Crises can bring out the best, and the worst, that our human nature has to offer us. The current crisis in the international community is taking place in Burma (renamed by the junta as Myanmar), a nation in the south east of Asia sandwiched between Thailand, India, China, Bangladesh, and Laos, where on May 2 a cyclone made landfall and caused much devastation. Estimates by our own government claim that the death toll may rise as high as 100,000, and millions have been left homeless without food, clean water and shelter. Although aide has been offered from all corners of the earth the current regime of Burma, an unelected military junta which seized power in a coup d’etat forty years ago, has been dragging its feet in accepting and distributing aide. In the face of this, an Op/ed was written for TIME.com begging the question “Is it time to invade Burma?“
In response to that question I will state the answer clearly, “No.” Humanitarianism at the end of a bayonet is not humanitarianism. We cannot impose our will upon others through force of arms, even if we believe that will to be in the best interests of all parties involved. Nations, like people, are independent and should not be coerced into accepting help from others, and military force should not be threatened if that help is not administered as efficiently as possible. Furthermore, setting such a precedent would have disastrous consequences. Should we invade Zimbabwe or several other African nations based on the fact that they cannot feed their people and the epidemic levels of AIDS infections? Should we invade South American nations because of the disparity between rich and poor and the harsh conditions endured by the people? Should the United States have been invaded in the aftermath of the government’s response to Hurricane Katrina? Under scrutiny even the United States would be liable for an armed foreign invasion based upon such a precedent.
However, the question remains, when should a nation be invaded based upon its internal divisions, crises? Should Burma have been invaded last year, when they mercilessly put down peaceful civilian protests? Should Burma have been invaded in 1990 when the Junta refused to step down after it was defeated in free elections? Should Burma have been invaded in 1988, or 1974, or 1962? Should Burma be invaded because of their violations of human rights, or because of their involvement in the drug trade? When should a sovereign nation be invaded? If we invade Burma to reestablish a democratic form of government, should we then invade China because of their repression of Tibet? Should we invade Zimbabwe because Mugabe seized the lands of farmers causing food shortages and has not allowed truly free elections?
No matter how we feel about the situation in foreign countries we cannot unilaterally demand that military action be taken in order to remedy social problems in other nations. Some one has to fight and pay for those wars and those who fight and pay for the wars waged on behalf of schemers and idealists who wish to impose their will through force upon others have always been the poor and the middle class. The United States is a constitutional republic, not a professional revolutionary force that should be used to impose any view of social justice upon the world. Remember, one of the “reasons” we invaded Iraq was because of how Saddam Hussein and his regime treated his people. If you believe that we invaded Iraq with the best of intentions, and some do, then examine the fruits of good intentions in Iraq. We cannot allow our best intentions to be used as an excuse to impose our will or our beliefs upon others.
Before I am accused of being cold-hearted or a horrible human being because I do not believe that we should use force to impose our will upon others, you must know that I too have issues which I am passionate about. However, I know that the use of force should always be the tool of last resort. Force can only be met with force, and one of the parties will be overwhelmed, leaving nothing but destruction and heartache in its wake. Remember still that military campaigns are not fought with plastic figurines like some board game. Men and women in uniform must go out and put their lives on the line in order for will to be imposed upon others through military means. Who will explain to the crying mothers and children of those soldiers that their loved one had to die so that the best intentions could be imposed upon people in a far off nation? Are the people who call for military force to impose their will and best intentions on others willing to put their lives on the line, and if not, why should others be sent in their place to do so?
I’m not heartless, and I am not a monster. I care about the people in Burma, China, Zimbabwe, Darfur, Mexico and hundreds of other third world nations most of my countrymen have never heard of and probably cannot find on a map. I am not willing to send young men and women off to die because I hate Chinese communism. Even though I would gladly volunteer with the armed forces, or a mercenary organization, if the goal was to establish free governments in China, Zimbabwe or Mexico, it is not my place to call for military action knowing that others would be sent off to fight and die to impose my will and best intentions upon others.
Yes, the situation in Burma is horrible, and should be remedied immediately. However, as civilized people who value freedom and human dignity the use of force should always be the weapon of last resort only to be used to meet and overwhelm opposing force. In closing, to all those out there who want to call for military action against any nation, if you are not willing to fight and die for your convictions then you have no place calling for others to be sent off to die to impose your will or best intentions on anyone, so keep your cowardly mouths closed.
