The recent cyclone in Burma has again raised the question of whether it is justifiable to use military force to distribute aid to victims of a natural disaster when the government of a country attempts to prevent that aid reaching people who need it. These issues were discussed in an interesting article in the Age by Daniel Flitton a couple of days ago.
Burma is facing a major humanitarian disaster. Some have speculated that more than 100,000 people may have been killed, and 2 million people rendered homeless. However, hardly any aid has reached the victims. The Burmese military junta has not been allowing distribution by foreign aid workers, and the aid which they have accepted from overseas has been relabelled so that the Burmese government can claim credit. There is an urgent need for dramatic action to help desperate victims.
The UN is entitled to intervene when “national authorities are manifestly failing to protect their populations”. However, history shows that military interventions in humanitarian crises rarely have happy endings. Military conflict typically drags on, and it is very difficult to conclude a military intervention gracefully. People come to depend on the foreign aid, and they suffer when it comes to an end. The current experiences of the “Coalition of the Willing” in Afghanistan and Iraq are likely to deter the world from intervening in Burma.