Neither the objective reality of disaster and death nor mounting diplomatic pressure from around the globe have shaken the Burmese generals' determination to allow no more than a trickle of aid into areas devastated by Cyclone Nargis. This is an act of epic negligence, given that international organizations are lining up with relief supplies. If a second cyclone forms offshore, things may get even worse. In response, a chorus of voices is urging the world to intervene. But they decline to explain exactly how.
"Yes, we should help the Burmese, even against the will of their irrational leaders," writes Anne Applebaum in Slate.com. "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."
Some commentators here 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 programme's website says it is "an evolving concept," which means a still-unformed one) into action in this case. For one, it would require pushing the UN to a new level of assertiveness. Traditionally, that's something that would require the United States. But the US is at a diplomatic low ebb, unable to rally other nations to bold, envelope-pushing action. Given his diffident response to the 2004 tsunami and then the massive disengagement during Hurricane Katrina, President Bush is not the man to lead the world to a new paradigm on disaster relief.
But even if the UN was up for it, 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. Given the diplomatic and logistical hurdles, this might take weeks to organise; 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.
Burma has a deeply eccentric, unpredictable regime, and the stakes here are very, very high for it. For the junta, standing by while the country is forcibly opened up to thousands of foreigners with satellite phones and internet connections would be both a display of weakness and a risk that not only aid would be distributed, but politically damaging information (ie, the truth about what's happening) as well. Perhaps the generals would conclude they have too much to lose in a hostile response and stand aside. But do we want to bet on that outcome with the lives of relief workers?
Lamentably, the international community has few options when the rulers of a xenophobic police state decide to shut it out. Some food and supplies can be airdropped into targeted areas, but the risks would be high and the benefits limited. To have an impact on a disaster of this scale, you need organised supply chains, with people on the ground - lots of them - to distribute food, provide medical care and supplies, to clean up and rebuild. And they need to operate in safety. In other words, the cooperation of local authorities is necessary.
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.
