Surely the bedrock responsibility of any state is to protect its citizens in the case of natural disaster. The bungling and incompetence shown in New Orleans was the lever for Bush’s free fall in the opinion polls. Far graver is the appalling regime in Burma, which has never shown any interest in doing so, and which held an absurd constitutional referendum to entrench itself in power and ban Aung San Suu Kyi from ever holding office even as many of its citizens were being devastated and killed by Cyclone Nargis and its aftermath. Its military is more interested in oppressing ethnic minorities than in disaster relief, and attempts at aid are failing because of the regime’s strict insistence on its border security and sovereignty.
Interestingly, there have been calls for humanitarian intervention from French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner, from dissident Burmese media and Gareth Evans. The legal basis for such calls is disputed, although it may have legitimacy from the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine adopted by the UN in 2005. [The case for the invocation of this doctrine is discussed here.] But, while lip service is being paid to their own responsibility by the “international community”, will anything happen?
Offending national sovereignty is apparently fine when it involves oil, opium, Islam or a macho yearning to boast “regime change”. It is not to be contemplated when it is just a matter of saving hundreds of thousands of lives.
I think a case could have been actually been made for humanitarian intervention in Iraq. Its a shame it wasn’t. But now that the neocons are forced back on the Casus Belli of HI for SW Asia then logically it follows that the worlds largest de-facto empire MUST intervene in Burma or be seen as a fascist fraud and evil empire more interested in colonialism for resources than democracy.
As Madelaine Allbright once said,’ Whats the use of having this giant big shiny war machine if we can’t use it?’ ( paraphrased)
There is even a crime now called ‘depraved indifference’. This is a crime where you can help – but you don’t. This is what the whole world must now accuse the last empire of. By not acting when you could have you became an accomplice. I accept that I may well be in the vanishing minority in the anarchist movement by taking this stand but here I do stand – I can do no other.
The French call for R2P has been heavily overhyped- see here and this discussion here. All that has actually happened has been that Kouchner that the concept should be invoked and France’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN Jean-Pierre Lacroix on May 12 said that his country might “introduce a text” to that effect but so fall all that France has done is called for the head of OCHA (Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs) to give a briefing to the Security Council on R2P and Burma, a call that went absolutely nowhere.
On top of this the UN’s leading adviser on R2P, Edward Luck, says it doesn’t apply in this case and moreover, the actual procedures for invoking and enacting it are still being worked on – though if reports of the junta blocking all acess to the Karen areas are true then there may be an opening on the grounds of ethnic cleansing.
But it seems to me the -the massive logistical and political issue any intervention raises nonwithstanding – there doesn’t seem to be an effective case for intervention given that a) Aid needs to get in now, not after your forces have driven off the army and toppled the junta b) if theres one thing the country could really do without at this particular moment it’s a fricking war.
I don’t think anyone’s talking about war, Leinad, but rather about some sort of armed intervention to secure the distribution of aid supplies and workers. But that would probably provoke an armed response from Burma. So there you have it. But it’s an interesting limit case for how far these discourses of “humanitarian intervention” really stretch when nothing but, well, humanitarianism is at stake. It’s then that we see that state sovereignty still has its power unless other more powerful states choose to disregard it.
And you’re right about Kouchner.
“Offending national sovereignty is apparently fine when it involves oil, opium, Islam or a macho yearning to boast “regime change”. It is not to be contemplated when it is just a matter of saving hundreds of thousands of lives.”
This implies that such an intervention would be as easy as rolling out of bed. Do you have a strategy complete with contingency plans that would guarantee success? Are you sure Burma wouldn’t implode, like Iraq, given the various ethnic minorities that have been fighting the Burmese government for decades?
I’m tempted to support intervention but please oh please spare us the talk about “lip service” until you think thru the ramifications.
What part of that paragraph doesn’t mean war?
Was Kosovo a humanitarian intervention?
That’s my point, Leinad. It always means war.
The question mark in the title’s there for a reason.
That’s why I’m puzzled, Leinad. Once you intervene a whole range of scenarios could play out. As we’ve seen with Iraq and Afghanistan, not even the mighty US can simply invade a country then leave on its own terms.
steve at 4, see my reply to Leinad at 6.
Note that quotation doesn’t imply endorsement. But the question cited is well worth raising.
I think that the situation is basically fucked. Nothing will work. Because the Burmese regime is really appalling, as I’ve said. “Diplomatic engagement” obviously doesn’t work. “Humanitarian intervention” obviously doesn’t work. Donating to disaster relief might be futile. What to do? There’s got to be some sort of paradigm shift in thinking that doesn’t leave the only two alternatives as war and pissweak diplomacy. But I’m no Henry Kissinger, and I haven’t worked it out. Kissinger himself, of course, was a fan of state sovereignty and hard nosed realism!
Well how about a few aircraft carriers and supply ships at sea with aerial drops of humanitarian goods irrespective of the wishes of the junta? It would mean low risk but moderate impact but would be better than nothing. I think the Pakistani government did aerial drops after that big earthquake a couple of years back in locations where it was impossible to land an aircraft.
I think probably that should be tried, but it’s not going to make much of a difference, in the absence of anyone keeping order and providing relief on the ground – if memory serves, there were at least some folks able to organise things in Pakistan at that time.
Steve: Oxfam’s field aid director doesn’t think it’s a particularly good idea.
Well there are some items like bottled water, military ration packs, bandages and antiseptics that may be suitable to aerial drops and of some utility. These are also things that aren’t particularly perishable so it shouldn’t matter if they are overlooked for a couple of days. Hell, make them fluorescent pink and include a battery charged flashing light on top of the pellet, or a device that emits sound!
If I had broken bones and couldn’t get to a doctor it would nonetheless be good to have basic survival stuff like clean water and antiseptic!
Drops like this war made in WWII I believe.
1) The army is going to grab most of what is dropped, they’re the ones with the guns.
2) These cargo planes are vulnerable as hell to even rudimentary air defense, and they’ll stop running mission the moment on is fired on, let alone shot down.
3) if airdrops were done without Burmese permission that’d kibosh all the other operations in progress and any further shipments of aid.
4) Airdrops of any decent scale require large airfields with a lot of space for logistics, not aircraft carriers, and that means that a country neighbouring Burma has to be in on the military intervention. China’s not going to, I can’t see the Thais being up for it, and that doesn’t leave many options.
How long was Iraq under the type of rule that Burma is under. It took a long time to clean out the Saddam Hussein regime. Burma needs the same treatment and quickly. It is surprising USA and its Allies haven’t had Burma in their sights.
Nothing will happen. We will leave the Burmese to rot and die. I wish it were otherwise, but its not. Think Pol Pot, Ruanda, the Sudan, Somalia (the Yanks don’t want another Blackhawk Down), Zimbabwe, etc, etc. One is left to watch these horrors on nightly TV knowing even if we could do something, we won’t.
Yet again another example of a completely ineffectual UN. One of the main reasons the Iraqi intervention is as messy as it is, is that the UN refused to endorse the CoW position. Just imagine how much more successful Iraq wouls have been if the Chinese and Russians had got involved. Would have dramatically reduced the mischief making from Iran!
Military intervention backed by a united UN is the only solution in Burma. Kick these tinpot dictators out. But it needs a unified UN effor. Nothing will work in Burma with out China…. fat chance of that.
Camille, Iraq was nothing like Burma. While it’s true that Saddam was an extremely nasty thug, the Iraqis, even whilst the sanctions were in place, were in a much better state than the Burmese.
Kim wrote “I think that the situation is basically fucked. Nothing will work. Because the Burmese regime is really appalling, as I’ve said.”
I don’t share your pessimism, Kim. Donate to a charity that has local (Burmese) staff already working with the homeless. Keep up the multi-pronged diplomatic pressure. Find a way of parachuting supplies in.
The Berlin Airlift worked, and that was in early days of a Cold War with one side nuclear-armed, amidst the continuing chaos and destruction from WW2. Many large-scale humanitarian efforts have at least ameliorated dire conditions, saved SOME lives.
A free Burma is a worthy ultimate goal, but meanwhile there is MUCH to be done. Situation Normal, All F***ed Up (SNAFU).
Depends on the type of state you have.
>
I really like the Burmese. Last year they held a week long vigil on the lawn of the state library for freedom. It was a quiet, dignified ritual. There were no megaphones or speeches or raised fists. And it was interesting how people paid more attention to it for that reason.
>
That said I’m not sure the Burmese are going to get anywhere with peaceful resitance any more. The people in charge don’t give rat’s. Shoot ‘em.
The ‘we have to do something, airdrops are something, lets do airdrops’ arguments on display from some commenters here fuel my suspicion that for some people intervention is a style of argument, rather than an argument in itself.
Rather than get explore the costs and drawbacks of an action, or getting tied up minor, niggling details like, I dunno, logistics (especially in light of longer-term disaster relief and recovery issues, for which scattershot aid bundles are not going to suffice) it seems it is much more preferable to blame the UN(?!) for inaction and come up for grandiose schemes for action for any course of action that will assuage their guilt, regardless of wether they would actually be effective.
PS. Berlin was a city. Easy to spot on the map, there were runways to land on, and organisations in place to distribute aid on arrival – it couldn’t be anything less like the situation in Burma.
The trouble with airdropping supplies into failed states and kleptocracies is that the dudes with guns steal everything. Happened in Somalia. Happened in Ethiopia. The people who run Burma are sociopathic. They just don’t care.
>
Shoot ‘em.
Very good point about Berlin, leinad.
I wasn’t saying “airdops are easy” or “aisdrops are foolproof”, far from it. Just rying to figure out a feasible method that MAY have a chance of reaching the soon-likely-to-be-starving-and-disease-ridden. What’s YOUR suggestion?
Adrien: the shooting can come later, mate! Helping the desperate is the key right now, isn’t it?
I too detest a country that locks up its elected PM for decades. These generals have no shame and few brains.
Ambigulous: My answer is anything that isn’t crazy, ineffective and likely to alienate the only organised distribution system left standing in a humanitarian disaster, you know, boring stuff like diplomatic pressure, persuasion, using local networks and local staff where possible.
The interventionist style has this wonderful trait of demanding opponents come up with their own solution before criticising a bad one, of which you’ve provided a handy example.
“I ain’t saying burning witches is foolproof, it MAY hve have a chance of curing the drought. What’s YOUR suggestion?”
It’s not just “interventionists” who use that mode of discussion.
BTW, I wasn’t demanding you have a suggestion; I just think the situation is dire, relief should be provided to the destitute, homeless, sick…. and genuinely wondered whether you had some ideas to share with us.
Your witch joke is amusing, I’ll grant.
Meanwhile, back in the Irrawaddy delta, there’s rain forecast. I certainly don’t exclude diplomacy, pressure, etc. I applaud those organisatins who have Burmese working with them, especially those who’ve had Burmese partners or employees for many years.
Come to think of it, earlier I wrote “Donate to a charity that has local (Burmese) staff already working with the homeless. Keep up the multi-pronged diplomatic pressure. Find a way of parachuting supplies in.” So it looks as if you agree with two of these and think the third is crazy.
Two out of three ain’t bad for a dimwit codger like me… Shucks!!
cheerio
Everyone:
Don’t say it is “racism” but ….
Some people are wondering why the RAAF and the Army haven’t been sent in to help the rescue efforts in China’s earthquake-stricken areas …. and wondering why the RAAF haven’t bombed the living daylights out of the Burmese military regime and shot their air force out of the sky.
I have not heard such virulent hatred against any foreign regime in years …. not even against Saddam Hussein’s or Osama bin-Laden’s and certainly not Kim Jong-Il’s.
China needs no help and with the Olympics looming if it did it would ask, if only to avoid the bad press. But Burma…
HI on the basis of need, delivered apolitically can be very effective. E.g. ICRC or AI approaches during the cold war
Be very suspicious of HIs undertaken on the basis of some perceived violation of human rights – the two principles of non-discrimination and political neutrality pervade Geneva Law and should pervade modern humanitarianism. Without them, humanitarian practice is indistinguishable from partisan political activity.
Though the Machiavelli in me suggests that it is the perfect area for a bit of fun and games; with the right spin humanitarianism can easily be morphed into militant humanitarianism and/or hard-wilsonianism, justifying the expansionist urge. From there it’s a short hop, skip and a jump to the neo-con position.
Well the trouble is it’s very difficult to help people who live under a tyrannical kleptocracy.
Consider Bob Geldof’s heroic but ultimately futile 1980s projects – Band Aid and Live Aid. Wonderful things. The whole world tuning in to a concert, donating money. Unfortunately it just wasn’t that simple:
Disheartening but true, cont:
Instead of feeding the world we let the dictator responsible for the famine in the first place know it’s Christmas time. This is extremely unpalatable (and I suspect someone’ll give me shit for being a cynic – again) but it’s the truth.
>
In Burma we have a natural disaster. The Ethiopian famine was represented as a natural disaster but it wasn’t. It was a deliberate military tactic. The journalist most responsible for reporting the tragedy Michael Buerk decided to oversimplify the causes of the famine for humanitarian reasons. He believed (with reason) that if he went into the realpolitik complexities of the situation people would simply switch off in resignation. As it happened they didn’t. Unfortunately in reality all the efforts to feed the starving benefited Colonel Haile Mariam Mengistu more than it did the starving.
>
Having said all that I’m not advocating resignation re Burma. I’m simply saying that when one looks the regime in the face one sees clearly a sociopathically obtuse state that has no regard for the well-being of its people. I almost never advocate violent revolution as a solution to political problems. Unfortunately it seems clear that it is the only solution here.
>
And as Graham Bell has asked why don’t we fight Burma in these days of spreading democracy by force? Why? Because what John Perkins refers to as the Corporatocracy has no trouble accessing Burma’s resources which is what the NeoCon agenda is really about. The Burmese will have to do it for themselves.
>
But they’ll have to do it, or continue to suffer. There’s no third way.
TonyD [29] and Adrien [30]:
I only repeated what I heard …. and omitted mentioning another issue which is causing so much hatred against the present Myanmar military regime.
Absolutely no “spreading democracy by force” whatsoever.
“Just get rid of the fxxx axxx criminals-in-uniform who are getting rich by letting their own people die for nothing. That’s all. Once the cxxxs have been wiped out, feed the victims of the cyclone …. then get out of there and let the Burmese sort out their own problems; don’t get involved in any political fights afterwards”.
I’m tempted to agree with that.
Yeah, should only take a couple of hours to get rid of the Burmese Army, then we can get back to feeding everybody.
Even if going to the mat with the Burmese junta was a viable strategy (which it isn’t) there’s no way it’ll happen. Not after Dubya. The only support for such a move comes from Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. And they’re welcome to try. After precipitating so much bloodshed I reckon it’d be a good idea if they both actually experienced a battle first hand.
But that case was made. It was made by Ann Clwyd and by Baroness Nicholson and by Bernard Kouchner, now Foreign Minister of France who makes the same case for Burma.
How convenient our memories are when we forget or ignore what led up to that war.
With the what’s left of the Burmese army? Mmmm meat group!
Too late, you’ve already acted politically in removing the nominal government. Power vacuums etc, have to keep the peace and good order etc, sound familiar?
To be really harsh an argument could be mounted that we should do nothing about the Junta (and I just know that someone will take offense at this so just bear in mind the semi-contrariness intention here). Self-determination used to be an important part of Liberalism – nowadays it’s more like we determine that we don’t like (projection of morality) and force others to accept it (rights-based HI). Tacit support is still support and if populations don’t do their own work of liberation they will never really be free.
Lol laissez fair humanitarianism!
I think self-determinism is still an important part of liberalism (and any other political philosophy that advocates democracy). ‘Liberalism’ however has been hijacked by people who’re anything but. The Bush junta (to use John le Carre’s phrase) have simultaneously subverted or even rolled back civil liberties whilst talking the spread of democracy and free markets out the other side of their faces.
>
In truth they are advocating neither. They’re engineering a corporatist collusion between the State and select friends in the private sector at the expense of ordinary people and their own nation’s reputation. They were initially successful because able to utilize the post 9/11 environment to silence any criticism as treacherous. When the whole shebang started even suggesting that Iraq was about oil was deemed not just wrong but immoral. This despite the massive evidence to the contrary plain as the smirk on Dubya’s face.
>
Shame on the fourth estate.
>
Nothing similar to the PNAC project in Iraq would be attempted in Burma because what John Perkins has referred to as the Corporatocracy has no trouble accessing Burma’s natural resources. If spreading democracy was the true goal of the NeoCon (Artists) then they would’ve started with Burma. Unlike Iraq there’s already a head of state who is both popularly acknowledged as legitimate and has the smarts to bring Burma into the modern era. There is a popular will to multi-party democracy (the mantra Ms. Aung Sung most often repeats in her writing). These are absent in Iraq.
>
But democracy is not the point but the cover story. A cursory look at the behaviour of Bush shows that he and the majority of his cohorts are plutocrats for whom democracy is an accursed and perpetual thorn.
>
All that said there’s an inherent contradiction in spreading democracy by force that is both moral and practical. However given that the US has had no trouble in the past subverting indigenous democratic movements via the training of nasty militias one wonders why they can’t perhaps use this expertese in furtherance of redeeming their own national soul something I suspect thinking Americans want badly.
Adrien,
Why do you focus so much on the policies and practices of he USA? Are there not other large and medium and small nations that have the interests of the destitute of Burma at heart? Last I heard, the globe was not a one-nation State.
cheers
Adrien said:
I think the reason why Iraq was taken out before Burma was that Iraq was perceived as dangerous and Burma not. Also Burma has friends but Saddam didn’t.
The Burmese generals’ recalcitrance and disregard for their people should come as no surprise.
The apparent ASEAN disregard should not either.
Because one of ASEAAN’s most powerful (read cashed up) members is gunning for its natural gas reserves, looking to pin them to historically low btu prices now while building a pipelines that would allow delivery further afield.
Look at the deep sea port development at Tavoy, who it is funded by, how far that physically is from the Thai province of Kanchanaburi and which was the first country to be allowed symbolic gestures of aid delivery and the story is revealed.
Call me a cynic, but hey . . .
All humanitrain assistances should be done with non governmantal agency and only the government of affects country should allows which governments should supply his country with milliary equipment if is need during that period of disasters. In case of Burma the government has problem with most westerners governments and some of journalists from westerners countries, some months ago are supply Rebels in remote of country to created political instability in Burma. It is the duty of government to prevent such matters should not occure in their country. If the westerners governments really want supply the humanitrains in Burma they should give these assistances to United nations, International Communitee of Red and others many non governmental Agency to supplies these all aid.