14 May, 2008: With the situation in the Irrawaddy delta getting more desperate every day, the pressure on the Burmese—or as is officially known, Myanmar—government to let international aid agencies into the country to assist with the devastation wrought by CycloneNargis is growing.

The British government is holding top-level meetings with the junta in the hopes of removing restrictions on humanitarian groups who are desperate to take the lead in the relief effort, while the United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon, will travel to the country to press the issue as well.

The Burmese regime is not allowing non-governmental organizations to deliver aid inside the country, instead insisting that the army distribute food and medical supplies. The storm created landfall on May 2, killing thousands and leaving many more without food or potable water. However, without the necessary tools or experience, the Burmese government has only managed to deliver aid to 20% to 30% of survivors, according to the Red Cross.

With the death toll in the hundreds of thousands, agencies fear that without the necessary aid, desperate people will be drinking water that they know to be dirty, leading to the spread of diseases, which adds a new dimension to the disaster. The dead bodies that litter the area are another potential vehicle for disease.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown declared that the restrictions of the Burmese government are creating “a man-made catastrophe by the negligence, the neglect, and the inhuman treatment of the Burmese people by a regime that is failing to act and to allow the international community to do what it wants todo.”

But can the international community actually give aid to a country that has suffered under U.S. and international sanctions for nearly a decade. Indeed, many of these sanctions were tightened following the suppression of protests in late 2007.

So how has the international community gotten around these strict provisions?

In an e-mail correspondence, John Rankin of U.S. Treasury acknowledged that “most of our [the U.S.] sanctions programs have provisions that allow for humanitarian aid.”

Even so, to ensure that aid efforts are not impeded should the Burmese government capitulate, the U.S. government eased financial restrictions to allow U.S. financial institutions to transfer funds to and from Burma; financial transfers to the country had previously been capped at $300 per household for a period of three months.

For its part, the European Union extended its sanctions for another year in April and has called for an international arms embargo. The European Parliament has urged its member countries to restrict all financial transfers to and from the military state in solidarity with the U.S.’s efforts. This is a good step toward a consistent policy towards the junta—something that is essential if these efforts are to be successful. Yet, the bloc endeavors “to avoid hitting vulnerable sections of the population” with its trade restrictions on Burma and has made strong efforts to give assistance.

So we have the strange political theatre that exists today. The international community is bending over backwards to give aid and supplies to a country that it has been isolating for years, only to have these advances spurned.

Some have suggested forcing the aid on Burma through a military invasion. But is this really a helpful tack to take? One of the main reasons for the junta’s restrictions is its fear of foreigners who threaten to depose it at every turn. Talk of an invasion would only give further credence to these fears. (This is not to say that the overthrow of the military regime is something to hope for.)

Furthermore, if the invasion of Iraq taught us anything, entering a sovereign country can be easy, but leaving at the end is difficult. After the fact, responsibility for security and supplies is no longer with the domestic government—it is now with the invaders. While it is unlikely that an insurgency as potent as the Iraqi one would develop, it would also not be as simple as instilling the pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi as president and walking away.

As unfortunate as it seems, the best—indeed the only—course of action may be the one that is being take now: keep exerting diplomatic pressure on the Burmese government, promise aid and support for the victims of the natural disaster, and leave aside all talk of assistance by force.

Let us hope that the results of this diplomacy will soon be realized—for the sake of the Burmese people.

So what do you think readers? What other options are open to the international community? Could an invasion in fact be the best option for saving lives—coming as it does with the benefit of destroying Burma’s onerous military regime?

Send us your thoughts at editors@diplomaticourier.org.