Is armed humanitarian intervention the answer in Burma?

The blogosphere is fired up by the notion of using force to deliver humanitarian aid to the people of Burma/Myanmar. However, is that the right course of action? Notable blogs such as The Duck of Minerva, Hidden Unities and Coming Anarchy have recently posted items discussing this subject. They're not the only ones, over at the Washington Post, Fred Hiatt argues forcefully for the international community to keep the promise made at the UN's 60th anniversary, to "intervene, forcefully if necessary, if a state failed to protect its own people." Anne Applebaum, at Slate makes an equally strong case to use force to deliver aid to the thousands of Burmese affected by this catastrophe. To boot, Robert Kaplan has provided a blue-print for how to do this militarily, even as he also argues for us to hold a realistic view of the dangers involved, echoing former Secretary of State Colin Powell's Pottery Barn rule, "we break it, we own it". Even the French government, through its Foreign Minister, Bernard Koucher, has called for a military humanitarian intervention in this case (The European Commission rejected his proposal). One of the few voices arguing against embarking on such an endeavor is Dave Schuler at The Glittering Eye, who questions the premises on which such calls are based, as well as the slippery slope they lead us to, if we are truly to follow the path of military humanitarianism.

Peter at the Duck of Minerva focuses on what factors lead to a possible American intervention, or what would make Burma part of the Axis of Evil. In Burma, the US is not really interested in its natural resources, and though the generals in charge are horrible thugs, they generally keep to themselves, and do not seek to shake the international order, so American interests are not really at stake. In his words:

Moral of the story: if you’re evil, we’ll go to the mattress to take care of business. If you’re just plain bad, you’re probably in the clear.

To be sure, Peter, like most commentators, recognizes that part of the reason behind the military junta's intransigence has more to do with what they see as the danger of allowing international aid; a challenge to their legitimacy. Here, think of how the Bush administration's handling of Katrina led to his losing the trust and support of the majority of the population in the United States. In an authoritarian dictatorship, the loss would be even more crippling as they already have problems with legitimacy to begin with, and far worst than just a disputed election.

Eddie at Hidden Unities argues that given that "the credibility of the international human rights regime and the concept of 'responsibility to protect' is an at all time low, this catastrophe presents an opportunity to rehabilitate it. Not only that, but it would also help rehabilitate the value of "coalitions of the willing" which any action would have to be, given the fact that both Russia and China would veto any action through the UN Security Council. Still, he argues that these countries, along with India, Singapore and Thailand could be embarrassed into participating in one way or another, since the threat of force by a large coalition would force them to pressure the junta a lot more to accept international aid. He ends by arguing that "the concept of waging personal war against dictators and tyrants is one that should be further explored by governments and interested groups." This is in line with Thomas Barnett's theory, which calls for taking out those regimes which are so devoid of being rehabilitated, examples of which he cites as North Korea, and Zimbabwe. Eddie, argues that given the current reality, Myanmar's (Burma's) military junta is a good candidate. Eddie, however, does not argue for bringing democracy to the country, but suggests that even a junta controlled by Beijing, but which is actually competent would be preferable to the status quo.

Applebaum and Kaplan essentially make the same argument, that given the current situation the lesser of the two evils is to intervene with force, not necessarily to topple the military junta, but to deliver aid to the areas where it is needed. Kaplan even suggests that the US navy, which currently is holding exercises in Thailand, could enter the Irrawaddy Delta delivering aid from ships, with a small military footprint on the shore to reduce the likelihood of a military engagement with the military of Myanmar/Burma. Following this, Kaplan rightly recognizes that such an operation may hasten the collapse of the country's government, leaving the US and the international community dealing with not only a humanitarian crisis, but also a country which has historically led with various insurgent movements by various minority ethnic groups fighting against largely Burman controlled governments. Kaplan ends his piece by stating:

It seems like a simple moral decision: help the survivors of the cyclone...Sending in marines and sailors is the easy part; but make no mistake, the very act of our invasion could land us with the responsibility for fixing Burma afterward.

Indeed, as noted above, many of these bloggers, pundits and government officials base their arguments on the UN recognized R2P or Responsibility to Protect, which was adopted in 2005 partly due to remorse for the shortcomings exposed in the international community's failure to act during the Rwandan genocide in the 1990's.

The case is made even stronger by what Applebaum's argues is the Junta's overriding objective, its survival, at the cost of that of its own people. The crisis and number of dead so far, 60,000+, is only surpassed by the North Korean famine of 1995, which claimed the lives of as many as 3 million people. What makes matters worst is that according to recent news reports, not only is the military junta insisting that all aid go through the military, but also the fact that many aid groups are now complaining that the junta is in fact stealing aid meant for the victims, diverting it or warehousing it and not allowing it to reach those in need. As if all of this was not enough, to make you want to support forceful action, the economist reported last year that both Pyongyang and Russia were helping the military junta in Myanmar/Burma, in setting up a 10 megawatt nuclear research reactor in the country.

On the other side, it seems clear that the military junta is paranoid when it comes to outsiders, and it truly believes that any attempt to deliver aid using military vessels, such as has been suggested by Kaplan and others, is actually seen as a foreign invasion, and an attempt to topple the government. Hence, the voices calling for such action, rather than helping to build the trust of the junta, may actually be increasing their fears, and hence fueling their intransigence. This of course, is premised on them having ready access to the internet, particularly online papers such as the Washington Post, or the New York Times, if not other international media which no doubt have reported on these grumblings.

Dave Schuler, has a pretty good argument against intervening. Rather than summarizing it, I'll place a snippent here for your reference. To read the rest, please visit his site. Dave argues as follows

What argument can be made for coercive humanitarian aid in Burma that couldn’t have been made 20 years ago?

Is it the scale of the calamity? Following that logic we should have invaded China a dozen times over. Over the period of the last 60 years the Chinese government has killed a number of its own citizens greater than the total population of Burma. As had the Soviet Union.

Is it the lack of willingness of the ruling junta to accept aid? On that basis any number of governments including our own would justify invasion.

...Bad things happen. Our hearts go out to those who are suffering. The purpose of our military is to defend our country and its interests seen in a fairly narrow sense.

Must we go abroad in search of monsters to destroy? Where does it end?

Indeed, if we intervene in Burma/Myanmar, based on any of the factors mentioned above, it does open the door to other types of intervention that would further undermine the principle of state sovereignty, something which given most of the third worlds history of colonialism, many are loathe to support. This is part of what explains South Africa's opposition to the violation of state sovereignty, be it in Burma/Myanmar or Zimbabwe. To be sure, economic interests play a huge role as both India and China want to enlarge ports in Burma/Myanmar to increase their access to its oil wealth. This while Thailand wants to tap its lumber industry and Singapore wants to continue providing for its banking needs.

The US, and those members of the international community that care about this, can indeed put pressure on the regime through attacking their bank accounts, as Eddie suggested, or even waving the possibility of trial and judgment by the ICC for crimes against humanity. However, what is exposed in all this is the lack of a mechanism for processing failed states. Tom Barnett has written extensively on this at his blog and in Blueprint for Action and summarized here courtesy of the SecondLife Future Salon blog.

China, India and Russia would have to be part of this system, it cannot work without them, but before they can accept it, they need to be sold on its need and the opportunities it presents.

However, that is something to address at the theoretical level. In Burma, Myanmar the suffering now is real. It remains to be seen, how the recent earthquake in China will affect its posture vis a vis Burma. After all, if China's nationals have the right to expect that their government will do everything it can to bring aid to them following such a catastrophe, why shouldn't the Burmese people have the right to expect the same from their own government, or the international community?

For now, the international community continues to beg the military junta in Myanmar/Burma to allow more international aid in, and so far that is all its limited to. Meanwhile, the Burmese population continues to wait, for aid that may never come, and if it does, may come too late.

So what is the answer to the question in the title of this post? As a neo-Barnettist, I can get behind the push for an armed humanitarian intervention, but only if we can have more players (like France, China and India) to help us carry the load, and with the caveat that we work toward creating a regime for dealing with these failed states in the future. Still, as Dave Schuler argues, we also need to address the very real problems that such an intervention would create, in terms of how we deal with the implications of our actions. After all, the US is stretched thin as a result of Iraq and Afghanistan, and we can ill afford to get caught in another low-intensity conflict, particularly with China on the opposing end. Watching the suffering, it's hard not to be for intervening, and fast, but as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Other links of interest

Security Dilemmas: To Send Aid Or Not To Send Aid, That Is The Question

Looks at how aid allows the junta to remain in power, hence the question of whether or not to send aid.