Obviously, no one is going to invade Burma to provide humanitarian help. The political costs are too great. But I find it an interesting theoretical question to consider if the French government’s suggestion of invoking the ‘responsibility to protect’ principle to forcibly enter Burma with aid should apply here. The principle is a little vague: everyone seems to agree that has something to do with a state’s responsibility to its citizens. I think it’s fair to say that Burma has most definitely failed in that respect. On the other hand, elaborations of the principle tend to mention, as examples of violations of the principle, events along the lines of genocide and civil war. The International Crisis Group has a slightly more inclusive definition:

B. Where a population is suffering serious harm, as a result of internal war, insurgency, repression or state failure, and the state in question is unwilling or unable to halt or avert it, the principle of non-intervention yields to the international responsibility to protect.

With that definition, one could arguably interpret the current doings of the Burmese junta as an instance of ’state failure’.

Somewhat paradoxically, if we take a ‘violations of human rights’ approach to what kinds of situations violate the ‘responsibility to protect’ principle, then the violent repression of the monks’ demonstrations was a more obvious violation of human rights then the current fiasco. Somehow (to my own intuitions) inflicting unwarranted violence on your own citizens is a more direct violation of human rights than failing to dispense aid. But one could argue that this is not mere incompetence but deliberate prevention of life-saving aid from reaching those who need it. (Contrast with Indonesia’s internal inefficiency but prompt acceptance of foreign aid after the tsunami.) It’s not that they want to help but are too incompetent too; rather, it is clearly now a case of denying help because it would undermine the political goals of the regime. If you think that humanitarian relief for a natural disaster is a human right, then the regime is violating human rights. I suppose that humanitarian relief could fall under the ‘right to life’.

Incidentally, since the Burmese junta claims its right to power on the basis that it’s the entity that has saved Burma from all those evil exploitative foreigners, it’s probably being perfectly sensible, in a strategic sense, in denying foreign aid workers and claiming credit for foreign aid supplies. Perhaps the generals have kept up with enough world news to know what US humanitarian relief for the tsunami did to Indonesian public opinion. Imagine US helicopters dropping off supplies at the currently inaccessible regions of the delta, while none at all arrive from their own government. Without foreign help, there would be no help from the junta anyway. So people are going to be angry at them either way, and they probably figure that it’s better that they just be angry without also having a better perception of foreigners. Obviously, the referendum is another compelling reason not to let foreigners in, but I think the reason I’ve just sketched above is more than enough.