The President’s Corner: The Right to Disaster Aid and Health Care in Burma

This year marks the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I recently reread this seminal document, both to prepare for the celebration of its signing in December and to see how the Declaration applies to the tragedy in Burma.

Although Cyclone Nargis killed over 100,000 people and displaced more than 1.5 million, according to international estimates, the reclusive, repressive military government in Burma is refusing to allow adequate amounts of international assistance to enter the country. As a result, starvation, disease and exposure threaten to drive the death toll much higher.

Last week, I called the Burmese government’s refusal to allow adequate amounts of aid and the workers to distribute into the country a “crime against humanity” that could trigger forced aid deliveries under a UN Security Council Resolution. Bernard Kouchner, the foreign minister of France, and Gareth Evans, who heads the International Crisis Group, have made similar arguments. But no matter how persuasive the arguments of forced humanitarian intervention under the UN doctrine of “Responsibility To Protect,” use of that doctrine wasn’t rigorously considered by the Security Council because both China and Russia oppose such consideration. In addition, some humanitarian organizations argue that forcible distribution of aid would carry more risks than benefits, perhaps endangering any possibility of setting up a workable, though late, emergency response.

What other human rights conventions apply to post-Cyclone Burma? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn’t address disaster response, and it presents health as one aspect of the right to an adequate standard of living. Article 25 says: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care…”

In 1966 the UN General Assembly adopted the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Article 12 says that “The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.” It goes to on to say that signatories should control epidemics and “assure all medical service” needed. Unfortunately, Burma is not a signatory to the Covenant. Neither is the U.S., for that matter.

However, a recent analysis by the Center for Refugee and Disaster Response and the Center for Public health and Human Rights at Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health points out that many of Burma’s neighbors are signatories and, therefore, obligated to help. In addition, the centers concluded that “international guidelines on human rights and natural disasters cite the right of all affected populations to evacuation and other life saving measures, to protection against negative impacts of natural hazards, and to access to adequate food, water, shelter, sanitation, and health services.”

The rub, of course, is that many countries are willing to give more aid than the Burmese generals are willing to receive. There are signs that the Burmese resistance is slowly melting. A number of U.S. and UN aid flights are getting through. China, India and Thailand have sent medical teams. Burma allowed John Holmes, the UN Emergency Relief Coordinator to tour some of the devastated areas and has invited UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to visit the country. Most important, Burma appears willing to work with a group of Asian countries to set up a naval relief effort, perhaps with the support of the U.S., France and other countries with naval vessels in the area.

These are important developments, but they are evolving slowly more than two weeks after the cyclone. The costs of delay will be measured in terms of lives lost. Human rights conventions may not call for an urgent response, but human rights principles certainly do.

Ken Bacon