The responsibility to shut up

I had only been in Ottawa for a couple of days when the worst natural disaster in Burma’s history, Cyclone Nargis, hit the country. Although the official death toll stands at 146,000, some sources say the number could be as high as 1 million.

Our Conservative government immediately pledged $2 million in aid, including $500,000 to the Red Cross for relief efforts, with more aid to come. Getting help into the country was complicated by the ruling Burmese military junta, which has been known to murder dissident citizens by the thousands, recruit child soldiers as young as 10 years old, employ forced labour, and jail their political opponents. The junta did not warn its citizens of the imminent disaster, and refused any outside aid, appearing to not realize the devastation of the cyclone. Some aid was allowed in, but it never reached disaster victims — it was stolen and hoarded by the junta.

While tens of thousands of people died in the streets, and world governments, private relief agencies and the UN pressured the junta to allow aid, the Liberal Party of Canada decided it was prime time for some political grandstanding.

Often oddly considered the “coolest head” on the loser side of the House of Commons, Michael Ignatieff stood up on May 12 and questioned why the government was not handing over more money that would never reach the disaster victims. Ignatieff also brought up the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine, asking if Canada was now “committed to action” in Burma.

Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is a recently developed and somewhat controversial concept that is often used as a political wedge rather than a tool to help people. It dictates that states bear the responsibility to protect not only their own citizens, but to act on an international level as well when governments fail to protect their own people from crimes against humanity.

Natural disasters don’t invoke R2P, although a legalistic argument could be made that by refusing aid to its citizens, the junta was committing crimes against humanity.

The House of Commons condemned the Burmese government’s response in a resolution passed unanimously on May 9. On May 15, Bev Oda announced that Canada would be matching private donations made to relief agencies operating in Burma. Prime Minister of Thailand Samak Sundaravej went to Burma on May 11 to pressure the junta to allow aid. United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon urged the junta to allow aid in “without hindrance.” Over 45 countries committed millions of dollars in aid, sent thousands of relief workers, and pressured the junta to allow aid to reach Burmese citizens.

Trying to appear compassionate and paint a picture of the Conservatives doing nothing at all, Ignatieff once again stood up in the House on May 14 and repeatedly asked why we were not honoring R2P. It was explained to him, a little more slowly each time, that everything possible was being done to help the people of Burma.
The international community was doing everything it could, short of sending in military troops, to help the people of Burma. By insisting that was not enough, Ignatieff was actually suggesting that we take military action.

Not only would it be a logistical nightmare to send in troops to fight an oppressive military regime in a country that had just been devastated by a natural disaster, but we would be going it alone, as the rest the world had no interest in sending in troops.

When presented with the option of military action, United Nations Under-Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator John Holmes put it best: “I’m not sure that invading them would be a very sensible option at this particular moment. I’m not sure it would be helpful to the people we are actually trying to help.”

Supplies and people eventually did get into Burma, and it was thanks to diplomatic measures and talks, not thanks to militaristic political opportunism. Ki-moon met with junta leader General Than Shwe on May 21, and it was finally agreed that aid would be allowed into the country.

Sadly, what Ignatieff likely took away from this whole fiasco is that a disaster in which thousands of people died can be used as a political tool to score a few points during question period, and that our military is just a device used to help the image of politicians.

The real lesson here is that regimes such as the Burmese military junta should not be allowed to exist at all. Had Burma been a functioning democracy, aid would have been delivered quickly, saving potentially thousands of lives.

NATO troops are operating in Afghanistan and Iraq to ensure that oppressive regimes similar to the one in Burma are not allowed to take footing and debacles such as cyclone Nargis can be avoided in the future. Ignatieff was originally for the Afghanistan mission, but now he calls for our troops to come home by a set date whether the job is done or not. Ignatieff was for the war in Iraq until the summer of 2007, when he decided that since the war wasn’t going so well, he was no longer for it. He then got up on his high horse and declared the Americans “incompetent.”

When Dion loses this election, Liberals will be looking for a new leader, and Ignatieff tops that sad list of prospects.
Our military is a source of national pride. Our soldiers bravely help defend our country and spread democracy and Canadian values around the globe. They deserve to be respected, admired, and praised. They do not deserve to be treated as an illusory device whenever it is convenient for politicians.

Did Ignatieff really want our troops in Burma? For that matter, did Dion want our troops in Pakistan? Did Layton want our troops in Darfur? These are simply not the type of people we can afford to have making these types of decisions.

Stephen McCreary is a founder of the University of Manitoba Campus Conservatives.