asianaffairs-June 2008

Burma

Is there a case for humanitarian intervention?

Has there ever been such a dire case of institutional greed depriving the majority of their right to survive, let alone prosper or find some modicum of happiness in life? Surely, nations all around the world must shrug off their reservations and rush to the aid of their fellow human beings whatever the consequences, maintains Andrew Small

Lately the West has been pretty confident about its right to intervene to correct perceived wrongs. Think Kosovo but then think Iraq, the second time around, and the confidence suddenly evaporates.
 
 

In the former, the heavy and expensive responsibility of maintaining an American and Nato presence remains with the ever-present threat of the whole delicate construct unravelling under Serb pressures. The latter needs little explanation at this point but even its sternest critics can see a glimmer of a strategic argument remaining if the threat from Iran turns out be what is being currently portrayed.

The case for helping the people of Burma overcome their government's pernicious and wilful neglect would seem to be well nigh overwhelming at this point despite recent setbacks for what some see as Blairite liberal intervention policies.

Thanks to the initiative and courage of correspondents who have got into the country illegally to work under cover, we have a fairly full picture of the disaster. Five areas with populations of up to 200,000 and nine with populations of up to 100,000 lie in the great 5,000 square mile crescent of crisis where food, medical help and shelter are desperately needed.

Television pictures have shown generals in immaculate uniforms handing out aid marked as if it came from them when it clearly comes from Western donors. The notion of any of the military actually getting out into the country to get its hands dirty seems to be unthinkable in Rangoon, the ultimate indicator of the government's complete contempt for its people. In the worst affected areas the occasional military helicopter can be seen wheeling overhead but none of them seems to carry aid material and none of them shows the least interest in landing. Particularly in Asian cultures there is a long tradition of the military helping out with civil emergencies: in Indonesia it has been called the dwi-fungsi, dual function, of the military to help the civilian population in areas where units are stationed not merely with sudden misfortune but also with long-term development. In the Pakistani earthquake of 18 months ago the army and air force did brilliant work helping out the victims and where generous in their praise for the outside assistance they received from the armed forces of India, the United States and Britain.

There was no political spin-off in terms of unwanted foreign influence as the Burmese government so morbidly fears. And what is the Burmese military for if not for the maintenance of internal security? That has so far been the sole aim of the military authorities in Rangoon and if there is an efficient bringer of instability and disruption it is surely just the sort of typhoon that the country has experienced. Best, from Rangoon's point of view, to get in there and sort things out, lest the people take a less than charitable view of their government's efforts.

It is remarkable how capable the government can be when it comes to things that it really wants to get done: in spite of the chaos brought by the weather it was able to “achieve” an approval rating of better than 90 per cent for its so-called new constitution. But then there were probably very few ballot boxes to pick up and most of the counting needed only to be done on the computers in Rangoon.

Surely, there is a cast-iron case for the air-dropping of supplies and even the insertion of ground troops to help with their distribution and the reconstruction of towns and villages?

There is no shortage of Western resources in the region that could be brought into play: France has Le Mistral nearby, a vessel capable of landing shelters for 60,000 people at short notice not to mention enough food to sustain 100,000 people for two weeks. As usual the United States has the most impressive presence with the vessels USS Juneau, Harpers Ferry, Mustin and Essex in the area. They are capable of producing 200,000 gallons of fresh water daily between them. They can muster 14 helicopters and four landing craft which can be employed to land their complement of 1,800 Marines. The Marines have a superb record from dealing with the aftermath of the Asian tsunami to the fallout from the 1999 United Nations referendum over independence in East Timor. Britain, like many other countries, has less immediate help to offer but there is already £6m to hand out of a total of £12m pledged.

China has already delivered assistance which is given huge publicity on landing with officials bussed out to meet the arriving aircraft at Rangoon airport with national flags flying and junta members in attendance. Help from other nations gets fare less attention and, indeed, is often re-branded to make it appear that it has been generated by the generals themselves. Worse, there is evidence that some of the superior quality mosquito nets and bedding has found its way across the border into the street markets of China where, no doubt, it sells for a hefty mark-up which finds its way into the generals' bank accounts.

Has there ever been such a dire case of institutional greed depriving the majority of their right to survive, let alone prosper or find some modicum of happiness in life. Surely, nations all around the world must shrug off their reservations and rush to the aid of their fellow human beings whatever the consequences?

As billions of dollars are flushed away on desperately ill-advised wars in Iraq and Afghanistan surely there is nothing to be lost from selective help from the air in Burma? Air dropping supplies from transport aircraft runs the risk of it hitting the very people you are trying to help and of much of it being lost because it falls in the wrong place or is inaccessible, for one reason or another, to those on the ground. But why not employ hit and run “raids” by helicopters bringing succour to the worst-affected places? Given the satellite imagery available and the analytical skills of the US military in picking out the right sites, it could all be done almost without the junta knowing about it. Even if they wished to rush reinforcements to the landing zones in an ill-advised attempt to oppose unilateral assistance, the road infrastructure is too poor to support such an operation and their helicopters too few and far between, even if they are serviceable.

The junta would surely have finally met its match through the demonstrable concern of foreigners for their brother Burmese.


 
June 2008
US needs to rethink its Iran strategy
Selig S. Harrison
 
Is there a case for humanitarian intervention?
Andrew Small
 
Pakistan in a New Difficult Phase
Inder Malhotra
 
Zardari's Proposals and Shape of things to Come
Ashok K Behuria
 

Challenge of Resurgent Radicalism
Ashfaq M. Afridi

 
Wooing the Militants
Rahimullah Yusufzai
 
Preservation of the composite culture of India
 

"We would like to have peace with India" - Hasan

 
Israeli and Syrian leaders too weak to reach peace agreement
Rupert Fisher
 
Malaysian Maelstrom
David Watts
 
Where Everybody Loves a Bloody War
Jason A Kermode
 

India: Effective counter-terror mechanism needed
Vikram Sood