David Rieff
Los Angeles Times
May 18, 2008

The decision by the government of Myanmar not to admit foreign humanitarian relief workers to help the victims of Cyclone Nargis has been met with fury, consternation and disbelief in much of the world.

With tens of thousands of people dead, up to 100,000 missing and more than a million displaced and without shelter, livelihood or possibly even sufficient food, the refusal of the military rulers of the country to let in foreign aid organizations or to open airports and waterways in more than a token way to shipments of aid supplies seems to be an act of sheer barbarism.

In response, Gareth Evans, the former Australian foreign minister who heads the International Crisis Group, made the case last week that the decision by Myanmar’s authorities to default on their responsibilities to their own citizens might well constitute “a crime against humanity,” and suggested that the United Nations might need to consider bringing aid to Myanmar non-consensually, justified on the basis of the “Responsibility to Protect Resolution” adopted at the 2005 U.N. World Summit by 150 member states.

To be sure, R2P (as the resolution is colloquially known) was not envisaged by the commission that framed it (and that Evans co-chaired) as a response to natural disasters, but rather as a way of confronting “genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.” To extend its jurisdiction to natural disasters is as unprecedented as it is radical. But as Evans put it last week, “when a government default is as grave as the course on which [Myanmar’s] generals now seem to be set, there is at least a prima facie case to answer for their intransigence being a crime against humanity — of a kind that would attract the responsibility-to-protect principle.”

Evans’ warning was clear. Myanmar’s generals should not delude themselves into thinking that the international community would allow them to act in any way they wished — not if it meant turning a blind eye to the dangers the cyclone’s survivors faced. These dangers, according to the British charity Oxfam, threatened an additional 1.5 million lives.

And a number of European governments took the same line. British Foreign Secretary David Miliband stated that military action to ensure that the aid got to where it needed to go might be legal and necessary. And French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner echoed this argument, saying that France was considering bringing a resolution to the U.N. Security Council allowing for such steps to be taken.

Read entire article

Alex Jones LIVE, A Fourth Hour Now Added To The Infowars Radio Show For Members
Click here to get your subscription today!

Related Articles


Comments