Commentary | Intervening–Can and should we do it?

The catastrophe (turned malevolent neglect) in Burma/Myanmar over the past two and a half weeks has left me with two thoughts—one a recurring question, and the other one new. The recurring question is simple to describe, but difficult to answer. How much latitude does a government have to pogrom-through-negligence its own people? Does the Burmese government have the right to allow its people to suffer (and die) when the world has—and is willing to contribute—time and resources to avoid it? Does the world have an obligation to assist?

The UN apparently answered this question, in part, in 2006. The Security Council reaffirmed a 2005 World Summit document that asserted the need for State governments to protect their populations, and for the international community to respond, with force if necessary, should a State response be inadequate. But this was only in the case of genocide or ethnic cleansing.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown offered a slightly different view over the weekend, when he said the “people power” of the internet was going to be a force for shaping foreign policy.

None of these demonstrate an international consensus on what the international community should do in the face of a government whose attitude towards its own people is truly laissez-faire. So the international community leaves us without a mandate for action. What if this situation were cast in a different light? One where there were greater direct national interest from countries around the world. This brings me to the second question the tragedy in Burma raises.

Burma’s neighbors, Thailand, Vietnam, and China, have had extensive experience in recent years with a couple of particularly frightening diseases: SARS and Avian Influenza (bird flu). The outbreaks generally started from close contact between human and livestock. Any one of the following, however, could be a contributor to the outbreak of disease: massive numbers of unburied dead; trauma- and hunger-weakened immune systems; destroyed health systems (no hospitals and unavailable doctors); the absence of functioning drinking water and sanitation systems; significant increase in insect breeding spaces; destroyed homes (and the resultant close contact of people with farm animals). Brought all together, and across a fairly large population in a relatively small geography, I fear these could spell a recipe for disaster.

Whether a recurrence of the 1918 Influenza pandemic, a mutation of bird-flu, the resurgence of SARS, or the emergence of some new disease, the conditions in Burma seem to be precisely the kinds of conditions that bring about massive disease succeptibility (and where there is disease, there is room for mutation, and greater problems). I am certainly no expert on diseases, epidemiology, or public health. But a first-cut look at the reports from Burma strike fear that this may be recorded in history as not just a humanitarian disaster compounded by the failing of a paranoid government; instead, it may end up being the starting point for an outbreak of world-wide disease and suffering.

This would seem to suggest that countries around the world may have a clear and specific interest on behalf of their own people to intervene directly in the situation in Burma—with or without permission from the Burmese government. Even if this interest exists, is that sufficient reason to act?

There is one more thing to consider. Massive suffering and chaos do have a chance of leading to a large outbreak of disease. But only a chance. There are proposals that the U.S. directly intervene, or at least threaten to do so, to bring aid to Burma. Directly intervening in any country will certainly lead to direct—and also potentially bad—consequences. The current U.S. experience in Iraq is clear example that no plan survives contact with the enemy.

This seems to leave us with a moral dilemma. On one hand, we can provide help and stir up additional troubles for people whose homes and communities have been destroyed by a natural disaster—possibly leaving them with even less than they currently have. At the same time this might commit our military to a conflict it does not now have the capacity to sustain. On the other hand we could continue our current course, and risk a pandemic of disease that could set back the entire world and cut short orders of magnitudes more lives.

What course would you take?

John Schaus is Executive Officer to CSIS President, John Hamre. He has been at CSIS since 2005.