Time to invade Burma?

The humanitarian crisis in Burma is worsening by the minute, so much that "crisis" must give way to "catastrophe." The UK's Sun paper (somewhat tabloidish, to be sure) reports that the death toll from the cyclone and its aftermath could exceed a half million, with about 90 percent dying of disease, exposure and eventually malnutrition.

Burma's hardline, xenophobic ruling military junta refuses to allow foreign aid or relief workers to enter the country. Of the pittance that has landed - about two planes' worth - none has been allowed to leave Rangoon's airport.

The BBC reports that foreign governments have the right and the obligation to get aid into the country, whether the country's dictators permit it or not, under the terms of the UN Charter. So far, only air drops of food, medicines and supplies have been proposed by the French, with some backing in the British Parliament, but these proposals have gained little traction because the efficacy of such drops is greatly open to question.

The UK's International Development Secretary Douglas Alexander told the BBC that "the 'best way forward' was an international 'united front' to win access for aid agencies."

No one has proposed any sort of military action to force aid into Burma. Certainly aiding nations would rely on their navies and air forces to deliver aid, as was done after 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. But simply using military units to accomplish aid delivery is not "military action."

With the catastrophe worsening daily, and no evidence that the junta is taking even slightly effective measures on its own to provide relief, the possibility of deaths on the scale the Sun predicts are quite actual. Corpses are not being disposed of but are remaining in the waters and exposed on the land, each becoming a wellspring of pestilence. Weakening daily by malnourishment, the hundreds of thousands of people, nay millions, in the disaster area are falling in increasing numbers.

This catastrophe may not fall under the legal umbrella of genocide, but it is a distinction without a difference.

Do we have the moral obligation to undertake relief actions without invitation by Burma's dictators?

Do we have the legal authority under international treaties to do so?

And if the answers are yes and yes, do we (or other countries, of course), have the moral and legal right to enforce relief delivery by military force?

Not easy questions, in sum. What do you think?

IIRC, the Bush administration has already made it clear that while US naval and air forces will help deliver aid, the US will not do so coercively. Quite apart from the layers and layers of possible adverse outcomes to doing so, the US simply does not have a large enough military to take on Burma relief as another combat commitment, even for a putative just cause.

Britain or France? Fuggitabouddit. They simply have insufficient forces to project power that far away, even in combined operations. That Britons would support such operations longer than a few weeks is extremely doubtful. Australia? Nope. Japan? It has a large, highly capable navy, but its constitution forbids combat except in actual self defense.

So who's left? Only India. It has a very large, capable military establishment. India's government cannot hold truck with Burma's junta because Burma is practically a client state of China. But for a country of its size and passion-filled domestic history, India is remarkably restrained in foreign policy. It has no history of foreign entanglements or foreign adventurism. Unless diplomatically and militarily led by Western powers, India will have no part of such a mission.

Update: SecDef Robert Gates says no airdrops without the dictators' permission.