U.N. apologists would decry a U.S.-led intervention as a breach of international law--but only by ignoring the "responsibility to protect" doctrine adopted by U.N. member states nearly three years ago. Under the U.N. doctrine, nations agree to take all possible measures--including the use of force--to protect civilians from gross human rights abuses. If the deliberate and calculated failure to protect and assist its own population in the face of a devastating catastrophe does not invoke the U.N. mandate, what does?
An intervention of this kind, even with its humanitarian objective, would not be without its risks. Yet the costs of inaction--the deaths of thousands of people, the emboldening of a murderous regime, the perception of American weakness--must also be weighed.
Intervention will be seen as divine intervention by the Burmese people, not only to help the cyclone victims but also to finally free the entire nation from the military yoke," wrote a coalition of Burmese democracy groups to President Bush. "Please do not compare Burma with Iraq, because Buddhist monks, students, Burmese patriots will happily assist you with whatever you need to go inside Burma and help the cyclone victims and entire nation Many concerned Burmese citizens are willing to join the intervention. Please do not waste precious time."
Of course, this ignores our Left's "responsibility to protest" any American military action. The alliance of left and right to intervene in Burma will collapse with the first casualties, having imagined that "intervention" consists of a "high protein biscuit walk" that the Burmese government and military will flee from rather than resist. Happy monks throwing roses to follow.
Seriously, these people who are horrified about our defense of Iraqis against Saddam and the post-war murderers who've terrorized innocent people, yet are eager to intervene in Burma can just bugger off. They certainly didn't accept a responsibility to protect the Iraqis at any time in the last five years. I don't trust most of these intervention advocates as far as I can heave them. As soon as the going got tough, these people would bail on our troops on the ground. That's the major risk of any intervention these days.
It is sad that the Burmese people must suffer under their government. But we have little national interest in addressing that unfortunate fact.
Should the Thais, Indians, or Chinese ever decide something must be done about the regime, good luck to them. Don't they have a duty to intervene? Or is it always America alone that draws the short straw?
