Pros
Myanmar’s government has zero experience in dealing with massive problems of this scale. Even worse, the regime actively impedes any efforts to get aid to those who need it the most. Ironically, this situation calls for more involvement by the outside world, not less: from on-the-ground work by volunteer organizations to high-level diplomatic negotiations.
Proponents of humanitarian aid justify action in several ways.
- First, an unstable, disease-ridden Myanmar poses a risk to nearby countries – outbreaks of cholera and malaria may easily spread into neighboring Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia, if not controlled immediately.
- Next, neighboring countries may also want to minimize the inevitable swarm of refugees that follow in the wake of natural disasters.
- Finally, helping out is the human thing to do – we cannot simply stand by and watch our Burmese neighbors die by the thousands.
NGOs and charity organizations have responded immediately to the emergency: thousands of volunteers have been mobilized by international organizations, and as of May 13, 24 countries have pledged financial support, with an estimated $33.5 million committed to Myanmar, and about $42 million as yet uncommitted.
Some quarters have argued for a stronger international response, citing the Myanmar regime’s ineffective response as a pretext for invoking the “responsibility to protect” (R2P) principle. Under R2P, the world community can act without Myanmar’s consent to do whatever it takes to bring aid to the Burmese.
For R2P proponents, unilateral action is not the same as military invasion. “Under R2P, military intervention is considered to be an absolute last resort,” explains Lloyd Axworthy, former Canadian foreign affairs minister. “The R2P tool box contains a wide range of diplomatic, political and economic measures to pressure governments and to build their own capacity to fully exercise their responsibility to protect the people within their borders.”
Cons
Given Myanmar’s turbulent history with Western states, any intervention is bound to be regarded with suspicion. The situation hasn’t been helped by Myanmar’s patron China, which has countered efforts to raise the crisis in the UN Security Council, fearing politicization of the issue.
U.S. actions in the wake of the disaster seem to confirm Chinese fears. When First Lady Laura Bush criticized Myanmar’s government for not warning its people, Australian foreign minister Stephen Smith reacted by urging countries to provide help instead of criticism. “The priority now is rendering assistance to thousands of displaced people who urgently need our assistance,” Mr. Smith said.
Aung Nain Oo, a Burmese political analyst based in Thailand, commented: “The people are dying. This is no time for a political message to be aired. This is a time for relief.”
Worthy sentiments, but in reality, external efforts at relief in Myanmar may end up benefiting the military regime, not the people of Myanmar. Reuters reports that soldiers are appropriating aid in hard-hit areas, and the New York Times reveals that the army is seizing food aid from the U.N., barring aid workers from distributing the supplies themselves.
Much of this aid is being re-appropriated to help the military propaganda effort; the Associated Press reports that foreign aid has been re-branded with the names of high-ranking generals before being distributed.
Will invoking R2P reverse this fiasco? To be sure, hopes are high in certain quarters that countries like the US will act unilaterally. But R2P is bound to be counterproductive – if the regime begins to believe that any humanitarian effort is a mere pretext for regime change, then no humanitarian efforts will be permitted, aggravating the crisis. Besides, R2P has failed in North Korea and Darfur – how could it possibly succeed in Myanmar?
"The way (French Foreign Minister Bernard) Kouchner put (R2P) seemed to assume some kind of military response," UN adviser Edward Luck explains. "You don't want to deliver aid at the point of a gun. At the end of the day you have to persuade the (Burmese) government to accept help rather than force it down their throat."
Where It Stands
To its credit, the Myanmar government has reluctantly allowed aid to trickle in; the U.S. has flown one C-130 cargo plane into the country, but U.S. officials were prevented from overseeing the distribution of aid supplies.
President George W. Bush has continued to criticize the military regime, saying that the world should condemn the Myanmar military’s handling of the disaster. “Here they are with a major catastrophe on their hands, and (they) do not allow there to be the full kind of might of a compassionate world to help them,” said Bush in a radio interview on May 12.
Meanwhile, fears are growing that only a small amount of aid is reaching its intended beneficiaries. The United Nations says that the World Food Program is getting only 20% of the needed food through because of government restrictions and logistical bottlenecks. News of profiteering are multiplying in NGO circles, and military officials are reported to be keeping good food for themselves while handing out bad food and supplies to ordinary Burmese.
In the face of such obstacles, NGOs and charities in Myanmar have persisted in their job. A growing list of donors is lining up to provide aid, even if the regime seems to be doing its worst to keep aid from coming in. It appears you can’t stop simple human generosity, even if you’re a power-hungry military dictatorship.
