Politics and Aid in Burma

The Pickle is tickled to have this cameo post from our friend Peter Richards, who has followed the situation in Burma for several years. - LR

On May 2^nd, Cyclone Nargis slammed into the Irrawaddy Delta of Burma, killing an estimated 100,000 people. The ruling junta in Burma is only allowing a trickle of outside aid to reach the devastated area. The possibility of an outbreak of cholera or dysentery threatens to make this already horrific humanitarian disaster much, much worse.

Why has the international community failed to convince the Burmese government to open its borders to humanitarian aid? The root of the problem is the hyper-paranoia of the military junta. Ever since the monk-led protests of August 2007, the regime has been obsessed with preventing further internal instability. Allowing large-scale government and non-government aid into the country, it fears, might loosen its vice-grip on the country.

But the junta’s willingness to pursue self preservation at all costs should not come as a surprise to anyone. After all, this has been their modus operandi from day one. The more difficult question is: why is China—the only country with any real influence over the junta—refusing to pressure Burma into opening its borders?

On the one hand, the Chinese government has become increasingly concerned with its image as it assumes a higher profile on the world stage, and particularly this year as we approach the Beijing Summer Olympics Games. China, therefore, has strong motivation to act the part of the good global citizen in order to counter the continual criticism of its human rights record, most notably its questionable handling of the recent protests in Tibet.

But on the other hand, there are a number of factors complicating this dilemma for China, pressuring them towards a policy of fully backing the Burmese government. For starters, they now have their own natural disaster to contend with, understandably drawing their focus away from the tragedy in Burma. There is also the straight-forward political consideration of defending their ally/client-state against outside pressure. Angering the Burmese government by pressuring them to buckle to international pressure has real (though not unmanageable) consequences for China.

And then, perhaps most easily overlooked, there is China’s opposition to the idea of unilateral humanitarian intervention. Or, seen another way, there is the Chinese government’s strong interest in upholding the principle of absolute state sovereignty. Looking ahead, the Chinese anticipate more trouble in Tibet, and any weakening of the principle of absolute state sovereignty that might emerge as a byproduct of a successful unilateral relief operation in Burma would make dealing with further unrest in Tibet much more problematic for them.

After the threat of a Chinese security-council veto, U.N.-authorized unilateral humanitarian intervention in Burma appears to be off the table…at least for the time being. So what’s to be done? Unfortunately, the options aren’t great. The Bush administration will continue to try to convince the junta of its good intentions, but probably won’t get very far. Meanwhile, the flow of aid will likely be determined more by purely political calculations that are dependent upon events occurring on the ground. Ultimately, I predict the junta (and China) will allow just enough aid to get through to keep the ‘unilateral humanitarian intervention option’ off the table. In other words, if conditions deteriorate considerably, I expect more aid to get through, but only just enough to prevent total catastrophe. Bottom line, the amount of aid will continue to fall well short of what is required to help all those in need.

Politics, per usual, continues to get in the way of doing what’s right. We can lay much of the blame at the feet of the paranoid Burmese regime that cares only for its own survival, and at those of the cold-hearted Chinese regime that is primarily concerned with its own interests. But the United States and the human rights community in general need to examine their own role in politicizing humanitarian aid and creating an atmosphere of distrust that complicates the political mess, preventing aid from flowing freely.