The Limits of "Doing Something" in Burma

Even as thousands of Burmese continue to die in the swath of wreckage created by Cyclone Nargis, the ruling junta seems determined to keep the international community out -- an act of epic negligence, given that the aid is ready to flow, and international organizations ready to deploy thousands of relief workers. This situation has provoked various calls for action, the generals be damned.

In response, we're getting a chorus of voices urging the world to intervene. But they don't spell out exactly how. "Yes, we should help the Burmese, even against the will of their irrational leaders," writes Anne Applebaum. "Yes, we should think hard about the right way to do it. And, yes, there isn't much time to ruminate about any of this." In other words, no idea.

Some are calling on the United Nations, which in 2005 declared its collective "responsibility to protect" victims of state-sponsored violence or negligence -- in essence saying that states could not use sovereignty as a shield to exempt themselves from responsibility. Here's the Washington Post's Fred Hiatt:

But the stalemate in Burma, also known as Myanmar, shows how difficult it is to translate "responsibility to protect" into action. It's hard to imagine a government more deserving of losing the national equivalent of its parental rights; yet it seems more likely that hundreds of thousands of people will die needlessly than that the United Nations will act.

It is indeed difficult to translate the UN's vague commitment (the R2P program's website says it is "an evolving concept," which means a still-unformed one) into action in this case -- not because the UN doesn't have its act together, but because there is not really much it can do to force Burma to open its borders.

Imagine, for a moment, that the international community tried to gin up a multinational force to accompany aid workers and help distribute relief supplies over the objections of the Burmese leadership. This might take weeks to organize; even if it could be done by this Friday, its mission would be dangerously muddled. It would be a relief force, but also a provocation and a target.

Perhaps the generals will conclude it has too much to lose in a hostile response and stand aside. But this is a deeply eccentric, unpredictable regime, and the stakes very, very high. Do we want to gamble on the likely response with the lives of relief workers?

Lamentably, there is very little the international community can do when the rulers of a xenophobic police state decide to shut it out. Realistically, some food and supplies can be airdropped into targeted areas. But to have an impact on a disaster of this scale, you need people on the ground -- lots of them -- to distribute food, provide medical care and supplies, and clean up. And they need to operate in safety. In other words, you need the cooperation of the local authorities. Maybe this cooperation can still be achieved. If it isn't, the result will be yet another terrible crime perpetrated by the SLORC. But declaring that "something must be done" without an idea of what is just moral posturing, something that's only gotten us into trouble in international affairs of late.

www.johnmcquaid.com/blog

Comments

[Corinth]

This is outside our lane.
The role of the government is to interact with other world governments, not swoop down from on high and lift up every downtrodden. The death toll in Burma is still fewer than six digits, opposed to the millions we"ve allowed to be killed in the conflict states of Africa.
The death squads in Africa are acts of genocide either sponsored by, or beyond the local government"s controle. This situation in Burma is a natural disaster. We"re up and arms about how a government is choosing to handle their own problems, but not other governments targeting entire demographics for death?
Can the US government offer aid? Of course, but to force aid down someone"s throat? Let"s follow that line of thought.
Air supplies are dropped in. Within hours the local military commandeers them. What then? Fire on the military convoys? The government buildings? Next, Marines secure land and soldiers have up-armored convoys to deliver the aid. Now we have a non-lateral gorilla war of attrition because we don"t like how another nation does business. Awesome.
The reason a soldier is under arms is to kill people and destroy things. The military is not designed to help people and rebuild things. Basic training isn't teaching water shed renewal, but the most lethal employment of the bayonet. Please stop suggesting improper use of the military as a fix all for foreign relations.

[research]

If we do a small package distributed high altitude air drop, only a tiny percentage can be commandeered before vanishing into people houses and stomaches.

But send in no troops, just humanitarian aid, while the politics works out.

[knowhelpnow]

The government of Burma says they can take care of it themselves, just like we told everyone we could take care of Katrina. Let it be, if they want help they will get it in tons, if they don't let them be. How would we fell if other countries that wanted to help us determined that our government wasn't doing enough and decided to take it out to get help to those affected by Katrina. Do unto others as you would want done to you.
Hey we haven't fix New Orleans yet how many years?

[95flhtcu]

what would be wrong with airdropping aid? It wouldn't be the first time we did it. I know, Sovereign air space according to the administration. As if Bush even knows what the word means. This is genocide, or at least murder and the administration's answer is "sovereign air space".

[kusalarhetoric]

Correction, I wrote, "When the British invaded China" when I meant to have written, "When the British invaded Burma". For more on this subject, see also, "Burma: A 24th Province for China" by Andre Boucaud and Louis Boucaud. (http://mondediplo.com/2006/11/07burma)

[MikeDu]

The U.S. used to have - or used to imagine it had - a little thing called 'moral authority' on the world stage. Now the world sees us as little more than a dangerous meddler. That perception has cut deeply into our influence around the world. Heck of a job, Bushie.

[AdobePhsyko]

Does anybody remember ,after hurricane Katrina ?
George Bush (another Military Dictator) would not let over a thousand Volunteering Cuban doctors, with medical supplies, into the country to help the victims.
Just a Reminder

[dbroad]

I got this from CNN:

In the past, Cuba has refused U.S. offers of aid, the most recent following Hurricane Dennis. That storm killed more than 10 people in the Caribbean island nation in July.

At that time, Castro said he would not accept help from Washington because of the U.S. trade embargo against his country. The United States has no diplomatic relations with Cuba.

[MikeDu]

The difference is the U.S. would've sent CIA agents under cover as 'aid officials' to gather GPS bombing coordinates for future use. Cuba, on the other hand, would've sent doctors.

[kusalarhetoric]

A few years ago I took a boat down the Irawaddy from Mandalay. The banks were lined with felled timber, on its way to China. Disturbing. The head of the history department for Mandalay University told me that over half that city was now owned by Chinese settlers. The scene reminded me of Tibet. I can"t see a scenario with international corporations exploiting Burmese resources being on par with the Peoples Liberation Army and its associated corporations exploiting Burmese resources. There will be more oversight, more checks and balances, and ultimately less harm to citizens of Myanmar if there is a plurality of development interests.

A reassessment of sanctions compels us to appraise the Beijing regimes claims to suzerainty as more proximate than the Military juntas shortcomings, and most probably related. Before suzerainty migrates to sovereignty and Burma becomes another inseparable part of the Motherland, it behooves those concerned to engineer engagement. Pinning all possible hope on the resuscitation of a dynastic link to a previous military regime, if it is not fantasy chain rhetoric, is at best locating all the eggs in one precarious basket.

Let us hope the aid gets through, even if it involves doing some backflips in boycott diplomacy.

[jonathan3]

What an ignorant comment full of nasty insinuations against China. Just because China trades with Burma doesn't mean China has suzerainty over it. China trades with all of its neighboring countries. Burma was a province of British India for a hundred years. The dysfunction of Burma today can be directly traced to those years and its hasty independence in 1948. Burma was never China's problem and is not China's problem today. The junta actually has better relations with India than the Chinese, though it generally plays both powers for its own gain.

[kusalarhetoric]

When the British invaded China, it was reported in the Chinese press at that time as an invasion of China's sovereign territory. I've spoken with students at police academies where they receive the history of their nation and a correct understanding of the world's geography. Burma has always been a part of China. Don't believe this. Understand that 1.3 billion people do, under penalty of a re-education camp.

Mary Callahan, Robert Taylor, Guy Lebeigt, David Steinberg and many other specialists on Burma have published articles detailing how Myanmar/Burma is being steadily annexed by their northern neighbor. Apparently you belong to the camp of Senator Mitch McConnell, and we disagree.

[LiberalBuzz]

I'm sorry but if anyone out there doesn't believe we have the ability to send in teams IMMEDIATELY and take out the leaders within hours, you are living with your heads up your butts.

SURE a full scale invasion takes a long damned time but scare the hell out of these bullies by taking out the leaders of the junta overnight and see how fast they open up to help.

AND this country WOULD welcome us with open arms, flowers and daughters delivered on beds of flowers.

I HATE people who say, "At last a rational look" and then declare that the best thing to do is NOTHING. Would love to see them in the reversed position and thanking everyone for not doing anything.

Something COULD be done but it takes the guts to stand up and take responsibility for it and give the okay as opposed to everyone being terrified of something going wrong THEREFORE do nothing and allow tens of thousands of people to die.

Yeah that is totally rational.

[dbroad]

Sure, we have the ability to do this. But why should we? We went into Iraq and people were cheering and praising our soldiers and what about now? You think we could go into Burma and remove their leadership and then leave and let them handle it from there? Nope, this SHOULD be a responsibility of the UN. But, that organization is defunct and I think we should stop funding it and kick them out of the prime real estate they occupy and put that money towards something USEFUL.
The US should start taking care of its own and let some "other" country come in to save the day.

[noneIn2008]

Thank heavens, some rationale comments. If you had a repairman that broke everything he touched, would you constantly call on him to "do something". You want to see things get worse, have governments "do something".
I still cringe at the ads for Darfur, "Mr. President, do something".

[research]

How about we do high altitude small package aid drops. We can also do "smart parachute" pallet drops from high altitude.

[mlaiuppa]

This is what I'm thinking. They don't even have to be high altitude. What kind of anti-aircraft defense does Burma have out in the countryside to prevent bombing them with rice, water, medical supplies and clothing? They don't want planes to land? Fine. They won't land. They don't want people? Good. We couldn't guarantee the safety of our people once they landed anyway.

[LizM]

And, of course it doesn't help much when there is no leadership emanating from the US or from any other world capital. So, what else is new? It does make you wonder what could be happening today, on any number of fronts, if there were even a modicum of political leadership...anywhere!

Worse still, we don't even appear to be capable, as voters, of even recognizing leadership when leadership is bloody staring us straight in the face...if you know what I mean.