Will Cyclone Nargis lead to the downfall of the Myanmar regime?

As the government of Burma/Myanmar continues to show more interest in chasing down CNN reporters than in trying to prevent a holocaust in the Irrawaddy Delta, meteorologist and weatherblogger Dr. Jeff Masters puts the junta's despicable actions in historical context:

[T]he criminal indifference of the nation's leaders towards the plight of the cyclone's survivors will doom hundreds or thousands more to death or terrible suffering. One can only hope that the people of Myanmar will rise up and put an end to Myanmar's dictatorship as a result of this awful tragedy.

There is historical precedent for this sort of occurrence. The deadliest tropical cyclone of all time, the Great Bhola Cyclone of 1970, killed upwards of 550,000 people is what was then called East Pakistan (and now called Bangladesh). A statement released by eleven political leaders in East Pakistan ten days after the cyclone hit charged the government with "gross neglect, callous indifference and utter indifference". They also accused the president of playing down the news coverage. The dissatisfaction with the government response to the disaster boiled over into full-fledged civil war the next year, which ultimately led to the overthrow of the government and the establishment of the new nation of Bangladesh. As bad as the West Pakistani response to the Great Bhola Cyclone of 1970 was, the response of the Myanmar government to Nargis is far worse. The slowness of response to this tropical cyclone disaster is unprecedented in modern times.

It makes the U.S. and Louisiana governments' response to Hurricane Katrina seems like a model of efficiency by comparison. Here's an overview of what's happening:

More aid is on the way to cyclone-ravaged Myanmar - but so is the heavy rain... [and] relief workers, including Americans, [are] still being barred entry. ...

Officials have said only one out of 10 people who are homeless, injured or threatened by disease and hunger have received some kind of aid in the week since the cyclone hit.

The government, which wants full control of relief operations, has less than 40 helicopters, most of them small or old. It also has only about 15 transport planes, primarily small jets unable to carry hundreds of tons of supplies.

"Not only don't they have the capacity to deliver assistance, they don't have experience," said Mark Farmaner, director of the pro-democracy Burma Campaign UK. "It's already too late for many people. Every day of delays is costing thousands of lives."

On Friday, Myanmar's military rulers seized two planeloads containing enough high-energy biscuits to feed 95,000 people sent by the U.N. World Food Program, which briefly suspended help after the action. The U.N. later agreed to send two more planes to help survivors.

The government acknowledged taking control of the shipments and said it plans to distribute the aid itself to affected areas. ...

The U.N. has grown increasingly critical of Myanmar's refusal to let in foreign aid workers who could assess the extent of the disaster with the junta apparently overwhelmed. None of the 10 visa applications submitted by the WFP has been approved. ...

Myanmar says it will accept aid from all countries, but prohibits the entry of foreign workers who would deliver and manage the operations. The junta is not ready to change that position, [Shari Villarosa, the U.S. charge d'affairs in Yangon] said she was told. ...

The junta said it was grateful to the international community for its assistance but the best way to help was to send in material rather than personnel.

Relief workers have reached 220,000 cyclone victims, only a fraction of the number of people affected, the Red Cross said.

"Believe me, the government will not allow outsiders to go into the devastated area," said Yangon food shop owner Joseph Kyaw. "The government only cares about its own stability. They don't care about the plight of the people."

Indeed. F***ing inhuman bastards. May they rot in hell. (And, more immediately, may their "stability" be undermined by their own obsession with it.)

Comments

[Andrew]

I'm pretty sure we could take over with minimal trouble. What would Obama say?

[Brendan]

Methinks China might create some "trouble."

But I'd love to know what Bush, McCain, and Obama would say. If there was ever an occasion to treating a nation's sovereignty as essentially forfeit, and using the military for a humanitarian effort (with the authorization to use force if necessary to get past any obstruction from the regime), this would be it.

I'm not advocating that course of action, necessarily (for one thing, I have no idea if our military has the capacity to essentially open a third front, even a hypothetically short-term one), but I'd love to know what the current president and both of the presidential candidates (sorry, Hillary, you're irrelevant) think about it...

[Youngblai]

I'm not sure there's ever a reason for violating a nation's sovereignty outside of war.

If the junta want to stop humanitarian aid, so be it. However, I think when they got informed that not only was the United States no longer trading with them, but we were taking away all benefical trade laws with other nations that did, they'd start to come around. In other words, you can't force someone to take aid--you can just make refusing that aid (for whatever paranoid reason they have) very painful.

[Brendan]

I'm not sure there's ever a reason for violating a nation's sovereignty outside of war.

What if violating their sovereignty is the difference between letting 10,000 people die, and saving their lives? What if it's 100,000? 500,000?

Does a government have a "right," as an aspect of its sovereignty, to simply let its citizens die? Is the world required to sit around and do nothing?

Your statement "you can't force someone to take aid" misses the point, since it's not the people of Burma who are refusing aid, it's the government that's refusing to let us give it to them. I'm not sure that it's so obviously indefensible to say to the government, "well, to hell with you, we're going to give your people aid, and you can just try and stop us."

Is that an act of war? Maybe. I don't know. But I certainly don't think it's at all clear that "if the junta want to stop humanitarian aid, so be it" is a defensible moral statement. The junta does not own the people of Burma. It doesn't have the right to essentially murder them.

[Brendan]

P.S. Food for thought:

What is the operative difference, if any, between: a) knowingly letting thousands upon thousands of people die in a natural disaster and its aftermath, when they could easily be saved; and b) genocide?

Discuss.

[PenguinSix]

And how many genocides have we recently intervened in?

http://www.genocidewatch.org/aboutgenocide/genpolmmchart.htm

[Andrew]

Good point Penguin, we've got a great streak going, why stop it now? I can't wait until Obama pulls us out of Iraq and we can add the Iraqis to the list, too!

[Youngblai]

Brendan,

Note that I did not say "do nothing." I just didn't say, "violate sovereignty." Because the answer to your question is, yes, if you recognize a government you have to say, "Okay, they control everything within their borders."

"But thousands might die!" Okay, so what do we do when the junta shoots down the first C-130 on final approach? Or, more intelligently, lets the plane land and then takes everyone and the aid hostage? Then tells us if we continue to try and land, they're going to start executing the crew?

Remember, the nation state is a basic building block of the international order. Basically your argument boils down to, "We believe you're letting your citizens suffer, ergo we have the right to violate your borders and your directivs in order to stop _your_ citizens from suffering." I don't think I need to point to the large, blinking "SLIPPERY SLOPE" sign to point that's not necessarily a gig we want to get into. If for no other reason than what is the threshold? Is it at 10,000? What about 99,999? Or 100,001? Yes, I'm being a bit of a smart aleck, but you get my point.

The military's purpose is to kill people and break their stuff. If you're wanting to use the military to force someone to do something, you'd better have a plan for second, third, and fourth order effects. Is it nice? No. Do I believe that the best thing we could probably do is start handing every Burmese emigre the world over a gun and start training them to take back their country from the two-legged jackals? Certainly.

But I do _not_ believe we (be it the collective West or the U.S.) can make someone take aid by violating their sovereignty. Because who sets the rules on where this stops? (Don't even say the U.N..) Just like recognizing Kosovo wasn't the brightest idea we ever had, invad...oh, I'm sorry, _rendering aid to_ Burma would be equally bad as far as preserving a nation state international order goes. I'm not sure I'm ready to turn back thousands of years of "progress" over this, nor can I see the "national interest" in going to war with Burma when we've already got two irons cooking.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

What would Obama say? Seems to me Bush is the President. What is he doing? I have a feeling not much.

[aeromusek]

Our media is doing such a terrible job with this - I fully expect if I went up to the majority of people I know and mentioned 'Myanmar', let alone 'Cyclone Nargis', I would get a blank stare. The Denver Rocky Mountain News' front page yesterday was dominated by how the local school superintendent has been acquitted of changes that he failed to report alleged child abuse quickly enough...no mention of this tragedy.

Q: Will Cyclone Nargis lead to the downfall of the Myanmar regime?

A: Bush sucks.

[Brendan]

Good points, Youngblai. Like I said, I'm not advocating for the course of action I mentioned - I just think it's not obviously absurd, but you make the counterarguments well.

Anon @ 10:12, while I'm the first to mock the "blame Bush first" crowd when they deserve it, in this case Max is merely responding to Andrew, who, in the first comment on this post, inexplicably brought Obama into the discussion, as if somehow Obama's anti-war leanings would prevent us from taking direct action here -- when, in point of fact, neither the current president (Bush) nor Andrew's preferred candidate (McCain) are advocating any action along the lines of what Andrew was suggesting. In other words, it was Andrew who is responsible for the Q & A you mention, except modified thusly:

Q: Will Cyclone Nargis lead to the downfall of the Myanmar regime?

A: Obama sucks.

[copndor]

I think bringing the presidential candidates into this debate is ridiculous. But if we're going to be even-handed about it, this story is probably important:
link

[Youngblai]

Bringing in Obama & McCain as not making a decision is silly, but I think the Presidential candidates should be asked their views on this.

I mean, I hate to say it, but it seems as if we've had a pretty rough stretch of disasters from 2002-present. Then again, part of it may be that we have truly global news coverage now, i.e. CNN would've probably seared something like the 1923 Japanese Quake in our memory also.

[Youngblai]

Whoops, hit post too early.

Thanks Brendan. I don't mean to seem like a heartless bastard, I just think that we _can't_ do anything right now. It bothers me, but then I've started to accept that the international community isn't much better off than it was in the 1930s, U.N. notwithstanding.

What I'm meaning to point out is that disasters are an aspect of foreign policy. This is the second 100,000+ killer in the area in what, 4 years? Now, arguably this one was so bad thanks to the government not passing along warnings and refusing help, but I think it's safe to say that we're only some dumb luck away from a megadeath (and no, I don't mean the band) event. Might want to figure out what our response to _that_ will be.

[OJ]

Brendan,

Please post about OJ Mayo, Reggie Bush and USC. I would like to learn more about the most corrupt college sports program since SMU. Thanks a million!

[Mark "Dirty" Sanchez]

OJ,
There is no corruption at USC!

[Alasdair]

Youngblai - as Brendan has said, we have a "slippery slope" problem with anything we decide to do that involves crossing the sovereign borders of another country ... and that bears much thought ...

We also have the Chinese Responsibility and modifications therunto problem ...

Basic Chinese Responsibility - you are walking along a riverbank and so see someone drowning ... without your help, the person *will* drown ... you intervene, and save the person's Life ... you assumed the Chinese Responsibility whereby you just accepted responsibility for everything that person does, from then on - had you not saved that person's Life, that person would have had no further influence on anything ... in Ancient China, you *owned* that person, and could treat 'em as your personal property/slave if you chose to ...

The modified Chinese Responsibility is this ... same riverbank, same person drowning, you are the only person who can save the person's Life ...

If you choose NOT to save the person's Life, are you "guilty" of their death ?

Some of us feel that if we do not do what we can to intervene to correct a problem which we are able to correct, then we are essentially just as responsible for the problem and its results as the cause of the problem ...

Those of us who lack imagination and/or empathy can easily sluff off the respinsibility, usually with pious phrases like "It's not my responsibility !" ...

Those of us *with* empathy cannot be rid of it anywhere near so easily ...

I don't know *anyone* who has the answer to this that works for all situations ...

A working moderate compromise tends to be to offer to help - and then the person must decide whether or not to accept the help ... but what if the person is suicidal as a result of factors which, unbeknownst to the suicidal person, have changed for the better ? Any intervention or non-intervention takes on the Chinese Responsibility ...

[Jim Hu]

What's the deal with the italicized Chinese Responsibility ? At first I thought you were talking about the responsibility of the PRC, which borders Myanmar. But then that stopped making sense.

[Youngblai]

It's Chinese philosophy, pretty much how he explained it--If you save a person's life, you are now responsible for it. In other words, you can't save someone from drowning then leave them to die of exposure, you have to actually take care of them until they are in a position of safety and are able to see to themselves.

Actually, however, I was the one arguing the slippery slope, not Brendan. ;)

[JO]

How about the non-Chinese Resposibility. I see you drowning, pull you from the river and say "See Ya. Have a Nice Day!".

[Youngblai]

Because if I pull you from the river, near death and unconscious, then you die from hypothermia because I didn't make sure you were okay, what have I really accomplished?

In Myanmar's case, it'd be as if we brought the aid to the docks then entrusted in the goverment to dispense it. What's the point in that?

The other thing I was thinking about this are the following questions:

1.) What is the duty of the U.S. government to its own citizens? In other words, are you telling me the Gulf Coast is completely fixed right now? Because if it isn't, I think helping Myanmar's citizens before helping our own is a little suspect.

2.) With what military would we do it? I'm not talking forceable entry ops, I'm talking sustainability. Somebody actually has to be sitting there handing out the aid packets. Who does this? Because I'm not sure, given recent events with U.N. peacekeepers, it's a blue helmet mission.

3.) If you say the U.S. military, see point #1. Our military is a national asset. Right now our soldiers are already pretty tired and strung out. Why should we burn out our troops even further? What is the government's duty to an all volunteer force?

[Alasdair]

Youngblai - if you think to when you have volunteered to help someone, and you have been able to help them, there are few more powerful sources of energy on this planet for people ...

Our Gulf Coast could use more help - but their survival doesn't depend on it, except in the most unfortunate cases ... the only life-threatening pandemic in the US Gulf Coast right now is a tendency to vote Democrat ... (innocent smile) ...

The Burmese need help to avoid starving, to avoid outbreaks of Cholera or Typhoid or Dysentery ...

[Youngblai]

Alasdair,

I don't disagree with you on a personal level. It's on the national level that I think we have a problem with resources. If the government were to expedite things for individuals to get over (say, if you can prove you're heading to Myanmar to volunteer, your passport gets processed in 10 days or less), that's one thing. However, spending American treasure (and, more than likely, blood--even if it's peaceful, accidents happen) is another. Or, put another way, the folks on the Gulf Coast paid for 100% of that help, even if they don't need it to survive--so is it unethical for the government to stop at 80% to help people on the other side of the world?

[Andrew]

Anon @ 10:12, while I'm the first to mock the "blame Bush first" crowd when they deserve it, in this case Max is merely responding to Andrew, who, in the first comment on this post, inexplicably brought Obama into the discussion, as if somehow Obama's anti-war leanings would prevent us from taking direct action here -- when, in point of fact, neither the current president (Bush) nor Andrew's preferred candidate (McCain) are advocating any action along the lines of what Andrew was suggesting. In other words, it was Andrew who is responsible for the Q & A you mention, except modified thusly:

Q: Will Cyclone Nargis lead to the downfall of the Myanmar regime?

A: Obama sucks.

I take modified umbrage at that characterization. I singled out Obama because he is the least likely of Bush, McCain, and HRC to make a case for war.

After watching Somalia, Bosnia, and Rwanda disintegrate into bloody messes, HRC's husband made prominent the humanitarian interventionist impulse in foreign policy by agitating for the bombing of Belgrade and the invasion of Kosovo (and he didn't even bother with getting UN approval because he knew the Russians would veto). He also sent troops to prop up Haiti. I would have to assume HRC might follow a similar tack with countries such as Myanmar.

Meanwhile, Bush and McCain are well-publicized hawks who, while a bit dovish on Myanmar at the moment, have nevertheless expressed a willingness to initiate military conflict in support of a broader good (e.g., democratization of the Middle East).

As for Obama.... I don't know, you tell me. He's a clean slate. I know he wants to leave Iraq and let it implode, and then hope that giving Ahmadinijad a personal handjob will get Iran to back off their nuclear agenda. Then again, he's also advocated invading Pakistan, one of our very few Muslim allies. So I honestly have no idea what Obama would say about how to resolve the Myanmar debacle, and thus my piqued interest in what he would say. If you want to be fair about it, ask all the candidates like Youngblai suggested. I'm just saying Obama is the biggest unknown here.

Remember, the nation state is a basic building block of the international order. Basically your argument boils down to, "We believe you're letting your citizens suffer, ergo we have the right to violate your borders and your directivs in order to stop _your_ citizens from suffering." I don't think I need to point to the large, blinking "SLIPPERY SLOPE" sign to point that's not necessarily a gig we want to get into. If for no other reason than what is the threshold? Is it at 10,000? What about 99,999? Or 100,001? Yes, I'm being a bit of a smart aleck, but you get my point.

This is nonsense. There is no "slippery slope" that mandates that, because we invaded Iraq, we must therefore invade Iran, North Korea, Russia, and every other nasty regime. There is no "slippery slope" that, if we invade Myanmar, requires us to invade Zimbabwe and North Korea and fix those regimes as well. It comes down to cost-benefit analysis: What's the cost to us in lives and treasure? What's the cost to them? In Myanmar, like in Haiti, a military solution looks fairly achievable. In North Korea, less so. And while I understand your concern about gallivanting off to war with the dozens of bad regimes on the planet, that's simply not realistic and would never happen no matter who became president.

In addition, the idea that the "nation state" is some sancrosanct pinnacle of political organization is laughable. Since nation-states have come on the scene in the last two hundred years, humankind has experience exponentially more devastating war and bloodshed. I'm not saying that the concept of the nation-state is responsible for this, but neither is it the guardian from it either. What it boils down to is the old adage that, all it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. Since we know the UN is useless and incapable of instigating intervention to prevent genocides, famines, and general mistreatment/abandonment of populations, someone has to step up. If not US, then who?

if you recognize a government you have to say, "Okay, they control everything within their borders."

Okay, so we withdraw recognition of the government. Like natural law, if you refuse to even attempt to act in the best interests of your people, you have de facto illustrated that you are not a truly legitimate government.

Okay, so what do we do when the junta shoots down the first C-130 on final approach? Or, more intelligently, lets the plane land and then takes everyone and the aid hostage? Then tells us if we continue to try and land, they're going to start executing the crew?

You got it backwards. First neutralize the bad guys, then send aid. In any case, shooting down a C-130 full of supplies and executing the crew would be a perfect causus belli to intervene and take out the evil Myanmar regime.

Do I believe that the best thing we could probably do is start handing every Burmese emigre the world over a gun and start training them to take back their country from the two-legged jackals? Certainly.

I'm in favor, but they need food and water first. Ergo, our first priority is to take out the regime, get the Burmese people on their feet, then arm them in case the despots try to reassert themselves after we leave.

Because who sets the rules on where this stops?

We do!

I'm sorry, _rendering aid to_ Burma would be equally bad as far as preserving a nation state international order goes.

By what twisted logic is the current "nation state international order" worth preserving? The international order is all about muscle. Just like the schoolyard bully, you either find someone bigger to beat him up and make him stop, or you band together with the other small fries and jump him.

I'm not sure I'm ready to turn back thousands of years of "progress" over this, nor can I see the "national interest" in going to war with Burma when we've already got two irons cooking.

I'm quite certain that "realpolitik" would agree with you that nothing in Burma is in our national interest, so maybe Kissinger will be willing to buy you a drink here. Regardless, I see no "progress" in a system that elevates the concept of the inviolable nation-state, therefore expressing a willful disregard of the lives of tens of thousands of innocent people. Someone has to play the part of global policeman if we are ever to take the next step forward in our evolution. Do you really want to wait around a few more decades and let China usurp that role from us?