Hidden Unities

Years from now, how will the world recall the aftermath of Cyclone Nargis?  How will the abandonment of between a quarter million to a million or more people to certain death by the world be viewed?

Of course, killing fields are all too common so this line of questioning is pointless.

Cambodia, Rwanda, Dar Fur, the Congo.  All have witnessed “the treatment”, international hand-wringing and the occasional hiccup of half-hearted measures to stem the dreadful tide of death.  History repeats itself, especially in this fashion, early and often.

Burma seems destined to join these ranks.  Credible reports of aid theft, continued obstruction and delay of accepting the necessary aid workers and whispered observations of ethnic minorities getting nothing intentionally (we call that ethnic cleansing in some places) mean nothing to the world at large.

 What then could be done?

Military intervention is highly unlikely and probably not advisable. 

Inaction is preferable to most but morally repugnant.

Begging the junta publicly and privately to accept aid is disgraceful.

Once again, the US finds itself in a position where it could influence events but cannot because it lacks the capacity in most instances to operate on multiple levels of policy and activity.  The crisis develops to America’s policymakers as an either/or fallacy, either intervention or nothing, or like Dar Fur, intervention or half-hearted measures.

There is more to the picture. The following are examples of other measures that could be explored, some in tandem, some obviously cancel the other out.

- The US could dangle the prospect of a lifting of sanctions against Burma in exchange for a firm agreement to allow aid and (perhaps) engage in a real dialogue with China, India, Thailand and ASEAN or the UN present with regime opponents. The sanctions have a symbolic effect but little else in a country where the above countries enjoy far greater influence and economic pull than we do.

- The US could muster the “democracies” as John McCain and Robert Kagan are fond of claiming can be “aligned” and push at the UN and through the global media for an ICC related indictment of the junta as war criminals (Crimes against humanity, to include ethnic cleansing).  Even if the Chinese and Russians veto it, push and push harder until the Olympic Games are set to begin.  Control the narrative of the global media by influencing events relentlessly that builds up pressure on more affected parties like India, Singapore and Thailand.  Failure is still likely but lessons learned from this may come in handy in future potential disasters like Bangladesh, North Korea, Laos, Cambodia, etc.

- Find an answer to the question of how influential are the Chinese in Burma? How many of the officers in the junta are in their pocket?  What it would take if the possibility existed for China to support a coup in Burma? How could the US push this forward? 

- Start arming the rebels in abundance. Such a tactic may be morally dubious at worst (though given the ruthless assault on ethnic minorities via rapine, aerial bombardment, murder of children, food weaponization and enslavement by the regime it isn’t that repugnant) but it will be China, Thailand & India’s mess to clean up after the failed state finally totters over.  Their choice to worship the false deity of “Burmese stability” that supporting the generals represents is tantamount to that of an accessory to mass murder.  

Is anything else available? Perhaps a long-term goal of opening the regime through trade (again, the lifting of useless sanctions) is the best option to be explored, though its also the most unlikely due to the idea of sanctions being a sanctified sacred cow in bipartisan American foreign policy.

Note none of these require an intervention by the US military.  Just as a variety of diplomatic possibilities were not explored before and during Dar Fur, failure to identify the RPF as preferential to Hutu Power (Or even jamming the Hutu Power radio signals) and how realpolitik trumped humanity (supporting the ghastly Khmer Rouge versus the Vietnamese), matters are regularly portrayed in Washington as “either-or” and actual understanding of the problem at hand (and the opportunities open to explore) suffers greatly as a result.

Above all else, the world today and in the near to mid future will likely be as hostile and unpromising to the application of American military power to address such tragedies. The need for potential alternatives besides doing nothing will only increase.  

This blogger is not egotistical enough to believe the ideas presented here are the best alternatives for Burma, yet considers the need for options beyond “just do something” or “do nothing” imperative to having a fighting chance at achieving some measure of our goals for Burma and respond to the enormous injustice regularly inflicted upon the many Burmese peoples in the future.

* Besides, stunned silence in the face of such depravity and craven shortsightedness from the generals and politicians in Asian and Western capitals is too much to bear without at least one more post about this.

Sources/Influential Posts:

“Is Armed Humanitarian Intervention The Answer In Burma?” @ New Yorker In DC
“Yes We Can” @ Coming Anarchy
Jim Hoagland, Washington Post: “Murder In The Name Of Sovereignty”

PACOM Admiral Keating said on NPR’s Morning Edition today there was no chance of an invasion to aid Burma’s starving, emaciated survivors of last week’s cyclone.  President Bush and other leaders are currently begging Burma’s military junta

The chattering classes beg to differ:

Anne Applebaum:

Think of it as the true test of the Western humanitarian impulse: The international effort that went into coordinating the tsunami relief effort in late 2004 has to be repeated, but in much harsher, trickier, uglier political circumstances. Yes, we should help the Burmese, even against the will of their irrational leaders. Yes, we should think hard about the right way to do it. And, yes, there isn’t much time to ruminate about any of this.

 
Robert Kaplan:

The magic of this is that an enormous amount of assistance can be provided while maintaining a small footprint on shore, greatly reducing the chances of a clash with the Burmese armed forces while nevertheless dealing a hard political blow to the junta. Concomitantly, drops can be made from directly overhead by the Air Force without the need to militarily occupy any Burmese airports.

In other words, this is militarily doable. The challenge is the politics, both internationally and inside Myanmar. Because one can never assume an operation will go smoothly, it is vital that the United States carry out such a mission only as part of a coalition including France, Australia and other Western powers. Of course, the approval of the United Nations Security Council would be best, but China — the junta’s best friend — would likely veto it.

And yet China — along with India, Thailand and, to a lesser extent, Singapore — has been put in a very uncomfortable diplomatic situation. China and India are invested in port enlargement and energy deals with Myanmar. Thailand’s democratic government has moved closer to the junta for the sake of logging and other business ventures. Singapore, a city-state that must get along with everybody in the region, is suspected of acting as a banker for the Burmese generals. All these countries quietly resent the ineffectual moral absolutes with which the United States, a half a world away, approaches Myanmar. Nonetheless, the disaster represents an opportunity for Washington. By just threatening intervention, the United States puts pressure on Beijing, New Delhi and Bangkok to, in turn, pressure the Burmese generals to open their country to a full-fledged foreign relief effort. We could do a lot of good merely by holding out the possibility of an invasion.

The other challenge we face lies within Myanmar. Because a humanitarian invasion could ultimately lead to the regime’s collapse, we would have to accept significant responsibility for the aftermath. And just as the collapse of the Berlin Wall was not supposed to lead to ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia, and the liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein was not supposed to lead to civil war, the fall of the junta would not be meant to lead to the collapse of the Burmese state. But it might.

The credibility of the international human rights regime and the concept of “responsibility to protect” is at an all-time low already. The public manslaughter of hundreds of thousands by xenophobic, paranoid generals clutching to illegitimate power by any means possible while the world does nothing should not surprise.

Yet both are clearly onto something important.  Not only is forceful action possible,  at least the threat of it may be effective as Kaplan shows. 

Public embarassment of China, India and Thailand (the nations with the most investment and influence in Burma) by asking them to do more to pressure the junta may also be useful. 

Above all else, a time frame must be adopted by those nations (America, France, Japan) who seem most interested in forcing the issue with the junta. 

Perhaps a deadline of 7-10 days is merited for wider, more effective permision for NGO’s to operate?

Applebaum and Kaplan both are refreshingly realistic about the problems and challenges such an effort could face.  

Yet in spite of those, its true that a coalition of the willing, backed up by a no-comment from ASEAN and preferably, cooperation from the aforementioned China, India & Thailand, would be preferable to the disgusting spectacle of misery and death sure to define Burma’s summer if matters continue at the junta’s pace.

It may even manage to rehabilitate the concept of “coalition of the willing” for years to come. 

China’s role would be a wild card. Wouldn’t a relatively unfree Burma run and operated by a Chinese-owned junta that was moderately competent and supportive of its people be preferable to the nightmare in power now?

* An alternative concept would be to head to the International Criminal Court and bring crimes against humanity charges against the junta members.  This does not save the endangered lives, but it does get the point across to the junta that their actions will entail consequences.  Pressure Singapore to give up the role of Burma’s banker and go after the personal finances of the junta members by any means necessary.  

The concept of waging personal war against dictators and tyrants is one that should be further explored by governments and interested groups.

 

Even by the junta’s perverse standards, the arrival of just a few UN relief planes after nearly a week of catastrophic death and lingering suffering in the face of mounting disease and starvation seems almost extreme in its depravity.

The lack of outrage evinced by the world in the face of the regime sentencing hundreds of thousands of its own people to death by famine and pestilence should act as a bitter pill for those who foolishly believe a “responsibility to protect” is a viable doctrine now or in the near future.

The junta’s bankroller, China, sees no need as of now to get involved.  There is no coming out for Chinese power in the region, not even a half-hearted attempt at choreographing Chinese soldiers rushing into action to assist their beleaguered ally in its time of trouble with relief aid.  

Those wishing to do something about this nightmare would be advised of one viable option to yet save the lives of nearly a million Burmese.  

A worldwide fundraising effort to handsomely monetarily reward the mid-grade and junior Burmese officers who rise up and slaughter their senior leaders (in as slow and painful as possible a manner) to assume control of the country and admit international relief agencies (or at least the Chinese & Thai equivalents).

Barring this dream scenario, is it possible for the United States, Japan, India and others to get together, speak with China, and organize a coup d’ teat this week?  

Even more seriously, in all honesty, can the US at least make a fuss at the Security Council over this?  How is this behavior not richly belonging in the highest coda of “crimes against humanity”?  

This regime just marched past North Korea’s in the odious line, blew a kiss to the rotting stack of thousands of tortured, murdered Buddhist monks from last year and dived straight into the greatest pool of blood from mass murder since Rwanda.  The screams for help won’t be heard this time though, the victims will be too weak from dysentery, cholera and malnutrition to offer up too much of a struggle. 

Psychology, Communications, Expository Writing and American Government constituted a good mix of classes to get me back into the rhythm of school work after being UA for 6 years. 
I am pleased to announce at the completion of this semester no major slip-ups, just top marks.  Just one small step forward but nevertheless an important one!
4 more classes begin in 2 weeks and the grand plan to do 4 years of school in 3 is still on track.
To my blogfriends, thank you again for the support and encouragement you have offered over the past few years that have helped bring me to this point.

*By the way, an excellent Navy blog I just discovered is The Destroyermen, currently out on deployment just like my bretheren on the Abe Lincoln and Kitty Hawk. Sailors do belong out to sea right?

We have deeply flawed candidates running this year. If only..

(image obviously from IGN.com)

Well he was Secretary Of Defense just recently…..

“Iron Man” is a fantastic summer blockbuster that honors the comic character while introducing him successfully to a broader audience without sacrificing story or detail to a negative extent. The genius of the director to place the heart of the “Armor Wars” storyline as the defining story of the film makes this less of a comic book film with a fantasy storyline and more of a nearly believable
tale about a great but flawed man.

He’s horrified by what’s been done in his name and with his technology, deciding to make things right as best he can to restore his honor and defend his country from threats foreign and domestic.