Cyclone Nargis in Burma/Myanmar

Mio ImadaKandai SuzukiYiming Zhang

What is Cyclone Nargis? May 3, 2008 Worst cyclone

recorded on the basin

http://video.on.nytimes.com/video/2008/05/05/world/1194817109514/cyclone-nargis-devastates-myanmar.html

1948 – Union of Burma gains independence from Great Britain

1962 - Myanmar controlled by military regime after a coup d'état

1962-1972 – “Burmese Way to Socialism”

1988 – Pro-democracy demonstrations “8888 Uprising”

1989 – "Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma" → "Union of Myanmar“

History of Myanmar

1990 – Free elections, National League for Democracy (NLD) wins majority, Junta refused to step down

1991 – Aung San Suu Kyi awarded Nobel Peace Prize, under house arrest

1997 – Admitted into Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)

2007 – Saffron Revolution

2008 – Cyclone Nargis

2nd 3rd May 2008- 140,000 dead and missing - 800,000 displaced- Totally affected 2.4 million people (OCHA estimation)

- Estimated damage - at US$10billion

Cyclone Nargis

ASEAN Charter ASIAN Charter was set forth in ASEAN

Ministerial Meeting in Jakarta June 2004.

… reaffirm ASEAN’s goal and principles… collective responsibilities of all ASEAN Member Countries in ensuring non-aggression and respect for each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity; the promotion and protection of human rights… and the establishment of effective and efficient institutional framework for ASEAN.

Drafted Blueprint from EPG Eminent Persons Group (EPG) was created

to draft the plans of ASEAN Charter, in 2007 the report was submitted

Inclusion of international humanitarian law as well as the R2P principles Creation of regional human rights mechanism Non-consensus-based decision making Consultative mechanisms which engage participation of civil society groups Sanctions against erring members

However, High Level Task Force (HLTF) which drafted the ASEAN Charter was not bound to follow the recommendations made above.

Basic Problems High Level Task Force (HLTF) was

formed to draft the ASEAN Charter. HLTF only consisted of ten people Only 9 to 10 months time span for draft Final version made available only few

days before

Criticisms “falls short of what is needed to establish a ‘people-centered and

‘people-empowered’ ASEAN… fails to put people at the center,… The Charter is all about how governments will interact with each other, but not about how they also should interact with the people… lacks necessary details for the settlement of disputes”

“… it codifies existing norms and maintains its historical identity as inter-government organization.” “The decision to adopt the ‘ASEAN Way’, which priorities agreement by consensus… means that its claim to become an increasingly rules-based organization will remain just that.” - Ambassador Barry Desker

Ambassador Barry Desker from cil.nus.edu

EPG Recommendation (people-centered organization) “the importance of rallying the people of ASEAN

behind ASEAN’s goals…” and “consciously adopt this objective as part of their work and mission.”

“strengthen its links with civil society organizations and draw upon their networks and strengths as strategic partners for ideas and initiatives to develop the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community.” and “establish consultative mechanisms with civil society organizations to interact regularly with these groups.”

“ASEAN need to shed its images of being an elitist organization…”

State-Centered ASEAN Charter Non-interference in the internal

affairs of ASEAN Member States. Respect for the right of every

Member States Abstain from any participation in any

policy or activity… which threaten… political and economic stability of ASEAN Member States

Consensus Decision-Making “As basic principle, decision-making

in ASEAN shall be based on consultation and consensus” (Article 20)

“A formula for flexible participation, including the ASEAN Minus X formula, may be applied where there is consensus to do so.” (Article 21)

Creation of Regional Human Rights Body… in work Creation of human rights body that

“operate in accordance with the terms of reference to be determined by the ASEAN Foreign Ministers Meeting.” (Article 14)

Non-Consultations with Civil Society Group “ASEAN may engage with entities

which support the ASEAN Charter, in particular its purpose and principles.” (Article 16)

Absence of Sanction Impossible to achieve their aim to

promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedom.

R2P in Southeast Asia States remains largely suspicious; - Government focuses on state and regime security, as opposed to human security

- Emphasis on principles of sovereignty and non-interference to forestall external involvement

Myanmar’s authority initially relied on its own relief activities (relief camps)

May 5 “welcome relief supplies”.

Despite that, obstructed int’l org. & aid agencies from rapidly accessing and bringing relief

people were left without drinking water, shelter

Myanmar and its inactions

UN Humanitarian Relief Coordinator, urged Myanmar’s authorities to “respond to the outpouring of int’l support and solidarity by facilitating the arrival of aid workers, and the clearance of relief suppliers in every way possible.”

Ban Ki-moon: “The situation was at a critical moment” diseases, vulnerable children

But delays in issuing visas and gaining appropriate access continued.

R2P & World Summit Outcome R2P (ICISS report) World Summit

Outcome - Sovereignty =Responsibility

- Human protection; Civil wars, Insurgencies, State repression ＆ State collapse

- Explicitly limits R2P to;

Genocide, War crimes, Ethnic cleansing &　Crimes against humanity(narrower)

* WSU took core ideas from ICISS report*Both highlight the importance of SC authorization

Pushing the limits of R2P in Southeast AsiaRejected free humanitarian access odious international impression reinforced bad impression referendum on 10 May 2008

Junta was neglecting the grave humanitarian situation (impression)

Sparking calls from members of the international community to invoke the R2P on Myanmar

International Reactions to Nargis Bernard Kouchner- we have responsibility to IMPOSE

humanitarian relief Javier Solana- I totally agree with the guy above Michael Byers- Canada could covertly air-drop aid

packages

Jean-Maurice Ripert- France ‘could send men’ to Myanmar as the French navy had been conducting ‘operations’ off the coast of Myanmar

Liu Zhenmin- the issue should not be politicized and China would oppose any involvement of the UNSC

Sir Holmes- Kouchner’s call is unnecessarily confrontational

International Reactions to Nargis RESPONSE FROM USA!!! Laura Bush- strongly criticized the Myanmar

junta for its lack of response in the aftermath of the cyclone.

The US State Department did not pursue a case for intervention based on the R2P principle. Instead, the US attempted to engage Myanmar’s strategic partners such as ASEAN, China, and India, to convince the regime to accept assistance from the international community.

Nargis and the Gaps in R2PTwo key questions: 1. Did Myanmar’s inability to render aid

and protection to the victims of the cyclone in the first three weeks of the disaster trigger the responsibility to protect?

2. Did Myanmar’s reluctant to allow the international community and humanitarian organizations entry into the country trigger the R2P?

Nargis and the Gaps in R2PR2P does not apply to Myanmar because there is no clause that applies to cases of natural catastrophes.

‘ Loophole’

The fact remains that there is no legal basis to do so under current international law.

Nargis and the Gaps in R2P

Rejection of humanitarian assistance ? crime against humanity

the state against its people as a crime against humanity (definition under Article 7 of the Rome Statute) In order to make a case for crime against humanity it is imperative to demonstrate that there was discriminatory, widespread and systematic violence or aggression- none of which can be convincingly proven in the case of Cyclone Nargis

BUT,

Nargis and the Gaps in R2P While some reports have implied that the three-

week lapse had negligible impact on the number of

casualties or deaths, it would be difficult to prove

this conclusively as information gathering in the

aftermath of the cyclone was patchy as best, due

to the crisis situation and the focus on relief

operations.

Nargis and the Gaps in R2P http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

7GQAa_0MVRU

Please be effective about the contents of this video.

Applying R2P to Myanmar case May 7th First consideration of R2P

- France initially invokes R2P to provide humanitarian assistance

May 13th Consideration of R2P (by UK)- R2P should be considered for natural disasters - May 16th ‘Crime Against Humanity’- Myanmar state television reports 77,738 dead, 55,917 missing- May 19th Myanmar Agrees to ASEAN-ERAT - Agrees to aid led by ASEAN-ERAT under condition

of not politicizing aid, “without strings attached”

Why not apply R2P? Paragraph 138 & 139 of the World Summit

Outcome Document does not refer to natural disasters

- ICISS report; military intervention for human protection (large-scale loss of life)

- “overwhelming natural or environmental catastrophes, where the state concerned is either unwilling or unable to cope, or call for assistance, and significant loss of life is occurring or threatened”.

Response France regarded as considering a military

intervention Unsuccessful in calling for the UNSC to issue a

presidential statement But received strong rhetoric by securing a

briefing from Sir John Holmes (British diplomat)

‘forget politics… forget the military dictatorship. Let’s just get aid & assistance through to people who are suffering and dying as we speak, through a lack of support on the ground’.

(Australia, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd)

Ban Ki-moon not pushing R2P Aware that R2P popularity was

dropping after War on Terror, and many countries were skeptical

Succeeded in protecting the concept by interpreting R2P in narrower definition

Impact of not applying R2P

Achieving a Diplomatic Solution Though R2P may not apply, invoking it rhetorical device - possibility of military intervention by West - increased political pressure more responsive

Tool for West to influence Naypyidaw and ASEAN to facilitating humanitarian relief

Conclusions Int’l response reinforced the

consensual, narrower position agreed in Outcome Document

Southeast Asia wary of R2P R2P not seen as applicable still

influential

R2P Evaluation Just Cause 3/5 Right Intention 5/5 Last Resort 1/5 Right Authority 3/5 Proportional Means 1/5 Reasonable Prospects 1/5

References http://www.coolgeography.co.uk/A-lev

el/AQA/Year%2013/Weather%20and%20climate/Hurricanes/Cyclone_Nargis.htm

http://www.slideshare.net/expattam/cyclone-nargis-22012483