and the Bush administration. Anything about this situation ring any bells?
I can't believe this country has such a short memory. All the pompous-ass criticism of the Myanmar government sounds pretty hollow when you remember how our government "handled" the catastrophe in New Orleans.
Or the continuing destruction, in our name, of the lives of millions of innocent civilians in Iraq.
Please. Spare me the self-righteousness.
It is a gross misjudgement to compare the US government to the Military Junta ruling Burma.
O Oh !
There's a Repug on our site
If we are going to drop any rice upon them, why not the Condi variety of basmati?
i am not familiar with the current regime of burma nor their military might, but, would not large warships from different countries sitting off shore make them more amenable to allow humanitarian aid?
after reading most of the posts to this article it seems apparent to me, that, after 8 years of george bush, we are reticent/reluctant/afraid to help anyone anymore.
i sent $100. 00 to https://secure.avaaz.org/en/burma_cyclone/77.php
moveon.org sent me the link--it goes directly to the burmese monks.
We would like to remind the governments to cook the rice before dropping it. Uncooked rice dropped at a great height might harm any surviving Myanmars. What's more, cooking facilities are probably at a premium right now. Cooked rice, as well as being softer, is cooked and therefore immediately comestible.
Yours sincerely,
Handel Glassberg, President
The Playdo Institute
This idea is ok by me. The individual is sovereign. When the state violates the individual's rights, and the individual has no redress, then the state is forfeit.
I would put the priority on providing drinking water. People in the flooded areas only have salt water, which can't be purified by field methods. if they don't get water NOW, they will die.
The USS Essex, which is waiting on standby, has a huge water generation plant, and the helos and hovercraft with which to deliver it.. That's what they need.
I agree. If there were ever a case for unilateral action, this may be it. This is the darkest hour for so many in Myanmar and the government there refuses to help and blocks others from doing so as well.
Certainly more of a case for invasion than Iraq.
If any intervention is to be undertaken it should be through the UN, as the vast majority of the international community sees any US involvement as suspect,and with good reason.
Bomb them with rice!
Funny, when Saddam violated the sovereignty of Iran--most people around the world rallied behind those who issued a collective yawn. No wonder they want nukes.
Once we've got some spy-satellite imagery of Osama B-L hiding under a
convenient Burmese rock with a pile of WMD's at his side, we will do what
we have to do. Give it a week. They will welcome US as liberators, surely!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
