Natural Disasters: The Personal and The Policy

Our global community is a bit like a high school: governments are adjusting to the raging hormones of globalization, economic and social situations we’re not quite comfortable with yet, but with which we must grapple.

This condition, the world as Mrs. Friedman’s 5^th period Social Studies class, has been put under the spotlight in the past couple of weeks, first by the cyclone in Burma on May 2 and then the Earthquake in China just two days ago. I have to admit that until the Chinese earthquake hit I wasn’t as roiled by the Burmese cyclone as I am now. Why? Because I feel some personal connection to the earthquake and its victims. As I wrote last week I spent some time in the Guizhou province, which borders the Sichuan province where the epicenter of the quake was. I also have a close friend who works in Beijing, but who often travels around the country. I could imagine that people I care about and places I visited were trapped, crumbled, or destroyed.

It embarrasses me that I didn’t pay closer attention to the Burmese disaster, which is graver than that in China, until I felt affected. The two events, though Burma and China are neighbors, are not connected, but the disaster in China made me think personally about the people trapped in Burma, with nothing to eat, no water, and no way out. What if I had family caught in that situation and was powerless to do anything?

It is this feeling of powerlessness that angers me the most. If we give up a certain amount of personal power to be part of a broader world, then the governing bodies of that world must protect individual rights and vulnerabilities.

The Canadian government (It’s never the States is it?) initiated some work on this responsibility in 2001, dubbing their report “The Responsibility to Protect.” FCNL talked about this notion at Annual Meeting last year (where do Quakers stand on supporting peace-keeping military missions?), but I hadn’t thought about it much before this week. I went to FCNL’s little library in Hadley conference room and took down the report to read. I’ve only gotten through about 20 pages of it so far, but I seem to agree with it. The question is, even though we agree that we have a responsibility to protect – will we? The answer for the Burmese cyclone seems to be no, not if it threatens a sovereign nation, even if we disagree with the government controlling the country. This makes sense in a politically and diplomatically. But I wonder…. what happens to the people? 100,000 people could die if aid doesn’t reach the country soon. How much is that sacrifice worth? Of course, this argument could be used to explain why the U.S. went into Iraq in 2003. Where can we draw the line?

We can draw the line, I think, when it is an emergency situation. It is painfully obvious that time is of the essence for the Burmese population. In Iraq, citizens were not being deprived of food and water – in fact, for many Iraqi civilians, the creature comforts of calm, food, and home may be harder to get now than before we invaded. Will it always be this easy to see when international forces should go into a country and when they shouldn’t? No. But I think we have to try to find a standard for when the international community is required to take a stand. And I believe the Burma situation would meet such a standard. It is time for the world to grow up, go to college, and take charge of their responsibility to value human life.

Wait a minute. Am I arguing against relativism? I think my liberal arts degree just shriveled up and died. Is this what growing up feels like?

This argument of mine isn’t that well thought out and I haven’t read through the enter Responsibility to Protect report yet, but I would be interested in hearing what others this about this. When is it ok to go around a sovereign government? When is it not?

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook