The annual Shangri-La Dialogue partnership is not a supranational entity, however. It has no enforcement mechanism or binding authority. But its impressive line-up of participants including ranking officials from the United States, China, Japan and Europe, aside from Asean, gives it weight. Its three principles governing relief are intended for general guidance. While it is necessary to get the philosophy of aid widely accepted among nations, the brutal truth is that Myanmar's storm victims are dying. Another truth where Asean nations are concerned is that they have the means only to intercede within the grouping's confines, if at all. The guiding principles, to which Myanmar acceded, are fine. They will not help the dying, however, or in the next calamity to strike the region. Myanmar has been cruelly inconsistent over relief access. This is where the question of militaries being involved in relief work is a critical adjunct. This is talking implementation, whereas the three principles were basically talk.
04 June 2008: Straits Times
NATIONS able to assist in humanitarian relief are learning practical lessons from the Myanmar test case by the week. More substance was added to a developing international consensus on what is prudent intervention when defence and security officials from 27 countries discussed the issue at the Shangri-La Dialogue here. Most significant is growing acceptance - thankfully - among even assertive governments that forcing supplies and aid workers on a stricken nation unbidden would not be wise. Put another way, the host nation must give its consent and it will retain control of the aid effort. This was one of three relief principles agreed to at the Singapore security conference. Undermining sovereignty principles to provide disaster relief is not of the same order as intervening forcibly to help a people facing politically motivated extermination. If humanitarian help was allowed broad interpretation, North Korea would have been invaded years ago with mercy flights of food aid. Starvation is known to be a persistent problem there, owing to several seasons of floods and crop failures. The consequences of such an action would make the most idealistic humanitarian blanch.
The annual Shangri-La Dialogue partnership is not a supranational entity, however. It has no enforcement mechanism or binding authority. But its impressive line-up of participants including ranking officials from the United States, China, Japan and Europe, aside from Asean, gives it weight. Its three principles governing relief are intended for general guidance. While it is necessary to get the philosophy of aid widely accepted among nations, the brutal truth is that Myanmar's storm victims are dying. Another truth where Asean nations are concerned is that they have the means only to intercede within the grouping's confines, if at all. The guiding principles, to which Myanmar acceded, are fine. They will not help the dying, however, or in the next calamity to strike the region. Myanmar has been cruelly inconsistent over relief access. This is where the question of militaries being involved in relief work is a critical adjunct. This is talking implementation, whereas the three principles were basically talk.
Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean was spot-on saying armed forces personnel are best equipped to bring relief at the crucial early stages of a natural disaster. Asean should not delay moving beyond rhetoric to organise a mechanism for fast-response relief by the armed forces of the core members of the grouping. The consent of the stricken nation has of course to be obtained. If Asean can get the relief structure formalised - it won't be easy, as there are dissenting views - it will be a proud achievement in non-partisan cooperation.
Go to Shangri-La Dialogue homepage
