Silence From Our Sabre Rattlers as Burma's Dying Cry Out to be Saved

What are we waiting for? Where now is liberal interventionism? Over 100,000 people are dead after a cyclone in the Irrawaddy delta and the United Nations has declared that one and a half million people, deprived of aid for a week, are at risk of death. Barely ten per cent are reported to have received any help at all. The world stands ready to save them. The warehouses of Asia are crammed with supplies. Ships and planes are on station. Nothing happens.

Anyone who has visited this exquisite part of the world will know how avoidable is further catastrophe to the delta people. They are resourceful, peaceable and hugely resilient. Like those of low-lying Bangladesh next door, they are used to extreme weather. Their agriculture is fertile and they are self-sufficient in most things. But no one can survive instant starvation and disease.

They need not wait. There are three giant C130s loaded and ready in Thailand. There are American and French ships in the area, fortuitously on a disaster relief exercise, with shelters, clothing, latrines, medicines and water decontamination equipment. Above all there are helicopters vital in an area where most roads are impassable by flooding and fallen trees. The Australian aid agency, World Vision, has 600 staff in Burma and tons of supplies waiting in Dubai. The world cannot prevent natural calamities, but since the tsunami of 2004 it has learned how to cope with their aftermath.

Nothing can be done because the Burmese military regime refuses to permit it. Instead it is wasting time this weekend holding a nationwide referendum, devoid of open debate, to legitimise its hold on power and exclude the opposition, led by Aung San Suu Kyi.

The regime last week impounded the only two UN relief planes that managed to land in Rangoon, forcing the UN to suspend further flights. The regime's leader, hiding in his jungle "capital", refused even to take a call from the secretary-general, Bang Ki Moon. Visas are denied to doctors and logistical experts. What has been allowed in from China, Thailand and Indonesia is a trickle and must be distributed by the Burmese army, which cannot cope. Where 40 relief planes a day should be landing at Rangoon there is barely one.

Hundreds of thousands of people are thus condemned to death by one thing alone, the viciousness of a dictatorship more concerned with its pride and xenophobia than with the wellbeing of its citizens. Like Soviet regimes of old, the Burmese government would rather pretend that disasters have not occurred than admit it cannot handle them. When the cyclone tore off the roof of Rangoon's Insein jail, crammed with 10,000 prisoners, and part of it caught fire, the guards opened fire and killed 36. An aid worker told the BBC, "They are murdering their own people."

I have opposed many of the macho military interventions conducted by the west over the past decade. Their justifications have been obscure, their motives mixed and their morality situational, especially those aimed at "regime change". Those in Afghanistan and Iraq had the additional defect of built-in failure.

On the other hand the west did intervene to try to stop humanitarian catastrophes in Bosnia from 1992, Somalia in 1993, Kosovo in 1998 and Sierra Leone in 2000. The failure to intervene in Rwanda in 1994 and more recently in Sudan's Darfur province was generally attributed not to timidity but to the logistical difficulty of deploying power in the African interior.

These interventions were not ideological, whether "liberal" or "neo-con". They were to save lives from being lost by the thousand. They were covered by international law (possibly not Kosovo) because the UN charter's respect for territorial integrity also stipulates that it "shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures" to avert a humanitarian crisis.

This was reinforced when the Security Council in 2005 and 2006 imposed a responsibility on the international community to protect people whose governments failed to do so. It castigated in particular the "intentional denial of humanitarian assistance". Such an extension of the concept of military intervention was advocated by Tony Blair in his Chicago speech of 1998, when it was dismissed by the Americans (pre-9/11) as irresponsible. Today it is widely regarded as legitimate, even by those opposed to much of the belligerent militancy that ensued under Blair and George Bush.

It is hard to think of a more glaring application of the humanitarian principle than today's Burma. In none of the above interventions was anything like the same number of lives at risk as the 2m now threatened in the Irrawaddy delta. This is eight times the 230,000 reckoned to have died in the 2004 tsunami.

In Burma, the airlifting of supplies from offshore vessels to stricken areas would indeed be an offence against the sovereignty of Burma. But the intervention would not constitute an attack on a government or occupy its territory. Indeed it would be occasioned strictly because of the lack of government in a particular territory. It would be to save the lives of people abandoned to their deaths by their rulers.

Yet where today are the brave rattlers of sabres against the Iraqis, the Afghans and the Iranians? The American ambassador to the UN, Zalmay Khalilzad, says he is "outraged by the slowness of the response" of the Burmese authorities. His outrage will bring scant comfort to those dying in the delta.

On Friday the British and French foreign ministers, David Miliband and Bernard Kouchner, announced that "we look to the regime" to lift restrictions on aid distribution. Nobody "looked to" Milosevic to stop slaughtering Kosovans or the rebels to stop the killing in Sierra Leone. We intervened.

The Foreign Office remarked last week that there was "no excuse" for delay and then thought of one. The British chairman of the UN security council, John Sawyer, claimed that the 2006 resolution referred only to "acts of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity rather than government responses to natural disasters." But in 2001 there was no evidence that the Taliban were committing such acts, yet Britain intervened. And what is happening in Burma if not an "intentional denial of humanitarian assistance."

The option of sending in relief supplies by air may well face logistical objections. Ships and heavy-lift equipment must be in position, with air cover to ensure the safety of the operation from possible retaliation by the Burmese. There must be some sense of order on the ground to ensure that drops are other than random, though at some point a starving and dying population would presumably welcome any help rather than none.

It may be the case that diplomatic pressure on the regime might soon force it to reverse its negligence - though at present this is unlikely. Indeed the west's policy of merely hurling abuse at it looks counter-productive. A regime that turns away the Red Cross, will not take calls from the UN or even listen to its friendly super-power China seems immune to pressure.

There is no justification under the UN charter for intervening to topple the Burmese military regime. That task would rightly be opposed by other powers in the region and must one day be performed by the Burmese themselves. But aid drops over the Irrawaddy delta are nothing to do with that case. The outside world has waited a week, and protested to no effect.

Either way some enforced intervention must surely be planned. The British aid minister, Douglas Alexander, said last week it would be "incendiary". He did not explain why a "dump-and-run" of emergency supplies in the delta would be incendiary - compared, for instance, to his antics in Afghanistan.

He cannot hold to the thesis that Burma is not ripe for "liberal intervention" because the loss of life is the result of a natural disaster rather than political or military oppression. What is this fine distinction between a massacre and what the military are now inflicting on the Burmese people? A corpse is a corpse.

This catastrophe is not past but ongoing. A western world adept at intervening elsewhere on a humanitarian pretext is suddenly inert. Why? I suspect the reason is that it has too much intervention on its plate already. The Burmese must die because we are too busy pretending to save Afghans and Iraqis. To such cynicism has liberal intervention sunk.

Comments

[youknow]

After one cuts through all the B.S. the following becomes crystal clear. The Junta in Burma are Criminals such as Hitler and the West ( no matter what they say ) is complicit in the crime. Period. Where is this glorious press of ours beating the drums? Also complicit. INCREDIBLE

[Careful]

You know, youknow, you really don't know.

[SPENCER]

On the network news, it was reported that the Burmese junta gave TVs and DVDs to a devastated village instead of food and supplies, while they export rice and make millions from the world food crisis.

Food is now a valuable commodity; the lives of their own people...
not so much.

[Chavez08]

Yeah, they don't have a caring, humane government like we do here.

[nopartygal]

Yeah, too true. Look how well the victims of Katrina were taken care of... We're lucky to be living in this country.... The victims of Katrina sure are... Lucky, lucky, lucky....

[tompoe]

What are we waiting for? Where now is conservative interventionism? Over half of New Orleans' population are forced out of their homes after hurricane Katrina. Barely ten per cent are reported to have received any help at all. The world stands ready to save them. The warehouses of the United States are crammed with supplies. Ships and planes are on station. Nothing happens.

This catastrophe is not past but ongoing. A western world adept at intervening elsewhere on a humanitarian pretext is suddenly inert. Why? I suspect the reason is that it has too much intervention on its plate already. The folks in New Orleans must die without help being offered. To such cynicism has conservative intervention sunk.

There, now that's the article Simon Jenkins needs to write.

[Alethea]

Absolutely. I guess it just goes to prove that the poor (New Orleanians and Burmeese alike) aren't worth the effort in the Neo-Con's book.

Such hypocrites. All of them who supported this war.

[heal57]

Amen to that.

[nopartygal]

The equation is really quite simple: We just don't interfere if there is no oil or other opportunity for money or power involved. We are not altruistic - be it the USA or the United Nations. It's all about business and positioning. Burma has neither to offer. We are not interested. The little people don't matter. We only champion "sexy" causes. Burma is not "sexy".

Hell, look at how we treated (and are still treating) the fallout from New Orleans. The rich are fine and settled, the poor are breathing fumes from ill-constructed temporary housing (if they're lucky...). The poor Burmese don't even have the advantage of being right under our noses here in the US, where there is at least a certain guilt factor involved, since the news will leak out here and there. Other than a few horrified oohs and aahs, very few people give a damn. Hell, we have to choose our own next junta here. We're busy!

[r11]

There's no oil there (like in Iraq) nor is Burma situated in a strategically important area (like Balkans). Very little incentive to interfere.

There's no chance for UN to authorize forced feeding - as it will create a very questionable precedent of allowing foreign intervention in a very subjective situation. Next thing we know NATO will use a drought as a pretext to invade Belarus.

To just fly cargo planes and dump food/survival supplies over affected areas is no-go - such planes are defenseless against even simplest of anti-aircraft guns.

The only way to deal with this is for world to have relationships with even the worst regimes - so that in event of humanitarian crisis we can at least help the _people .

The West is not interested though. We watches as 700 000 of Iraqi civilians (children) died due to embargoes after the first Iraq War - didn't seem to annoy too many of us...

[TEEHead]

Wait a minute, I'm confused. 700K die in Iraq after the first war, but that's not enough to justify military action? Or it is as long as no one else dies in the military action. Of course would mean its not military action I suppose - just a bunch of guys walking around asking "Please, Mr. Horrible Dictator, please don't kill people any more"

Oh, no wait, it's *our* fault those folks are dead, because we had an embargo which caused them to die.

Oh, no wait, it was *our* fault when all those folks died before then because we *didn't* have an embargo and traded with a murderous regime that was using all the trade to build up the 4th biggest military in the world to invade their neighbors.

No, no, wait, it was *our* fault - we were responsible for the previous military coups, monarchies, European colonizations, Mongol invasions, etc. etc...

If we intervene we're bad. If we don't, we're bad. If we support one side over another, we're bad. if we stay neutral we're bad.

The Muslims are always justified...Americans are always wrong...Obama '08.

Now I understand.

[MajorKong]

We thought it was great when Saddam attacked Iran and killed close to a million Iranians. We were even happy to help him do it. It wasn't until he invaded Kuwait that we got all miffed.
He was only supposed to attack the neighbors that we didn't like.

Any wonder that people take a cynical view of our foreign policy?

[Alethea]

I get your point, but you're totally missing the point.

It is our fault that there are currently 2 million Iraqi refugees, some of whom have gone to Syria and are young girls (10 years old or so) who are selling sex for money to live. That would definitely be our faut seeing as how we instigated this damnable Occupation.

The whole point for going in there was to save them remember? Lot of good that did. Whenever war is waged on pretense, and without a realistic plan of execution, it can never go well for anyone involved.

No, we aren't responsible for everything wrong in the world. WW2 was perfectly justified as was WW1. And yes, Saddam was a bad man who made his people suffer. But you know you've done something very wrong when the people you were trying to save would prefer to have their dictator back because things were better back then.

As for Burma, I don't know if military action is the correct choice or not. But something should be done, with or without the Jaunta's consent.

[IneptitudePrideB4Fall]

Answer to PeeHead: Well, the embargo, which was put in place by choice, WAS responsible for Iraqi deaths in the years between the 2 Gulf Wars. You might argue (as others have) that you "think is was worth it" but the embargo, denying such benign items as water purification replacement parts and sewage maintenance parts, certainly caused those Iraqi deaths.
You actually believe that Iraq had the 4th biggest military in the world? I guessed you believe anything the gummint tells you, hunh? You must have missed how we ran over that country in our 2 invasions in no time flat encountering almost no battles.
And, I'm guessing now, but you think Iraq was evil to invade its neighbors? Know any other nation that has invaded other counries? And why are we talking about Muslims here? We're referring to actions or inactions of nations - not religious affiliations.
And no, you most assuredly do not understand.

*******************************

[OliverTwist]

Myanmar is one of the world's oldest oil producers, exporting its first barrel in 1853. Rangoon Oil Company, the first foreign oil company to drill in the country, was created in 1871. Between 1886 and 1963, the country's oil industry was dominated by Burmah Oil Company (BOC).

The oil and gas industry was nationalized 1n 1962. As in many other countries, the State assumed ownership of the resources, either operating them itself or delegating this task to private operators, who were paid for their outlay and work in oil or gas under production sharing contracts (PSCs).

"In 2007, nine foreign oil companies (Myanmar Petroleum Resources Ltd, Focus Energy Ltd, Westburne, China National Offshore Oil Corporation, China National Petrochemical Corporation, Sinopec, Essar, Goldpetrol and a representative of the Kalmik republic) are involved in 16 onshore blocks to explore new areas (EP blocks), to enhance recovery from existing fields (IOR blocks), to reactivate fields where production has been suspended (RFS blocks) and to produce (PSCs).

For the offshore area, Total, Petronas Carigali Myanmar, Daewoo, PTT-EP, China National Offshore Oil Corporation, China National Petrochemical Corporation, Essar, Gail and Rimbunam (Malaysia) are exploring and/or developing 29 blocks.

It should be noted that Myanmar authorities intensified the opening of blocks to foreign companies since the end of 2004.

Myanmar’s [current] oil output is small and gas is taking over from oil. Myanmar produces around 170, 000 barrels of oil equivalent per day, of which 90% is accounted for by gas."