The Road to Burma

[danalwyn]

So, if you've been paying attention to speculation around recently, you'll have seen an interesting question being bandied about. Which is, should we, we being the UN, the west, or any convenient bunch of allies you care to name, invade Burma and replace her government?



It's an interesting question, and it's also a perfectly safe question, because it's entirely academic. In case you haven't noticed (and some people haven't), our army is mostly busy in a place called Iraq, and some in another place called Afghanistan. With the troops there, and the formations rebuilding their strength back home, we would have a hard time massing the military manpower needed to invade Puerto Rico, not to mention a dense jungle nation half again as large as Iraq in the middle of the tropics. And since the Chinese have no interest in doing so, the British are as busy as we are, and the French are having troubles of their own in Africa, nobody has the ability to invade Burma/Myanmar, so you can sit back and discuss the question to your heart's content, completely liberated from the awful responsibility of knowing that somebody might take your ideas and turn them into action, and then you'll have to accept some blame for the consequences.

It's interesting because there's no clear cut answer:

There is a series of strong arguments both for and against. On one hand, Burma is a nothing, an economic void, not in anyone's interest and, as the saying goes, never anyone's "strategically". It's hard to think of a more useless country than Burma in Asia, and events of the past fifty years have mostly borne that out. It's close to China, who would not take meddling lightly, it is an unknown quantity, because we know so little about it. Moreover, like it or not, it is a sovereign country. We've tried to occupy a sovereign country before for what we termed their own good, and look how that's turning out.

On the other hand, Burma is in desperate straits, and the military junta is desperately trying to keep people from being saved from them. It is less a nation then a disaster waiting to happen. We, as the big kids on the block, have a responsibility, according to the Uncle Ben School of Morality, to save innocent lives, even if that might mean saving them from their own government. And it may be within our interests. Certainly an open Burma is much more valuable to the world economy than the black hole it is now, and a closed Burma will only continue to breed instability, first at home, and then in her neighbors. In the very long term, the more stable, profitable nations there are in the world, the better things tend to be, and the only way Burma will ever get there involves getting rid of the junta.

Honestly, I think that we've already lost our chance. We should have supported the stillborn Saffron Revolution a lot more vociferously than we did, and backed those words with action instead of letting the Bush Doctrine die a lonely, unmourned death. That was the time; now is not the time. If anything, I would advocate straddling the middle of the road (a tactic that often means I have two different sets of tire tracks on my corpse), and propose that the UN declare temporary jurisdiction over Rangoon, using it as a base in the country to disperse aid and deal with the inevitable problems. That same group would have to be prepared to take advantage of any shift in the country caused by the breaking of its government's power in the largest city, but that would have to plaid by ear.

But ultimately this is a question of to what degree a nation's right to sovereign independence trumps our need to preserve the human rights of her citizens. I believe that, in the long time, adhering to a morally guided foreign policy will produce a stable and productive world, and that we should hew to our moral lights. But in this case I cannot state for certain whether we should intervene, or whether that would push things too far.

What do you think?

Comments

[bonita-chaotica.livejournal.com]

The Junta are repackaging what little aid has got through in their name, to give the impression to their people that they're the ones providing the necessary aid, not the outside world.

It's disgusting and of course 'invade Burma' sounds like a well overdue course of action. But UN troops are too stretched at the moment. I like the suggestion David Cameron of the Conservative party has made - ignoring Burmese airspace rules to make food drops. It's not solution, but at least it would mean the Burmese people would get some needed outside help.

[danalwyn.livejournal.com]

I sort of like that idea, except that we don't have enough aid to blanket the country. I would like to have ground coordination for these airdrops to tell us where to drop things; otherwise it's a bit of a crapshoot.

[bonita-chaotica.livejournal.com]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-05-13-burma-junta_N.htm

I think it's got to the point where it doesn't matter where the aid packets land, as long as the aid lands somewhere.

Co-ordinated efforts of UN sanctioned military pilots, perhaps? Perhaps pilots who need to rack up their air miles and can't be sent on other missions before they reach those requirements? (food drops should be less risky, especially if neighbouring countries agree to allow flights through their airspace for this) Or here's an idea, retired military pilots who still know how to do the necessary stuff but now fly commercial aircraft. Probably not enough of those folks, but it would mean less of a need to re-direct the necessary people out of Iraq, Afghanistan and other UN hotspots.

[danalwyn.livejournal.com]

I suppose even the black market has some redistributive power, but I don't think there's enough aid at the moment to do the shotgun approach. If we want what little we've got to be effective, we may have to do direct targeting. If people were a little more generous, the mass airdrop would probably work.

[lookingforwater.livejournal.com]

Unless the Burmese have some sort of epic ninja military, it should be easy to get aidgivers across the border with guards, and do it all fairly peacefully.

That may actually not be feasible. Or make any sense.

[danalwyn.livejournal.com]

But can you then keep the government from stealing all the aid that does make it across the border? That's the question. Otherwise we might as well send it to them and save ourselves the trouble.

[lookingforwater.livejournal.com]

What I'm thinking of, and I may be woolgathering, is a sort of invasion but not really. Like, we go in with shooty things and forcibly set up a camp... which then starts passing out food, and medicine, and medical care. And has laptops with satellite internet or whatever so we can set up a database and get families back together. That sort of thing. I can't imagine the junta is very organized right now, or that its armaments are in the best of all possible shape, so it shouldn't be too hard to slip through the cracks?

Again, I very probably have no idea what I'm talking about. But an invasion in and of itself isn't such a bad idea if we focus on invading specifically to bring humanitarian aid and just sort of ignore the junta unless it starts shooting, and even then only shoot back enough to make it stop?

I can't imagine anything that would be more demoralizing than being just flat-out ignored.

[danalwyn.livejournal.com]

The idea has merit, which was essentially what I talked about for Rangoon, but it has its own problems. The junta's military still functions, since it's elsewhere, so they can just sit outside the camp with guns and relieve people of whatever they just got.

Worse is, once the camp and its protection is gone, then the junta comes in and shoots everybody they think got bad ideas out of this. Should we do anything about that?

It's not a bad idea, but there are a great many things that need to be worked out.

[crisiks.livejournal.com]

Why don't we save ourselves the trouble? I mean, yes, it's not a good thing that the junta would take the credit for giving the aid, but at this point, I think it's rather important to save the lives of the people there - shouldn't that be our priority? Once we're done cleaning up our messes in other parts of the world, we can worry about the junta and the problems they cause. Right now, we should be worrying about the innocents who're dying there.

(Yes, yes, I know why we don't do that. Sometimes, however, I'd like to imagine the world more sane and compassionate than it is.)

[danalwyn.livejournal.com]

The problem is not that they take the credit for the aid. The problem is that they take the aid itself. Most of it will end up enriching whoever's in charge at the moment, and that doesn't seem like a good use of our aid to me. I'd rather have it get to people that are in need; Burmese generals have enough.

[crisiks.livejournal.com]

But that's...
Grrr.

[lil-monk.livejournal.com]

To its neighbouring countries and Asean, Burma has a huge potential in the export areas of agricultural, natural minerals + fuels and precious gems. China being its most helpful neigbour (and also stands to benefit the most, given current ties) would not take kindly to meddling in Burma, simply because China itself doesn't take kindly to any 'outside interference' with its own affairs, just like Russia.

IMO, the trend of interference and protection, relative to possible defensive and offensive forces of the various countries really depends on what self-interests, short-term gains and eventual long-term benefits are being protected by each country for the 'greater good'. No doubt morality might play a part but on the global stage, its imagery tends to be more substantial than the substance itself.

To organise an invasion with any chance of success, you'd need an alliance of at least 2 superpowers plus at the very least, a promise of neutrality from most of the developed countries and the most influential countries in Asia, and then you'd have to deal with the prospect of China possibly backing up its neighbour as it also weighs the benefits and disadvantages of whatever actions it undertakes. In short, it's a diplomatic nightmare.

Whoever guides Burma to open its doors gradually will benefit from both its current state and future possibilities, but Asean's peace-loving, non-pressing hands are tied. China is in the best position to lead by example but for now, given Burma isn't depleted of its optimum usefulness on the fronts of natural fuel and precious gems yet, there's no need for China to rush to make them open up and share the current benefits. Given the Olympic torch incidents relative to the recent earthquake where PR is concerned, they've learnt very fast on how to gracefully refuse and do things their way (not forgetting that China has far more resources and better infrastructure than Burma).

A bloody revolution is tempting, but how it comes about is going to be the key, and assassination of the entire top and second tier might be one of the best methods involved (but then it would make one wonder about who takes over). Your middle-road tactic sounds nice, but the usefulness of the UN is in question, especially when the breaking of governmental power sounds unlikely due to the questionable validating process and underlying aims of the recent referendum, which will consolidate the power of the military in the political cabinet. It doesn't help that the citizens of Myanmar have been impoverished for so long plus experienced economic sanctions since 1996(?) but still survive somehow, which makes one question whether the approach is actually working.

So unless there's a change of heart, a great catastrophe or the people can somehow overthrow the ruling heads of the military themselves, Burma is likely to stay as it is for at least the next decade.

[danalwyn.livejournal.com]

Although I don't think anybody in Asia would really lift a finger to hurt Burma, I doubt anyone except China would life a finger to help them. Although the China factor is large, the other Asian nations are unlikely to do anything to exacerbate it. And the Chinese won't move, because there's nothing in it for them.

Militarily, an invasion of Burma is probably not as hard as it sounds. One of the superpowers alone could do it without too much trouble, partially because the most strategic piece of land in the whole country is no longer the center of the junta's power. The hard part is, of course, figuring out what to do once the Burmese Army has fled in disarray. The mess would be a disaster. Even with an obvious candidate for leader, it would be hard just to install a government.

If enough people are disaffected, or if the government performs badly enough in this current affair, it may lose all legitimacy, and be unable to control people breaking away. This throws things into a whole new ballgame, a cross between a bloody rebellion and a disintegrating country. I'm tempted to like that one, except that I'm not sure if we will be able to find a party we are morally allied with to support. It's also one of the few things that will move China off of it's fence, and I don't know which way they'll jump once they do. It's an interesting exercise though - in a Burmese civil war, do we abstain and observe complete neutrality, or do we sell to whoever we want?

I agree with you though. Chances are Burma will remain the backwater it is for a long time.

[lil-monk.livejournal.com]

Sorry about the late reply. With regards to a potential invasion to remove the junta heads and installing a new government, it's not so much about anybody in Asia wanting to hurt Burma, but rather the economic and imagery repercussions on the country doing the invading. IMO, whether China moves to defend Burma is very much dependent on what its principles and what it views as needing to protect, given that the geographical proximity of its neighbouring country in an invasion may make China somewhat jittery. Not to mention there's been at least 2 decades spent building a hard-earned relationship of trust and trade between the countries, which would be at stake. To say the chinese won't move is something I wouldn't say (unless I'm misreading you), because it depends on which country is doing the invading and the justification from that country for it.

And unlike the contentious R2P clause in the 2005 UN world summit (which goes that every state has a responsibility to protect its population against crimes of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity) which some have suggested to be invoked by the UN in this instance to bypass the military approval, on what grounds would the invading country have? Some countries have a longer list of universal rights than others, and when does grounds for humanitarian intervention turn into intervention of state affairs?

The promise of neutrality is essential for success, simply because the only proper functioning institute in Burma is an army, plus a terrain that should not be underestimated. Backlash can be in economical and influential terms, if other countries condemn such an invasion as unethical (despite the good it'd probably do). If an invasion were to take place and succeed, the new government would have to be Aung San Suu Kyi's party but even then, would they feel it is feasible to take the rulership based on foreign intervention from a country that would definitely be under ethical fire?

Like some other countries, America refused to be legally bound by the R2P clause because it could compromise the country's freedom to make decisions and simultaneously place national interests at a disadvantage.

It would be an interesting exercise if things turn out the way your scenario sketches, to see which way things would move. The best thing from a realistic POV though, would be China making greater effort to influence Burma, as China is already starting to realise that given its own growing international clout and the global ballgame of checks and balances, moral non-interference of any sort is something it may not be able to adhere to for much longer (one example being the lessening of arms sales to the Tehran government).

Trying not to use the not-quite-applicable 'western Vs eastern mindset' stereotype was something that kinda itched my toe throughout this discussion (given that I'm being irritated by it elsewhere), but that's for another day.

[danalwyn.livejournal.com]

It's interesting to watch China, because I think they're now making the same mistakes that the US made in the Cold War, except without the excuse of needing to win. They've created profitable ties to a great many governments that end up keeping their people in a state of instability. If you think about it, China probably stands to gain a great deal from a stable, prosperous Burma, but their refusal to censure the Burmese junta has not contributed to this outcome. I wonder if either of us will learn from our mistakes.

I was throwing out a more general question: When is humanitarian intervention allowed? Is it solely a function of the UN's decision, or do neighboring nations have a moral duty to stop abuses? We all say that genocide should be stopped, but nobody seems to be really clear on who's job it is to stop it, or who should be sent out to deal with the problem whenever it occurs. We seem content with not confronting this particular issue, and paying only lip service to the old theories of rescuing another nation's people. On the other hand, there's a very thin line between intervention and invasion, and it moves from time to time.

If the world is going to grow closer together in this new economic model we've stumbled into, this question is going to crop up more and more. I normally agree with the Uncle Ben School of Morality: With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility, but there's now an important question: how much responsibility? Do we have a responsibility to do more than shake our heads disapprovingly? And if so, when and where?

There needs to be an agreement on this soon, before things get even messier.

[lil-monk.livejournal.com]

Either of us? Uh, what?

China would gain a great deal from a stable Burma in the long-run but in terms of current economical gains and uh, other more attention-draining problems on home soil, there's no need for them to invest more effort on other fronts to help, given that China's current GNP (where foreign income is concerned) is more primarily reliant on other countries. And China still needs time to sort out its own understanding and its growing role of influence, when it comes to foreign interaction where moral/humanitarian effort is concerned. Comparing the 1976 quake in Tangshan (whereby the government thought that asking for external help would be a loss of face) with the present situation, the government is still a little awkward and uncertain when it comes to external help. The slight delay in accepting was probably a combination of aftermath inaccessibility + a policy involving how to factor in foreign aid/helpers that still needs tweaking + the last vestige of a rather inflexible mindset that has outlasted the Berlin Wall, I'd call this a major improvement in a somewhat quick time.

I can't quite comment on the US during the Cold War era Vs. China floundering in this era, given that it was USSR Vs USA geopolitics back then and now, circumstances have changed quite a bit. The EU could be the most influential sphere if it stabilises, but it is currently too divided to be of much use. Meanwhile, George Bush Jr. continues his part as the global clown, while Messrs Brown takes up the domestic honours.

As to agreeing on humanitarian intervention between countries... Idealogy tends to wilt, when confronted with reality. Everybody wants the glory, nobody wants the responsibility. Or to be less flippant, IMO it's just too draining for the various countries to commit themselves to form an active watchdog that upholds justice, due to idealogical differences, self-interest and various internal stability issues at home and in such an exercise. There'd be infinite squabbles on the definition itself, who commits how much, what action to take, etc. That the markers of relativity shift, as you've noted, do not help. Too bad there's no universal pause button to save us all a lot of trouble. The Uncle Ben School of Morality has merely gotten a little more complicated, and perhaps what needs primary refinement is the method of choice and how it is executed, not so much the question of doing more than shaking heads. As to how much responsiblity, perhaps it involves the main spheres of influence doing their part to lend a firm but patient hand to the country that's in question, and everybody else to be neutral. And by main influence, I refer to the country's partners/whoever it trusts. Look where South Korea's meek Sunshine Policy got North Korea, because there seemed to have been a fundamental flaw of not taking into account North Korea's aggresively oppressive regime.

Perhaps the UN will make itself tackle the issue another time. I'd give it another 100 years at least, unless a nuclear war happens to hasten things. Or perhaps, if the idealogy of governments grow closer in time with regards to responsibility and justice, along with a willingness to face up to such a topic, there could be a consensus of sorts. This would be easier, if there were less domestic problems such as inflation and what not to worry about. But whatever it is, engagement is the key, not stone-walling... except perhaps as a last resort (if justifiable).