Thought this Time magazine article might lead to an interesting discussion. From the article:



Should we force aid on Burma? Why/why not?

What should the international community do, if anything, in this case?

Should we force aid on Burma? Why/why not?

What should the international community do, if anything, in this case?


Under no circumstances should the US take any unilateral military action in this. Provide aid and relief supplies, sure, but no military action without the full and complete cooperation of the international community. Were the US to step in right now, that community would just walk away once again with an attitude of "The US is taking care of it. We don't have to worry about it". Sound familiar?

If it requires military action to help the people in Burma, that action should come from the UN in the form of a Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force. Even then the US should only perform in a supporting role, supplies, logistics, transportation and the like. No combat troops.

If the UN ever wanted to prove it could actually do something right (yeah yeah yeah, I know, but I can dream), this would be an opportunity to do so.

Aquilla

No we should not. There are countries (like India) who are much closer and have much more interest in the country/region than we do. The Burmese junta (an actual junta BDS sufferers) did not listen to India's warnings regarding the cyclone. WHO is telling them if they don't get the bodies out of the water they're going to suffer a massive cholera outbreak. You cannot help people who don't want your help. It is sad that the people of Burma will die because the military of Burma refuses to accept help but there's little the US or the world commuity can do.

Immediately kick Burma out of the UN unless they immediately allow Relief Troops into the country to save their people. The UN is an impotent organization that has proven time and time again that it should be disbanded, however, there's something they can do to show they have a shred of dignity left and that would be to kick Burma out of the UN today.

Has the UN ever expelled any member country, for any reason?

This may be strange coming from me, especially by the way I've titled the topic. I'd almost always say no to this type of intervention, and when I started this I was thinking 'no way' but...I'm starting to change my mind and maybe we should do it. Not an occupation, leave that up to the UN workers, but we could do airdrops in key areas where the villages are suffering most.

I don't think this situation mirrors Somalia for one important reason. The junta is completely in charge of the country. There don't seem to be the sort of turf wars for power that were endemic in Somalia and necessitated the use of ground forces to properly distribute aid before it was confiscated between dueling warlords. In this case, we aren't going to be perceived as taking sides, just dropping supplies. We did it for Berlin long ago....

By the time the UN passes a resolution authorizing this, it will be too late for tens of thousands of peope. We don't need it to drop aid. If they start actively shooting at us we could stop, but we won't know until we try to do something....and I just don't see them putting up much of a fight on this. Furthermore, what sort of SAMs could they have anyway? It's not like trying to dump aid on the DPRK.

I could be wrong on this (maybe I am..it's likely), but I'll be a devil's advocate for now.

The General Assembly Resolution declared "that the representatives of the Government of the People's Republic of China are the only lawful representatives of China to the United Nations." Because this resolution was on an issue of credentials rather than one of membership, it was possible to bypass the Security Council where the United States and the ROC could have used their vetoes. Thus, the government of the Republic of China was expelled from UN. However, the ROC was asked if it wanted to remain in the United Nations as a separate country, but not as the lawful representative of the Chinese people.citation needed The ROC President Chiang Kai-shek refused the invitation, saying he would not allow the ROC to be a member of the UN if the PRC was allowed in.

Certainly from a military standpoint we could drop in supplies and were we to do that it would just give the rest of the world an excuse to walk away. But, the people of Burma need more than just supplies. They need people on the ground helping them. Doctors and nurses, construction workers, all kinds of people to assist them. Simply dropping in some supplies might make some feel better about the whole thing, but it's not going to really help the people in Burma.

I think it's time we call on the UN to step up and actually take some pro-active action. If they can't do it now in this situation, then what use are they?

Aquilla

Should we force aid on Burma? Why/why not?

We should not force aid on Burma. Giving aid is not as simple as simply dropping tons of grain and going home after a hard days work. Those food resources are captured by the junta and used as a weapon against the people. No amount of UN workers will change that situation. Any idea of possibly sending in the Marines to help protect the supplies or aid workers is preposterous. Burma is a war zone - a jungle one at that. Its an unfortunate situation and no amount of good intentions will make it any better.

What should the international community do, if anything, in this case?

Use diplomacy. If it fails, then thats the way it works. We can't give aid to someone who doesn't want it. The UN is useless in serious situations like this and no symbolic resolutions will change it.

Spoken like true Ron Paul supporter.

However, a UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of military force is hardly "symbolic". That's a pretty serious thing and very well could end up with military action being taken by the international community. It is time for the UN to either step up, or pack up I think.

Aquilla

Should we force aid on Burma? Why/why not?

No. Its not your problem, and its not Europe's either. This is an Asian problem and the regional powers have the closest ties with the Myanmar government and they have the resources to help if the Myanmar government gives its permission. Jan Egeland and his friends in the UN can say what they want, but the bottom line is, the non western nations have to take responsibility for themselves sooner or later. Every tme we give them 'aid', in effect we strengthen those tyrants who use that aid against their own people.

We gave millions in aid to the 2004 tsuanami victims in Aceh and the first thing they did was rebuild the mosques. Sod that! If people in these countries can't look after themselves then its not our responsibility to do it for them. They should grow up or die.


What should the international community do, if anything, in this case?

Boycott the Olympics.

A serious thing? Really? Who is going to be willing to send thousands of military personnel to the Burmese jungle? What if the half million troops of the Myanmar Armed Forces decide that they do not like the presence of 10,000 UN peacekeepers? Are you willing to fight a war? Your thinking is too short sighted. You fail to recognize the consequences (both intended and unintended) of your policy.

Short-sighted? Perhaps you might fill me in then on what the "long-sighted" version of doing nothing is? what are the consequences (both intended and unintended) of that policy, or lack of one. All I'm saying is let's go to the UN and see what happens. Seems to me that's "trying diplomacy". You obviously don't think that'll work, so why bother? Is that your "policy"? How long-sighted is that?


Aquilla

Should we force aid on Burma? Why/why not?

Absolutely not. If the ruling junta doesn't want aid, then we shouldn't lose any sleep at night by not giving any. Burma has enough access to world news [around censorship and media restrictions] that the people should find out what their regime is doing, and hopefully that will propel them to action and spark a democratic revolution.

But we are under no compulsion to act, nor to lead a UN drive for action. Nations that wish to provide aid and dance to the junta's tune, are free to do so. The last thing we need is another 'regime change for the good of X nation'.

Should we force aid on Myanmar? Why/why not?

The first thing we should do is refer to the country by its real name: Myanmar. I realize that President Bush, who is as ignorant of geography as he is of everything else, has set a precedent here, but our newsweeklies should know better. They usually act as though they do. I don't recall hearing any recent talk of sending aid to Siam, Rhodesia, or Formosa - why should Myanmar be an exception?

In any event, I don't think food and medical drops are a bad idea, though even that should probably be an international effort. Ideally, doctors, nurses, and relief workers should accompany such drops - and possibly peace-keeping forces to ensure that the supplies get to where they're most needed.

Foreign aid often aids the giver as much or more than the receiver. It's a PR investment as well as a demonstration of our common humanity, regardless of the leadership of the country or countries involved. If we (or the UN) are seen as allowing strategic considerations to determine our "humanitarianism" it rather defeats one of the purposes. Providing such aid to more despotic countries can also help to undermine those regimes - it can also propel people to action. The Bush administration's handling of the Katrina disaster was one of the last nails in the coffin of Dubya's approval ratings. If the junta in Myanmar is seen to be incapable of assisting its people, that could as handily contribute to democratic revolution as allowing thousands of potential revolutionaries to die.

What should the international community do, if anything, in this case?

The UN should be involved in any humanitarian aid to the country. And, for those here who are particularly cold-hearted, "humanitarian aid" should be just that. There's no such thing as "Asian aid" or "European aid" or "What's good for General Motors aid". We should either be in the position of helping people in the wake of disaster or not. We may disapprove of governments around the globe, but that is no sound reason to deny assistance to those in dire need. It could, perhaps, be argued that no aid should be provided to any people outside one's own country (though I wouldn't necessarily agree), but to engage in selective aid to people who are at extreme risk just because we don't like those in charge, is beyond my sense of ethics.

I agree with Aquilla and DTOM that there should be no unilateral military intervention. We've indulged in enough armed adventuring in the past several years to last us a generation - or five.


I know of hundreds of volunteers from around the country who've invested thousands, if not millions, in sending teams of relief workers to New Orleans and the Gulf Coast (my brother, a Methodist minister, has been a major organizer of such excursions over the past few years). Among the first things they've done is rebuild churches, which then become centers of relief operations and assistance to other people suffering from the disaster. Sod that, too, moif? Or is it only Islamic places of worship that you loathe?

The US was clearly incapable of looking after itself following Katrina (still is, so far as I can tell) and received offers of aid from over sixty countries - including Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam - all of whom, I guess, should be dealing exclusively with "Asian problems". Denmark, by the way, offered nothing. So I guess you speak for your country as a whole if you're arguing that we, too, should "grow up or die". Then again, the US has only provided $1.95 billion in aid to Denmark since 1946 (if you exclude the $3.94 billion we've given you in military aid and the $692 million in loans), so I guess you guys have a point.

Should we force aid on Burma? Why/why not?
Can you call it aid if you force it on them?

Just like in America, and I suspect pretty much everywhere else, the leadership does not represent the people. Americans saw this during Hurrican Katrina. People were dying, and our government officials were weighing the political consequences of accepting aid. Now we are seeing it in Myanmar. There is a catastrophe, people are dying, and the government is more concerned about maintaining control over the people than they are about saving their lives. That is an indication that the Myanmar government is losing control. If we do not provide aid, there will be many deaths. If we give them aid, there is no guarantee that the aid will get to where it is supposed to go. However, we should do what is ethical and provide aid to those in need. If the Myanmar government sets strict conditions and only allows aid workers into the cities where aid provides the least benefit, then so be it. We did what we could. A humanitarian aid/disaster relief operation can turn into a disaster of another kind, such as was the case in Somalia. We may also provoke China in a way that could draw us into a larger war, risking more lives than the entire population of Myanmar.

What should the international community do, if anything, in this case?
The international community, and I'm assuming by international community you mean UN, should work to earn the trust of the Myanmar government. The UN should meet their demands, or negotiate for more access to the people. Beyond that, there is not much more that should be done. The UN should do as much as possible, but only within the framework they are afforded.

So instead of actually defending your position you find it easier to attack mine? Why is doing nothing such a terrible policy when doing 'something' could only end in more bloodshed and more wasted tax payer dollars? The intended consequences of doing nothing is that the Burmese government will continue to oppress their people and use things like foreign aid as a weapon for propaganda purposes (such as changing the names on the food packages) or recruitment for their military. There are no unintended consequences for doing nothing because you are not assuming responsibility for what could have happened. You did not mention diplomacy in your post, you discussed authorization for military force by the international community, which i rejected. Good intentions will not make the Burmese government feed their people and provide human rights. It would take guns and bombs and soldiers and blood. Are we to start a war to reverse years of authoritarian rule and human rights violations? We do nothing because that is the best option available. Intervening with 5,000 Marines would just make things worse.

I most certainly did mention diplomacy in my post. I talked about taking it to the UN Security Council for a discussion and vote on what to do. Now I don't know what Ron Paul or you would call that, but where I come from that sure sounds like "diplomacy". Your problem and that of Paul is that you apparently believe this nation can just roll up our sidewalks, put up a "No Vacancy" sign and just watch the rest of the world go by. "If we don't do anything, we can't make a mistake". Well, if one never does anything, one never does anything.

What wrong with taking this to the UN and seeing what the international community wants to do? If they want to use military force, fine, we'll support them for doing that. Not with troops, but with our military infrastructure for delivery of supplies and the like. What's the matter with that other than it keeps our sidewalk rolled out.


Aquilla

Then our definitions of diplomacy differ. I was not referring to diplomacy among the Security Council to decide how they would like to intervene in Myanmar, I meant diplomacy with the Burmese regime in keeping with those archaic concepts of national sovereignty. You claim that we would support the use of military force to deliver aid...wouldn't that add to the bloodshed? That is what I mean when I talk about short sightedness. Sending in UN peacekeepers would lead to more deaths - blood on our hands. Furthermore, if past engagements are any indication of the interventionist foreign policy you support, then you might want to rethink your position. You would not go around your neighborhood, knocking on every door, and tell adults how to raise their children or how to mow their lawn or how to cook their food. Yet for some reason you feel that doing this on the international stage is our obligation. We are not watching the rest of the world go by, we are analyzing our proper role in the world which is that of a leader. We should lead by example, not by the barrel of a gun.

Leder- you kind of got to the heart of the manner- some folks don't like big goverment- at least NOT FOR THEM- but it's okay to be big brother to others.

Myanmar will have to find it's own way. No interventionist policy will work- with or without the UN, because, in the end, that country has to make it's own destiny.

Both of you are missing the point which isn't unusual for Ron Paul supporters. I specifically said that I don't support unilateral military action on the part of the US in this situation. What I do support is a discussion in the UN Security Council (the only UN body that can authorize military action) about what the international community wants to do. Situations like this are the kind the thing the UN is supposed to have been created to deal with. So, let the UN deal with it. If they decide not to do anything, okay, too bad so sad and when a few hundred thousand people die as a result of this inaction, it won't be on America's shoulders for those who are so concerned about our "image" around the world. Should the UN actually decide to intervene then I would be in favor of the US helping them with logistical support. We are really the only nation with the capabilities to do that and I think that would be a good thing for us to do. We don't need to send in troops to assist in a relief operation. But, we can provide supplies, airlift, command and logistical support for the nations that do commit boots on the ground.


Aquilla

I don't think we are missing the point, I think we see the point and realize that it is, well, pointless. I reject unilateral military action on the part of the US and I reject multilateral military action on the part of the world. Furthermore, its not going to happen. Nobody is going to send combat troops to Myanmar. Once again, you fail to address the consequences of your policy which are combat troops being sent into a warzone governed by a half million sized military. More people will die from this policy than if we did nothing.

I know you don't think going to the UN will actually work so while you claim our positions are different, they will actually have the same result - we will do nothing in regards of military action.

What's the saying? Give a man and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll eat for the rest of his life? Well, what if the man refuses to eat? What then? Force feed him?

The U.S. can no more force Myanmar (Wertz is right. What's up with this "Burma" stuff?) to do the right thing and accept our help than it can impose democracy on the Iraqis if they don't want it. This is a sovereign nation. A profoundly screwed-up one that doesn't give a damn about its own people, but that's their problem, not ours. If they don't or can't stand up for themselves and demand their government to help there's no way an outside nation can force them.

Gee, this kind of reminds me of Bush's response to Hurricane Katrina.

If the U.S. can't run around being the global cop, neither can they be the global emergency medical team.


What should the international community do, if anything, in this case?

Probably do the same thing they've done about the genocide in Darfur. Wring their hands. Dither. Dicker. Posture. Do diddly-squat. Pass some meaningless resolution. Let people die.

Pretty much the same thing they always do. Far too little. Way too late.

Should we force aid on Burma? Why/why not?

Not by invading, certainly. I do kind of like the idea of air-dropping supplies, if only so that they won't be re-packaged with the junta generals' names on them.

The most tragic thing is that the "Myanmar" government would probably have been more receptive to international aid if they weren't now trying to legitimize themselves with one of their every-other-decade elections. Last time around, Aung San Suu Kyi won, so they really need this one to go their way. Therefore, no aid will go out without the regime's stamp of approval on it. Foreign aid workers will also be kept out, lest it appear that the generals can't handle the situation internally.

The U.S. Navy and Marines are probably the best organization in the world to deliver humanitarian relief in a situation like this. (I don't mean to slight the Australians and Japanese, who also did outstanding work after the 2004 tsunami.) In the first days after the disaster, the first priority is getting clean water to the people. There's really nothing better than a nuclear aircraft carrier for producing and delivering fresh water to a remote, devastated coastal region. After the tsunami, the feared "second wave" of death due to disease never arrived, thanks largely to U.S. intervention.

We're probably already too late to make that kind of difference in Burma. If the junta allows the U.S. Navy in (after the polls close), I would support sending them. But I'm afraid the opportunity has already passed where they could do the most good.

Should we force aid on Myanmar? Why/why not
I am always torn on these situations. By providing food aid to the innocent victims of dictatorship are you indirectly proping up said dictatorship? Well fed, middle class people don't overthrow governments as often as starving angry ones. The US's best move in this situation is to just disseminate information on what the Myanmar government is doing to prevent offered aid to its people. Flying over and dropping flyers would probably violate some air space treaty so radio is probably the only thing that we can really do here.

What should the international community do, if anything, in this case?
Same thing.

No way. We have no vital interest in Burma. If they want to allow the their citizens to die that is their stupidity.



Try to negotiate the delivery of aid – which I have heard they will now allow.

Aid is still being blocked.

As for Burma vs. Myanmar:

The country achieved independence from the United Kingdom on 4 January 1948, as the "Union of Burma." It became the "Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma" on 4 January 1974, before reverting to the "Union of Burma" on 23 September 1988. On 18 June 1989, the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) adopted the name "Union of Myanmar" for English transliteration. This controversial name change in English was not recognised by the opposition groups and many English-speaking nations.

This article does a nice job explaining it.

Should we force aid on Burma? Why/why not?

Burma - I'm with BA on the naming - should be engaged with diplomatically AND there should be some air drops of essential supplies (food, water, sterlisation equipment).

What should the international community do, if anything, in this case?

The above, because I think it should be coordinated through the UN and existing NGA aid and relief bodies. It should be led by the permanent members of the Security Council, so the USA should play a lead role, but it should be an ensemble piece and not a soliloquoy.*

I fear, however, that it's all academic and that most of the damage has already been done - the dead body and salt water contamination of what little fresh water was left in the area is probably already in place, so most of the people in the worst affected areas are likely dead mean walking already. The SLORC butchers are already pretty blood-drenched, so won't care much one way or the other.

Which leads me to my next point - there is a pretty solid movement for democracy in Burma (and they still call the place that, not Myanmar) so there is a role for financial and diplomatic support for them. I think it would be a mistake going further and supplying arms or "military advisers", which would be easy to paint as a covert attack on a sovereign state by - say - China or North Vietnam or anyone else with an unrelated axe to grind. But this is the kind of thing that the USA and other right-thinking nations could get involved with uni- or multi-laterally in the medium to long term.

* Don't expect much help from China - their disaster relief efforts will likely be tied down domestically. It wouldn't hurt if the West offered to help out there, too; I daresay the Chinese government would be more amenable to the idea than SLORC, and it would set a useful precedent to get Chinese cooperation in Burma or in the next disaster area.

There will always be one, because there will always be earthquakes/volcanoes/extreme weather. And given the earthquake faultlines and volcanic activity in North America, the vulnerability to a Las Palmas-created tsunami and to hurricanes, it may well be there some day. China will be one of the few places with the logistical - for which read military - resources to usefully help out if the USA were ever crippled by a large scale natural disaster, so this is just enlightened self-interest.

1) NO. This is ludicrous. The govt runs this country and it is their call how they address the disaster and what aid they will accept. We have not a scintilla of national interest in Burma.

2) Nothing. Everytime I hear the term "international community" I get ill; reminds me of the Comintern....

I was reading up on air drops and found some information about "flutter drops" from C-130s in Bosnia during the crisis. They were able to drop the supplies from a fairly high distance and target remote locations in this way. I think there is concern about riots over the supplies, but these societies are largely communal and the villages small. The drops of supplies would be massive so I don't think that would be the case. It's probably better than nothing, at any rate. At least they could get some MREs, water purification tablets, medicines.

Also, many countries have these planes, including Thailand which the Burmese junta doesn't seem to distrust as much as the others.

******Added:

Looks like China isn't permitting foreigners in yet for disaster relief either. Photos I've seen are just awful. Terrible situation over there.

The problem with forcing aid on Burma is that the people in charge are reputed to be extremely paranoid and completely happy to sacrifice ordinary Burmese people to stay in control. They also command a well organised army of around 400,000 troops - relatively poorly trained and equipped compared to US troops to be sure, but if they viewed a military incursion by America as an act of war, then any US soldiers / marines in Burma might find themselves facing considerable military opposition.

The problem with expecting the international community to do anything is that the international community is composed of lots of nations acting in their own self-interest. Whilst the US & Western European countries (particularly France in this case) might discuss the idea of forcing aid on Burma, India and China are vehemenly against the idea of any interference in Burmese affairs. And they carry a lot of weight in Asia - and could probably disrupt a western intervention. (Besides which, it also sets a precedent that 'we' might not like - suppose that France and Britain had decided that the US response to Hurricane Katrina was woefully inadequate and that they would provide aid unilaterally. It might have been humanitarian, but few Americans would thank the British and French for the intrusion).

And the problem with aid drops is that they rarely make it to the poorest areas that need them most, as it is quite hard to target them precisely. The aid package ends up blowing of course, or ending up in the jungle and then the people with the fastest vehicles (i.e. the Burmese military) get the packages first. However, as the least worst option, it's probably the one worth considering?



(Edited to add: I think there is also a question of whether the lives of US military troops should be put in danger for something that has no bearing on US defence interests. The Burmese disaster is a tragedy, but is of no consequence to the security of the US.)