19th May, 2008
It’s three weeks since Cyclone Nargis swept across Burma’s Irrawaddy Delta region and left tens of thousands dead and up to two million people in urgent need of humanitarian assistance. As pressure mounts on the Burma’s ruling military junta to open its country to the international relief community, CHRIS PIPER and DAVID ADAMS take a look at the four major options in addressing the nation’s humanitarian crisis...
 
1. The status quo. 
The emergency response continues as it is, with aid into the country continuing at a trickle and all administration handled by the Burmese Government. This situation, however, is becoming increasingly unacceptable, among the world community and it is most likely it will develop into one of the following options during the next few weeks.
 
2. The Burmese government opens up the country to more international assistance, but with certain caveats.  
The UN Emergency Relief Coordinator, Sir John Holmes, is currently visiting Burma at present,  with the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon due, at this stage, to visit mid-week. The situation in Burma will also be discussed on 19th May at the Association of South East Asian Nations’ (ASEAN) foreign ministers meeting, being held in Singapore. Together, combined international pressure might open Burma to accept great amounts of international assistance, but with some likely caveats:
     • That international aid workers on the ground (in the delta region) may mostly be restricted to those coming from ASEAN and other Asian countries such as India, Thailand, Indonesia, and Bangladesh. This will create real challenges for aid agencies as they will need to increasingly draw staff from these countries. In the longer term it will also put more pressure on national organisations based inside Burma to effectively contribute to the recovery stage.
       • The rest of the international community may well be given a role to provide logistical support from off-shore naval vessels, such as providing supplies coming into the Irrawaddy Delta by boat and helicopter. Westerners may be given permission to deliver supplies to coastal depots, but the majority of aid-workers on the ground who deliver this directly to affected communities will be Burmese or other Asian nationals.

          
3. United Nations’ backed international intervention. 
If, following negotiations this week, progress on option two fails to be made, option two, then from next week it’s possible we will see a UN Resolution requesting direct international invention by the international community. Unfortunately, for a variety of political reasons, this is likely to be vetoed by either China and/or Russia.  Russia is still sensitive over non-UN endorsed internationally led interventions such as that in 1999 in Kosovo; while China is equally sensitive over perceived international interference in what it considers to be internal matters, such as the recent situation in Tibet.       
 
4. Non-UN, multi-lateral international intervention.
If the UN vote is defeated, the only other option is for an (non UN-endorsed) international intervention led by countries such as the US, the UK or France. This would be focused on a sea-based intervention, backed up by military force if necessary, into the Irrawady Delta region.  While in the short term this might well provide the needed relief, it does open up a whole range of uncertainties in the longer-term. Ultimately this will be seen as a Western-led intervention, with possibly ulterior motives or objectives such as regime change in Burma.
 
With the clock ticking, option two stands out as the preferable outcome from a humanitarian response perspective - ensuring assistance is delivered to affected communities on the ground within a reasonable time frame and, at the same time, involving the cooperation of all the key stakeholders, including the Burmese authorities.