Almost four weeks after Nargis hit southern Burma and survivors are still waiting for aid in some regions. Aid workers claim, following trips to the remote parts of the delta, that up to a million people are yet to receive any help from their government. The situation in Burma has become a shameful display of the powerlessness of the international community’s ability to deal with chronic emergencies when it is interlinked with the concept of sovereignty.

The most important and powerful idea in international relations is that of sovereignty. Unfortunately, no other concept has been as widely misappropriated in order to suppress civilian populations. Sovereignty has also been used in the past as an excuse for the international community to remain inactive in the face of human rights abuse. There are various understandings of the term sovereignty and it is important to understand how those definitions differ. Some see sovereignty as an inviolable rule, as the boundaries of the nation state in which governments are able to conduct internal affairs without interference from outside actors. However, there are other interpretations of sovereignty. One definition which should be kept in mind in the face of situations involving large scale human rights abuse, war crimes and genocide, is the definition that involves the concept of responsibility. In this definition, sovereignty is still the defining characteristic of the nation state, however, the power of the concept is not inalienable, nor inviolable. The notion of sovereignty is a right that must be earned through the state upholding its responsibility to protect its constituent population.

For the past month, in the wake of the worst humanitarian disaster in the region for decades, the junta have been complacent in providing aid for more than one million survivors. The scale of the damage is more than a developed country could handle by itself. It is painfully clear that the relief effort is beyond the capabilities of one government alone. Yet it has taken three weeks just to allow in foreign aid workers and there is till no guarantee that they will be granted the access that they have been promised. The borders of Burma are surrounded by supplies that are waiting to be delivered. Logistics are in place that would allow the delivery of aid within half an hour. And yet, people in the remote areas of the Irrawaddy delta are at risk of starving to death or dying from preventable disease. Along with this recalcitrance to cooperate to save lives, the military has stolen, sold and diverted aid donated by the international community and misused funds from private Burmese donors.

The options open to the international community and the UN through the Security Council are limited and fraught with danger. Nobody wants to be responsible for setting the precedent for forced aid intervention. If the “responsibility to protect” clause is invoked, then aid would need to be accompanied by military forces to protect the aid deliveries; who would be willing to provide that service?

In any case, forcing aid into Burma or talking about intervention is pointless so long as China, with its vested interests holds a veto and is willing to use it to protect a business partner. A part of the solution to the problem must surely be to put pressure on China, through all diplomatic means necessary, to use their influence in Burma to speed up the relief effort and cooperate with the outside world. China is especially vulnerable to coercion after its crackdown on activists in Tibet and with the spotlight on the country caused by the upcoming Olympics. The Chinese want to be seen in a positive light, and this provides some leverage for the Security Council to negotiate with the Chinese authorities, by giving them a chance to show China as a force for good in the region.

In the longer term, it is time for the international community to begin thinking about new ways in which to work together to deal with international crises of this sort. The limits of the Security Council voting system are one problem. The idea of sovereignty is another. It is time to rethink the international approach to sovereignty and move towards a more cosmopolitan conception of sovereignty as a right that is inviolable only when the rights of the population are respected.

If, in one year’s time, we are looking back at the deaths of tens more thousands of people who could have been saved, the responsibility will not only fall on the junta, it will fall on the international community as well. Let’s hope that we do not have to repeat those empty words that followed the disaster in Rwanda, “never again”.

more news>>