My reasons for not invading Burma are superior to everyone else’s by mattsteinglass
May 17, 2008, 2:57 pm
Filed under: Burma | Tags: , , ,

Matthew Yglesias says the reason why Robert Kaplan and George Packer feel free to advocate or half-advocate invading Burma for humanitarian reasons is that it’s never going to happen, and if it were at all plausible they might have to actually think about consequences. “You can even show your thoughtful seriousness about matters of war and peace by chalking up the tragic failure to invade as yet another disastrous consequence of the war in Iraq,” he snarks.

That last twist is wrong: it’s correct to point out the significance of Iraq in the response to Burma. If the international political environment today were more like the one 10 years ago, military pressure by the international community would be a much more significant part of the response to the Burma situation — not invading Burma, but bringing pressure to bear in other ways. If the response were playing out according to the rough script that obtained in the ’90s for international interventions in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, and East Timor, then Western governments would be holding summit meetings right now to put together a coordinated diplomatic approach to pressuring Burma to open hurricane-affected regions to foreign aid agencies, with a threat of military intervention as a last resort. It would be left unclear exactly what foreign militaries planned to do in the last resort, just as it was left unclear in Kosovo and East Timor. The aim would be to push the Burmese government to accept more access for foreign aid agencies in a compromise deal to avoid military conflict. As the unacceptability of the crisis became established in the international public’s mind, diplomatic pressure would be applied on countries reluctant to approve humanitarian interventions, such as China. Ultimately, just as Russia acceded to intervention in Kosovo, China might signal to the Burmese government that it could no longer shield it from international demands. At that point hopefully a face-saving compromise could be found that permitted more access for international aid agencies than would have been obtained without the vague threat of eventual military action.

The major problem obviously is: what if Burma calls the bluff, as Serbia did in Kosovo? Then you’re in trouble. An actual invasion or an attempt to seize and secure the entire hurricane-affected area for relief efforts would be wildly counterproductive, so some kind of smaller feasible action would have to be identified — seizing and securing one small area inaccessible to the Burmese military and thus unlikely to provoke immediate conflict, perhaps, and beginning relief efforts there.

These kinds of interventions had an extremely mixed record in the ’90s. All were complicated, drawn-out messes. Even the successes, in Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo and East Timor, resulted in countries that are still pretty much basket cases, though they’d be worse off without the interventions. But this model of international action, holding summits, setting deadlines, making coordinated demands, and holding out the vague threat of military action in the background, was a big step forward in establishing an international norm that countries can lose their presumptive sovereignty when they persecute or fail to protect huge numbers of their citizens. They began to establish a norm in the true sense of the word: it began to seem abnormal for countries to engage in genocide or ethnic cleansing, to conquer weaker countries, to deny power to democratically elected leaders, to fake election results. The energy that drove the ’89 revolutions in the Soviet Bloc was the desire to become “a normal country,” and it was the same energy that continued to drive liberal internationalism in the ’90s.

The Iraq War torpedoed that project. There can now be no international threat of military intervention, certainly none led by the US, that is not seen as a fig leaf for American imperial ambitions. And the disastrous quagmire in Iraq has put a far greater accent on the risks of actual intervention, which makes any threat to intervene by democratic nations implausible. It’s not that if not for the Iraq War we would be invading Burma and that’d be hunky-dory. Invading Burma for a humanitarian intervention is such a bad idea that it would probably go nowhere anyway. But if not for the Iraq War, there would be summits and rumblings of international military responses, as there were over East Timor, that would ultimately build to a much more powerful diplomatic coalition against Burma. That’s not happening because, in a post-Iraq environment, when Bernard Kouchner makes noises about forcible humanitarian intervention in Burma, everyone just rolls their eyes. In ’98, it would have been a serious proposal.

Update: Almost a thousand people have read this post since Andrew Sullivan linked to it, and not one has left a comment. I guess it must be perfect!

Update update: Oh, okay, some good comments. I guess it wasn’t perfect.

10 Comments so far
Leave a comment

[…] on the proposal to invade Myanmar, Accumulating Peripherals believes that “An actual invasion or an attempt to seize and secure the entire hurricane-affected area […]

Pingback by Global Voices Online » Myanmar: Invasion is counterproductive

Perhaps the reason is that no one is following Sullivan’s link other than me.

Perhaps they are all simply reading and saying in effect:

Captain Obvious Strikes Again.

Comment by Mikeybackwards

Sorry about that!

Tends to happen though. He has no comments section and once you get out of the habit…

Comment by V&

Actually, I had trouble finding the button for comments. And I can’t really add much to the discussion. I am only competent on events that happened before, say, AD 1250.

But I have bookmarked your site. Good.

Comment by Clemens

no, i think you have it fairly well summed up.
The OTHER sort of direct intervention- airdropping pallets of basics as emergency relief to people scattered both scattered & concentrated in the disaster zone, would very well save lives. i doubt Burma could stop it, the Burmese AF & AA establishment being limited to urban centers. air drops requires no ground presence. nor can it reach everybody, probably not even a decent fraction.
But, golly! ALL our airlift capability is maxed out.
Bush has done more than simply poison a lot of wells…..

Comment by mutt

mutt — is that your site, the VVAW San Diego site? Where/when did you serve? Have you been involved with VVAF at all?

Comment by mattsteinglass

Three words, “The Berlin Airlift”, one of the great post WW2 logistical feats by the West.

Why always talk of military intervention in an international crisis? Historical amnesia, or willfull ignorance.

Comment by DonkeyKong

Perhaps the answer is not invasion, but in bringing in the aid from those warships off the coast with helicopter lifts, immediate distribution (perhaps initially limited to food and water and hygiene needs only), and then leaving. No invasion, no long time on the ground — just back and forth flights carrying needed, critical supplies. The people themselves will organise if they get the needed goods. The foreign military provides logitical transport only.

Comment by James Crown

1) When you say “international norm”, do you mean “international norm” or “western norm”? Seems to me if it were “international norm”, then the UN would have approved all of these interventions – which they did not.

2) Who decides when a country loses its sovereignty, the UN or NATO and the US congress?

3) As for the Iraq War “torpedoing that project”, well, that is one of the few good things to come of this flawed endeavor. If the US and “The West” (read: NATO) want to go around the world knocking off countries because they refuse to move towards western-style democracy, then the price will be huge indeed. The Iraq War was a cold shower for all of the western humanitarian interventionist hubris of the 1990’s.

4) James Crown above has it right. Just humanitarian food drops via helicopters & planes + explicit assurances to the junta from the US and others that there will be no “regime change”.


Comment by Frank

We extremely prefer that which you place in this article. Particularly informative as well as reasonable. A particular situation however. I’m operating Safari along with Debian as well as segments of the active style items really are a small wonky. We realise it’s not really a popular setup. Nevertheless it’s a specific thing in order to have in view. We trust it might assist as well as always keep in the main high quality composing.

Comment by bloguje

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: