Waiting kills in Burma
The United Nations should consider a forced intervention to deliver aid to survivors of the devastating Cyclone Nargis
When Tropical Cyclone Nargis ripped through Burma, tens of thousands died. The unwillingness of the cruel Burmese junta to allow aid into the country and the cowardice of the international community to stand up to these military dictators have endangered 1.5 million more Burmese who, says Oxfam, are at risk of a "massive public health catastrophe." The innocent people of Burma deserved much more than the world asking, "Junta, may I?" before a humanitarian intervention.
The junta has allowed only 20 percent of the 375 tons of food per day that the World Food Program estimates Burma needs. And more than one week after Nargis hit, many have not received any aid due to the junta's insistence that they deliver the aid themselves. In Irrawaddy Delta, the country's largest rice-producing region, aid only trickles in at a time when the price of rice has already reached record levels. With 70 percent of Burmese sustaining themselves through agricultural industries, the ripple effects of the cyclone will continue long after the waters have subsided.
Even if more aid workers are let in, they will need help getting to more remote locations, as well as those villages where the roads have been swept away along with the houses. The United States is the only country capable of providing the kind of lift necessary in the short window of time available.
As bodies float among the living and the danger of disease grows, the international community negotiates with the junta, hoping to make them see reason. But reasoning with an unreasonable regime will not work in time to save many of the victims — indeed, it has not worked for two decades, since the junta refused to accept the overwhelming democratic victory by Nobel Peace Prize recipient Aung San Suu Kyi.
The United Nations charter embraces the principle of sovereignty. But with rights come responsibilities, and when a disaster overwhelms a state's capacity and will to respond, the world must act. Chapter Seven of the U.N. Charter allows for forced interventions when a threat to "international peace and security" exists. Although a forced humanitarian intervention in response to a natural disaster, versus a man-made disaster, would expand this definition, like the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter should be viewed as a living document. Indeed, the word "peacekeeping" never appears in the Charter, yet meaning evolved with practice.
This admonition for the world to do more without the junta's consent is certainly made difficult by China, for one, being on the Security Council. Indeed, when France pushed the issue last week at a Security Council meeting, China, Russia, South Africa and Vietnam blocked efforts to help without the junta's permission. Yet with the Olympics on the horizon, China is not likely to stop an international attempt to stop the dying in Burma, especially as they are responding to their own humanitarian crisis.
Even without a U.N. mission enshrined in Chapter Seven, there is another way the world can legitimately respond to the crisis: Invoke Chapter Eight of the U.N. Charter, which allows regional organizations to act "provided that such arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations." The North Atlantic Treaty Organization would be a perfect candidate.
And even if Chapter Eight is not cited, regional organizations still might be able to respond. France's foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, called for a new U.N. doctrine called the "responsibility to protect" that would allow the world to respond without the junta's approval.
Such action is not without precedent. In 1999, NATO intervened without U.N. authorization in Kosovo in response to large population displacement. The legality of this intervention is still being debated by scholars, which leads to yet another reason the international community intervening in Burma would be a good thing: It could provide a perfect international law test case to clear up this gray area.
After the Kosovo intervention, Yugoslavia filed a complaint at the Hague against the NATO countries, but the Court did not rule on the matter since Yugoslavia was not a member of the U.N. Burma is. Should the rogue Burmese leaders decide to take the issue to the Hague, respectable world community members could hardly hope for a better test case.
And in a world full of tin-pot juntas and dictators who do not deserve the cloak of sovereignty behind which they hide, clearer rules regarding humanitarian intervention are needed.
As world leaders wring their hands over what can be done, conditions in Burma are becoming "more and more horrendous," according to Shari Villarosa, the charge d'affaires of the U.S. Embassy in Burma. Certainly, the international community should only take such action in the most grievous of cases. Such an instance is here. It is long past time to act.
Tammy S. Schultz is a fellow at the Center for a New American Security and an adjunct professor at Georgetown University's Security Studies Program.