TIME Magazine asks an interesting philosophical question, whether a nation has the unilateral right — or obligation — to offer coercive humanitarian aid:
That’s why it’s time to consider a more serious option: invading Burma. Some observers, including former USAID director Andrew Natsios, have called on the U.S. to unilaterally begin air drops to the Burmese people regardless of what the junta says. The Bush Administration has so far rejected the idea — “I can’t imagine us going in without the permission of the Myanmar government,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday — but it’s not without precedent: as Natsios pointed out to the Wall Street Journal, the U.S. has facilitated the delivery of humanitarian aid without the host government’s consent in places like Bosnia and Sudan.
A coercive humanitarian intervention would be complicated and costly. During the 2004 tsunami, some 24 U.S. ships and 16,000 troops were deployed in countries across the region; the mission cost the U.S. $5 million a day. Ultimately, the U.S. pledged nearly $900 million to tsunami relief. (By contrast, it has offered just $3.25 million to Burma.) But the risks would be greater this time: the Burmese government’s xenophobia and insecurity make them prone to view U.S. troops — or worse, foreign relief workers — as hostile forces. (Remember Black Hawk Down?) Even if the U.S. and its allies made clear that their actions were strictly for humanitarian purposes, it’s unlikely the junta would believe them. “You have to think it through — do you want to secure an area of the country by military force? What kinds of potential security risks would that create?” says Egelend. “I can’t imagine any humanitarian organization wanting to shoot their way in with food.”
Wasn’t Iraq ultimately coercive humanitarianism (sans NBC weapons)? If the liberation of Iraq was indeed moral and just, and I would argue it was, why not the liberation of Burma?
Of course, there are a few reason to the contrary. Iraq was playing footsie with a 1991 cease-fire agreement, Iraq destabilized a large portion of the Middle East, Iraq was actively supporting terrorism, Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant guilty of murdering hundreds of thousands of people, Iraq refused to come clean on it’s WMD program, etc.
Then there’s the flip side of the coin: Coercive humanitarian aid involving unfriendly natives doesn’t exactly create the best environment. If the goal is not regime change, then the source of the unrest will continue unchecked and unabated. Images of dropping tons of food from C130s on suspecting Kurds comes to mind… then there’s the whole “no blood for (fill in the blank)” crowd.
The Iraq/Burma parallel is interesting to draw. Thankfully, it’s done in an article that doesn’t mention Iraq once… so I’m free to draw my own conclusions, rather than have them imposed.