Humanitarian Interventions

With the ruling junta in Burma seizing aid and blocking much of what could be used to help the death toll could be over 100,000 from the cyclone, which also happened to slam right into the Burmese rice bowl region, a question has arisen. What to do?

This is obviously turning into an epic humanitarian nightmare, and there is absolutely no way for the Burmese people to help themselves (either through aid or overthrowing the junta). Where does that leave the rest of the International Community?

Do we respect sovereignty even though it will mean thousands more dead? Or do we violate the sovereignty of a reluctant state to help those who are suffering?

There appear to be a lot of calls for the latter. Well not calls necessarily, but individuals floating the idea.

Naturally there has been resistance.

As far as my two cents. I think the only way it could be successfully pulled off is through the UN. Well, not 'pulled off', but the intervention could be structured to limit it's precedent in international affairs. That would be the sure fire way, however I do not see even a 'unauthorized' intervention by a large group of concerned powers setting a precedent as Opinio Juris sees. Any action in this case would necessarily be multi-lateral in some sense, whether through the UN or a group of powers. This would limit it's applicability outside of multi-lateral circumstances. OJ fears something like Russia invading Abkhazia.

If the invasion of Iraq has not spurred more 'interventions' based on political reasons, if the intervention in Kosovo has not spurred more interventions. I do not think a case as clear cut as Burma will spark anything.

But this brings up another question, what will the international community do with the broken states they intervene in? Both Sudan and Burma fall into this category. Burma in grossly underdeveloped, and with the Cyclone nearly crippled. Sudan is rife with ethnic conflicts that will not be solved by simply 'stopping the killing'. Each state poses a different set of potential hazards to any intervening force.

Could the international community? Would they?

The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan should serve as warnings to anyone considering this. Even if it is for the right reasons.

See Zenpundit for a comment on what Burma means for 'multi-polarity' (the second comment). On a similar note an article from Foreign Affairs about 'non-polarity'. I agree with Zen, but I do not agree with Haass on some of this points, but still it is an interesting read.

UPDATE:
Democracy Arsenal on the 'Responsibility to Protect'.

More importantly, should R2P be a requirement for sovereignty that is un-infringe-able?

UPDATE:
More on R2P from the Guardian.

UPDATE:
LATimes on the UN confronting this issue.

UN rebuttal of Robert Kaplan's 'invade with a coalition of the willing' Op-Ed. Raises points similar and expanding on the ones that I have above.