To intervene or to let die

To intervene or to let die

James Russell Brownwood

Ko Gyi/Hitaing

A local relief group donates food supplies to cyclone victims via their abbot

Promises and restrictions


By now it is clear that the junta severely restricts international relief aid for the cyclone victims, in spite of their promises to Ban Ki-moon, not only if coming from foreign (particularly western) civilian organizations, but especially if it would come from foreign warships. It can be understood, that the generals do so, though it can not at all be justified. The generals fear that they run the risk of being overthrown if letting foreign (especially western, US) military in for humanitarian purposes. They choose for their military power at the cost of human lives, disaster victims, who still are in desperate need of help. They rather let their fellow countrymen die than running the risk of giving up their power. I think their idea of that risk is rather justified; but at the same time it is not justified at all to sacrifice the lives of many Burmese citizens to escape from that risk. They are and will be held responsible for that; their conduct is very much irresponsible.

At the time of writing this paragraph (6 June 2008) the US warships are about to leave the international waters near the coast of Burma, giving up their attempts to deliver humanitarian aid support. Until this moment the international community has decided not to intervene unilaterally, not to rescue the lives of many people in need of help. That is the moral responsibility of the international community too; I think it is morally irresponsible and the international community has to account for that.

Street and domestic violence

If there is violence in the street, a fight between men, a group against one man, bystanders are allowed to interfere. They often don't for various understandable, psychological reasons, but they are allowed to do so. In case of domestic violence the neighbours, hearing and seeing that, are allowed to interfere (or call the police). They may not do that for various reasons, but they are allowed to. In all cases the bystanders and neighbours may take their responsibility as fellow human beings, fellow (world) citizens to help the weak side, to prevent escalation of crimes, to prevent worse like injuries or possible murders. Not doing so makes them responsible too for what happened that they could have prevented. They may not be accessory of the crime in legal terms, but they will feel bad and having failed in a moral sense if they did not interfere. They had a moral obligation to interfere, if at all possible physically.

In the same way the international community fails in the moral sense while deciding not to help the victims in Burma, while knowing what is going to happen to them. All people in the world have a responsibility, a moral duty to stand up for fellow human beings in case of emergency (if possible and feasible). If the international community does not intervene it will have failed in a moral sense. WE will have failed, WE will be responsible too for the victims, the dead, the starving people in the world, in this case in Burma. Not only the junta is responsible for that, WE are responsible too!

Ko Gyi/Hittaing

The monk receives food supplies from local relief team for his fellow villagers

When interfering in street or domestic violence there are no restrictions in the sense of borderlines. Noone, except the opposing party, will say: mind your own business and don't interfere. Likewise in international relations national borders do not apply in case of severe crimes, repression, internal wars or natural disasters requiring humanitarian intervention, even though the opposing (national) party quite likely will not agree with this. After World War II, the world (the UN at least) had said about the Holocaust something like "never more something like that". In 1948, the United Nations adopted the Genocide Convention, which requires governments to undertake to prevent and punish the crime of genocide. But, for example, in the nineties (1995) many Bosnian Muslim men from Srebrenica were imprisoned in concentration camps and murdered by the Serbs, the world saw it happen, but did nothing. Why didn't the UN, especially the Dutch protecting the Bosnian people at that time, interfere in time? The UN should have taken its declared responsibility at that time. But that is the past, like in other areas in the world, now we face a humanitarian crisis in Burma. The junta's "deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life" in affected areas can be regarded genocide.

Consequences, risks

Of course, if we decide to intervene, we run the risk of being attacked, injured and killed too. That also happens in the street, bystanders may be beaten, stabbed, shot. When deciding to interfere, a matter of seconds, they may be aware of that, but they take the risk, not knowing what to expect or how it will end. At least they have tried to help. That applies to international intervention too. Ignoring the junta's prohibitions, possibly even without consent of the UN, landing on the Burmese coast and distributing humanitarian relief unilaterally involves the risk of violent incidents, possibly evolving into a large scale war. That is the inseparable risk of unilateral (humanitarian) actions. Shouldn't these actions be carried out then? Yes, they save many lives and fight the party that commits the crime of genocide, and yes, it takes lives too, both from the victims, the intervening party and the opposing party (the junta).

The end balance will be that the intervening party will know that it took the right and morally justified action, that it saved more lives than it sacrificed and that it objected the opposing party. Furthermore it signalled to the rest of the world that it should not prevent cooperation in similar rescue operations in the future wherever in the world. That can be counted as a future gain too. And finally the intervening party can not blame itself for having done nothing, it has done all possible things to help the weak party, the victims. It would have taken its moral responsibility.

Don't let die, intervene

So it is my view that we should intervene in Burma NOW, even if we come into conflict with the Burmese military, the generals and the army, even if the conflict would extend to China, Russia. In order to let the intervention run smoothly and to provide as much as possible information about it, it should be announced to all parties involved in advance. The humanitarian and peaceful character of the intervention should be stressed. Conflicts would be limited to diplomatic conflicts in the first place and violent actions should be avoided as much as possible. The goal of announcing any unilateral humanitarian intervention would also be to force consensus within the UN about it in the last instance. It would start the much needed discussion about taking up ones (moral) responsibilities. At the same time the communication lines to the junta should remain open at all times to inform and convince them on the good intentions, achievements and temporary presence.

Let those US, UK and French warships return and sail to the coasts. Let them provide humanitarian aid support, make friends, improve relations and show their peacefulness. Let those rescue actions succeed! Let's do it all together and let's do it NOW! This is my opinion and feeling of responsibility of course, anyone may disagree or only partially agree, and I know there are many practical objections and drawbacks, but I think the world, in this case the UN, should show its good humanitarian intentions now if it takes its own declarations serious.