It is rather sad but true to read “The Economic Intelligence Unit”, one of the most influential think tanks of the world, wrote in its Country Report said that there is no prospect for any outside intervention. As the ruling generals continued to enjoy the tacit support of China, a veto-wielding member of the UN Security Council, the military continue to keep its primary focus on protecting its grip on power rather than dealing with the crisis. The Cyclone Nagris has revealed once more the incompetence of the regime and its continuous callous disregard for the welfare of the people will go at any length to keep them in power.
The Burmese Generals are cruel, power-hungry, xenophobic, violent and dangerously irrational is what the average person knows about them. But going deeper one will discover that they are not all irrational. Looking from their perspective their most urgent goal is to maintain them in power at all costs -- their reluctance to accept international aid in the wake of a devastating cyclone makes perfect sense. It's cares about its own survival, not the survival of its people.
If the world fails to persuade the Junta and if there is no prospect of intervention shall the world look on with folded arms at the impending tragedy? The US government should be looking at wider diplomatic options, too. The UN Security Council has already refused to take greater responsibility for Burma because of China and Russia insistence on the veto. Is it because the damage done by the Iraq war goes far beyond Iraq's borders and the Burmese people has to pay for it? The French are still talking about finding alternative ways to deliver aid. Others in Europe and Asia might join, too, along with some aid organizations. This should be construe as a true test of the Western humanitarian impulse. The international effort that went into coordinating relief after the 2004 tsunami has to be repeated, but in much harsher, trickier, uglier political circumstances. The world should help the Burmese people but in a very hard way to do it, even against the will of their irrational leaders.
Madeleine K Albright wrote that the world’s response, to the Burmese calls for help illustrate three grim realities: totalitarian governments are getting on well; their neighbours are reluctant to pressure them to change; and the notion of national sovereignty is gaining ground. The first and most obvious reality is the survival of totalitarian government in an age of global communications and democratic progress. The Burmese Junta employs the same set of tools used by the likes of Stalin to crush dissent and monitor the lives of citizens. Second is the unwillingness of Burma’s neighbours to use their collective leverage on behalf of change.
A decade ago, when Burma was allowed to join the ASEAN with the regional leaders crowing that they would push the Junta to open its economy and move in the direction of democracy are now silent. A third reality is that the concept of national sovereignty, as an inviolable and overriding principle of global law is gaining ground. The world has believes that with the end of Cold War would lead to the creation of an integrated world system free from spheres of influence, in which the wounds created by colonial and cold war empires would heal? In such a world, the international community would recognize a responsibility to override sovereignty in emergency situations — to prevent ethnic cleansing or genocide, arrest war criminals, restore democracy or provide disaster relief when national governments were either unable or unwilling to do so but has so far prove to be the opposite.
It should be remember that NATO ended the war in Bosnia and stopped Slobodan Milosevic’s campaign of terror in Kosovo; the British halted a civil war in Sierra Leone; and the United Nations authorized life-saving missions in East Timor and elsewhere. And now why Burma is left behind, is it because of the American elections? These actions did reflect the view that the international system exists in the heart of the hearts of the people to advance certain core values, including development, justice and respect for human rights but not their governments. In this view, sovereignty is still a central consideration, but cases may arise in which there is a responsibility to intervene through sanctions or, in extreme cases, by force to save lives. And if Burma is not the case who?
The invasion of Iraq, with the administration’s grandiose rhetoric about pre-emption, has generated a negative reaction that has weakened support for cross-border interventions even for worthy purposes. Governments, especially in the developing world, are now determined to preserve the principle of sovereignty, even when the human costs of doing so are high. Thus, Burma has been shield; Sudan has been able to dictate the terms of multinational operations inside Darfur. Zimbabwe is about to steal a presidential election. Pakistan had told the US to back off. And despite recent efforts to enshrine the doctrine of a “responsibility to protect” R2P international law, the concept of humanitarian intervention has lost momentum.
But the global conscience is not asleep, but after the turbulence of recent years, it is profoundly confused especially when the news that 10,000 pregnant women are among the estimated 2.4 million cyclone survivors in Burma are in urgent need of proper health care while more than 100 women give birth every day in the area affected by the cyclone At the heart of the debate is the question of what the international system is? Madeleine Albright has asked, is it just a collection of legal nuts and bolts cobbled together by governments to protect governments? Or is it a living framework of rules intended to make the world a more humane place? So far the Western government of US, Britain and France has bow down to the will of the Burmese regime how about listening to the voice and cry of the Burmese people?
Isn’t increasing internal conflict and rampant human rights violations, the exodus of refugees and internally displaced persons and the spread of HIV/AIDS and drugs to neighbouring countries, and internationally are still not the concern of the international peace and security?
Several reports indicated that the regime is underway to exploit Burma’s reserves of uranium ore, including the processing into the refined form known as yellowcake, which was being bartered with North Korea and Iran. Dealings with China and Russia, in return for weapons and nuclear assistance, including a reactor, from the latter is already known. Besides it is public knowledge that the Junta wants to increase its hard currency inflows as its barter arrangements with Russia will not be sufficient to pay for the reactor. Hence the Junta seeks cash-paying customers for its uranium where the market price is skyrocketing from $7 a pound in 2000 o $135. The nuclear power industry is also growing from thirty countries to forty plus that have nuclear power plants and thirteen countries already have enrichment facilities. The obvious business opportunity compels the Junta to send its representative looking for industrial customers for yellowcake in Bangkok. Why is this keep Hush Hush? Is it not an international security threat?
The Junta has acquired the Hwasong SRBM (short range ballistic missile), a SCUD-type missile with a range of 500 kilometres which is twelve meters tall and weighs 6400 kilograms that carries a conventional high explosive warhead of up to 800 kilograms. The secret cargo ship from North Korean after docking at Thilawa Port in Burma, continued on to Iran is every body’s knowledge. Are we living in the world of hypocrisy? Perhaps President Bush should visit Mae Sot after his farewell trip to Europe.