DUCKPOND

The earthquake in China and the cyclone in Burma are tragic events for the people involved, as they are a contrast in response. The BBC reports that the earthquake may have killed 12,000 people, but there is a major search and rescue operation under weigh. It is as they suggest, “Chaotic, yet organized”. As far as I know the Chinese have not refused international relief assistance and aid, whereas that is exactly what the Burmese Government has done. By delaying assistance they have effectively considerably worsened the situation. The scale of the disaster has clearly overwhelmed the national capacity to deal with it, and that could happen anywhere.

It is difficult to understand the attitude of the Burmese Government, but let us try. It seems to me that Burma is somewhat similar to North Korea. They have sought to shut themselves off from the rest of the world, and that is advantageous to dictatorships. In the case of Burma they have revenues from the sale of natural gas that have not benefited their people. The extreme behaviors exhibited by governments, such as Burma, might be understood partly in the framework of the colonialism and post-colonialism. Still natural disasters such as cyclones were never included in the 1984 playbook. The dictatorship must have been reasonably satisfied by the lockdown of the civil disobedience campaign lead by the Buddhist monks, but a cyclone is another matter.

So beyond the influence of neighbours, such as Thailand, India and China, what can the rest of the world do? Ivo Daadler and Paul Stares suggest in The Boston Globe that “the United Nations can save Burma”:

Vast parts of Burma stand under water. Villages and infrastructure have been blown or washed away. Sanitation systems have broken down, as have transportation and food distribution systems. Millions are in need of the most basic necessities: food, drinking water, shelter. Current estimates are that without immediate assistance, disease, starvation, and death will follow for 1.5 million people.

If not the national government, who can protect the people? The question has long been raised in the context of genocide and large-scale crimes against humanity, and three years ago all the members of the UN provided a solemn answer: the international community. The members agreed that governments have a responsibility to protect their people, and the international community had to assume that responsibility if a government cannot or will not do so.

Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner of France suggested that the United Nations invoke this collective responsibility to protect the people of Burma. Kouchner knows better than most what is really at stake here, having been the founder and leader of the humanitarian relief group Doctors Without Borders.

Kouchner’s words were met with a deafening silence. But the French foreign minister had the right idea – not to resort to the immediate use of force (as all too many assume the responsibility to protect principle means) but to increase international pressure on the Burmese junta to do the right thing.

The United States and Britain should join with the French government and introduce a resolution in the UN Security Council demanding that the Burmese government immediately allow the entry of international relief supplies and personnel into the country and allow the UN to take charge of the relief mission. To make the case, Washington should show detailed imagery of the suffering and the extent of devastation in Burma (as it did so effectively in the cases of Bosnia and Darfur to shock a disbelieving United Nations).

The resolution should hold open the possibility of additional measures – including air drops of relief supplies – if the government did not comply at once. And the Security Council could commit to return to the matter in 24 hours, assess Burma’s response, and consider additional actions.

I think the United Nations would be more effective in this case if there were voices from other than the usual suspects. Countries that come to mind might include such as for example,Chile and South Africa who in the mind of the Burmese Government would not be associated with what they fear from powerful intervention, but might be seen as representing the voice of disinterested humanity. We may very well detest the current government of Burma, but we have to find a way to work with them.

ELSEWHERE

At Informed Comment – Global Affairs, Phillip J Cunningham is critical of Western reporting and attitudes across the board, including Laura Bush.