Two weekends ago Cyclone Nargis hit the coast of Burma ("Myanmar" but I refuse to acknowledge the name used by the Junta) and caused devastating flooding and wind damage. People's food stocks were heavily damaged and rice rendered inedible. Their homes were ripped asunder by merciless gales and washed away by relentless waters. And it only gets worse from there.
The ruling Junta, an alliance of military leaders, were notified of the impending Cyclone and did nothing to warn the people in its trajectory. They control every Burmese media outlet so nobody was aware of what was on the horizon. As a result, there was no preparation or bracing for the impact Nargis unleashed.
And even that's not the worst part.
After Nargis ripped through Burma and initial media estimates put the death toll at around 15,000 people, the Junta refused to allow international aid workers into their country. However, they acceded to allow international donations of aid supplies. Very gracious of them. In return, the generals showed videos of themselves receiving the aid on the tarmac and shaking hands with the deliveryman. Reports from CNN and the BBC also noted that boxes of aid that were delivered were littered with the names of Junta leading generals and wealthier families that are allied with the regime. Even in crises, this deplorable ruling party promotes itself.
However, people that weren't allied with them were denied from providing any sort of relief effort. Even aid agencies such as UNICEF were denied visas for entry to ease the humanitarian crises. The result has been 3 toilets for 35,000 people. International aid agencies have projected that more than 100,000 people will die as a result of infection and disease that will manifest themselves due to lack of humanitarian aid.
Several western nations are calling on the United Nations to intervene on Burma's national sovereignty by enacting the "responsibility to protect" doctrine. The doctrine was adopted in 2005 by the UN and allows it to infringe on a nation's borders when the government is either unable to provide for the safety of its citizens or blatantly refuses to. The latter justifies international intervention here.
However, due to the deep economic ties that Burma has formed with its immediate neighbors Thailand, India, and China, this will be difficult to pull off. India has an energy deal in place with the Junta and Thailand a logging agreement. China has backed the Junta since its formation and all three nations rely upon Burma for rice exports (The Junta exports all rice grown in the country at the expense of its citizenry, leaving none in reserve.) So those three nations have an economic interest in preserving the Junta's rule and staying in favor with them.
However, the bigger problem comes from the United States and its lack of moral authority in today's global climate. The last 8 years has seen a precipitous fall in the influence the United States has on global issues. From the war in Iraq to the existence of Guantanamo Bay, the United States has seen its influence in human rights wane. Even China has cited Gitmo as a reason the US has no right to speak on Chinese human rights violations. Yes, China has successfully cited American human rights abuses as a diplomatic retort.
Without moral authority, the United States has no leverage to convince nations like Burma to open up to humanitarian efforts or to gather a coalition to force an opening. The war in Iraq showed the world that toppling a dictator can lead to near disastrous results: unexpected civil war, and large division between ethnic groups. No coalition will invade Burma in the name of humanitarianism because they fear the unintended consequences. Furthermore, China will probably veto any measures to do so in the Security Council.
So as more and more people die in Burma due solely to the fact that the government denies them aid in an effort to consolidate power, all we can do is watch and shake our heads. Without moral authority, the United States cannot garner an international consensus to act decisively. The only nation in the world that is powerful enough to help the Burmese is powerless to do so. This is the consequence of 8 years of terrible foreign policy and gradual dismantling of Pax Americana.
The ruling Junta, an alliance of military leaders, were notified of the impending Cyclone and did nothing to warn the people in its trajectory. They control every Burmese media outlet so nobody was aware of what was on the horizon. As a result, there was no preparation or bracing for the impact Nargis unleashed.
And even that's not the worst part.
After Nargis ripped through Burma and initial media estimates put the death toll at around 15,000 people, the Junta refused to allow international aid workers into their country. However, they acceded to allow international donations of aid supplies. Very gracious of them. In return, the generals showed videos of themselves receiving the aid on the tarmac and shaking hands with the deliveryman. Reports from CNN and the BBC also noted that boxes of aid that were delivered were littered with the names of Junta leading generals and wealthier families that are allied with the regime. Even in crises, this deplorable ruling party promotes itself.
However, people that weren't allied with them were denied from providing any sort of relief effort. Even aid agencies such as UNICEF were denied visas for entry to ease the humanitarian crises. The result has been 3 toilets for 35,000 people. International aid agencies have projected that more than 100,000 people will die as a result of infection and disease that will manifest themselves due to lack of humanitarian aid.
Several western nations are calling on the United Nations to intervene on Burma's national sovereignty by enacting the "responsibility to protect" doctrine. The doctrine was adopted in 2005 by the UN and allows it to infringe on a nation's borders when the government is either unable to provide for the safety of its citizens or blatantly refuses to. The latter justifies international intervention here.
However, due to the deep economic ties that Burma has formed with its immediate neighbors Thailand, India, and China, this will be difficult to pull off. India has an energy deal in place with the Junta and Thailand a logging agreement. China has backed the Junta since its formation and all three nations rely upon Burma for rice exports (The Junta exports all rice grown in the country at the expense of its citizenry, leaving none in reserve.) So those three nations have an economic interest in preserving the Junta's rule and staying in favor with them.
However, the bigger problem comes from the United States and its lack of moral authority in today's global climate. The last 8 years has seen a precipitous fall in the influence the United States has on global issues. From the war in Iraq to the existence of Guantanamo Bay, the United States has seen its influence in human rights wane. Even China has cited Gitmo as a reason the US has no right to speak on Chinese human rights violations. Yes, China has successfully cited American human rights abuses as a diplomatic retort.
Without moral authority, the United States has no leverage to convince nations like Burma to open up to humanitarian efforts or to gather a coalition to force an opening. The war in Iraq showed the world that toppling a dictator can lead to near disastrous results: unexpected civil war, and large division between ethnic groups. No coalition will invade Burma in the name of humanitarianism because they fear the unintended consequences. Furthermore, China will probably veto any measures to do so in the Security Council.
So as more and more people die in Burma due solely to the fact that the government denies them aid in an effort to consolidate power, all we can do is watch and shake our heads. Without moral authority, the United States cannot garner an international consensus to act decisively. The only nation in the world that is powerful enough to help the Burmese is powerless to do so. This is the consequence of 8 years of terrible foreign policy and gradual dismantling of Pax Americana.
