 |
The horrific cyclone disaster in Myanmar (formerly Burma) is a tragedy and an appalling demonstration of a government that is more concerned about its image and its position than its citizens. Few would doubt that the generals who run Myanmar are inept rulers who again care more about their own position and power than anything else. As a recent article in the Wall Street Journal has pointed out, the situation in Myanmar is a test of a new United Nations doctrine. In 2005, the UN established a new legal doctrine called the “responsibility to protect” in dealing with a nation that demonstrates disregard for its citizens. This doctrine was implemented in response to the failures of the world community to address the genocide associated with the slaughter in Rwanda. The legal ramifications of this new doctrine are that it authorizes the UN to intervene to prevent crimes against humanity. Are the generals of Myanmar guilty of blocking life-saving aid to its people? If so, then the doctrine of “responsibility to protect” applies. The challenge is that of course this new doctrine is untested. Further, many nations (e.g., China, Russia, South Africa, Libya, etc.) all oppose the use of this new doctrine. They all cite procedural reasons for opposing any discussion at the Security Council level.
Why is this new doctrine so controversial? This UN agreement, which is the basis for the new doctrine, overturns the centuries-old idea of national sovereignty. It has been adopted by the Security Council and by the General Assembly, but its advocates are reluctant to test that support within both bodies. There are therefore no guidelines for when the Security Council should authorize action or the form such actions should take. The brutal reality remains—few nations are willing to set precedents on these new limits of national sovereignty. Obviously, few want to assume a greater level of international responsibility. But perhaps more importantly, the action based on this new doctrine could be used against them. There is little doubt that China is most concerned about such a development. Finally, most nations seem to agree that this new doctrine of the UN does not apply to developments due to natural disasters, such as a cyclone.
But for one moment, let us imagine an armed humanitarian intervention in Myanmar to help the at least 1.5 million Burmese people that are homeless or in desperate need of assistance due to the cyclone. It could be done and would probably meet with little resistance. Would the Burmese army fight this humanitarian mission? If they did, could this mean the end to the military junta, for it could ultimately lead to the junta’s collapse? If that were to occur, the UN (and therefore the US) would need to accept significant responsibility for the collapse of the regime. About 1/3 of the 47 million that inhabit Myanmar are ethnic minorities, and they have not gotten along. If the junta collapsed, the real issue would not be about forging a democracy, but forging a compromise between the majority Burmese people and the other ethnic groups. Could Myanmar develop into another nation where ethnic cleansing would develop? It seems so simple: Help those devastated by this terrible cyclone. But to do so, with any kind of force, could have ramifications considerably greater than the humanitarian aid issue. If this whole matter is not handled wisely, we could see another example of the carnage that faced the Balkans after the collapse of Yugoslavia and communism in the 1990s. Or we could see another ethnic/tribal rivalry like we see in Iraq since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. As with so many issues related to the human condition, solving one problem can actually create another set of even more serious problems. The generals of Myanmar are acting irresponsibly and are, in my judgment, guilty of crimes against humanity. There is little excuse for their self-serving actions. But any threat of military force or even implementing this “new doctrine” of the UN could have unintended consequences with which the world community is not prepared to deal. Oh, the horrors of living in a fallen world!
See Louise Radnofsky in the Wall Street Journal (14 May 2008) and Robert D. Kaplan in the New York Times (14 May 2008). |
