What to do about Burma

As you surely know, the Burmese government has blocked almost all foreign aid to the millions of people hurt by last week's cyclone. What should be done about that?

The United States is in a unique position. It has the air- and sealift capacity to get supplies directly to the people affected. Still, to do so without permission from the Burmese junta would violate international norms (and probably international law). Such a step would bring criticism from other nations concerned that we might intrude on their sovereignties in some way. But then there are all those people dying and threatened with disease.

Were I in the Oval Office, I should be sorely tempted to tell the Burmese generals that we are going to deliver aid directly to those affected, and that if they order their armed forces to shoot at our planes and ships, we shall shoot back.

This would, of necessity, be a much more limited form of relief than would be ideal. It would involve airlifting supplies, mainly by helicopter, into areas devastated by the storm. Parachute drops might go into some locations. (The Navy has a helicopter-carrier in the area; land-based cargo planes would have to come from much farther away, and our airlift capacity has been greatly degraded by the demands of Iraq and Afghanistan.) If the Navy could get an LSD (landing-ship-dock) or amphibious assault vessel close by, supplies might be ferried ashore. But to quiet critics and limit any violation of international law, Americans should be virtually forbidden from actually setting foot on Burmese soil (except, perhaps, to permit sailors and Marines to carry goods from helicopters and landing craft and put them down for the local people to take away.).

Surely, this grandstanding move--and that's what it would be--would have much less effect than an organized and sustained effort with the cooperation of the military government. No roads or bridges would be rebuilt. No hospitals would be staffed. Distribution beyond the point of landing would be in the hands of the locals; in many areas--most or perhaps all of them--the military would step in. Even if the government did not take over, there might be chaos, corruption or violence among the recipients. But people are dying and the world is standing by while one of the most brutal and corrupt regimes on earth blocks the aid they need to survive. At some point, humanity has to step in.

Let me admit that this would be by no means a purely humanitarian gesture. It would showcase the US as the world's super-power--the only nation that could carry out this kind of effort on short notice. It would undermine the Burmese generals--perhaps even more if they step in to block distribution of food and medicine delivered to villages and piled on beaches than if they let the local people deliver it. And yes, certain other regimes around the world would be put on notice that there comes a point when repression of their own people grows too great for the world to stand. That last would open up all sorts of debate--those of us against the Iraq war objected to Bush's proclamation that we were going into that country to liberate its people--but still it is a declaration that should be made: there is some brutality, corruption and disregard for humanity that the world will not ignore.