Malcolm Rifkind: We cannot allow victims to die through neglect

The humanitarian disaster in Burma and the junta's refusal to allow international aid in poses a political and ethical dilemma for the Government, and for David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, that cannot just be put in the "too difficult" tray.

Over 100,000 people have already died. Starvation, cholera and other diseases could double that number, meaning the death toll is likely to match Iraq in its pure horror. The international community appears to be helpless in the face of the Burmese generals, who are indifferent to their citizens' fate and determined to prevent foreign interference which, they fear, could undermine their regime.

Related articles

• Creaking dam adds to earthquake survivors' fears
• Bodies are found in rubble that was once a school
• Burma braces itself for second storm
• Chinese Prime Minister leads new era of openness
• Burmese junta accused of hoarding food aid and handing out rotten rice
• Leading article: Mirrors that reflect the reality of regimes
• Search the news archive for more stories

In the past that would have been the end of the story for without the consent of the government no help could be given. In 1992, when I was Defence Secretary, the Conservative government helped save thousands of lives in Bosnia by providing armed convoys of humanitarian aid. But that was with the agreement of the Bosnian government. The present government's successful humanitarian intervention in Sierra Leone had the consent of Freetown.

We are now faced with a cruel Burmese regime that prefers its people to die rather than accept foreign aid. The options for Britain and the West are, in these circumstances, few and imperfect but there is scope for a more proactive policy than we have so far seen.

The preferred option remains the consent of the Burmese junta. Without it, much of any aid provided would not get to those who most need it and the providers of aid could, themselves, be in danger.

If the junta remains obdurate, the next best approach would be a hybrid solution. The West could provide most of the assistance but it could be transported into Burma by the Indonesians, Thais or Chinese – countries of whom the junta is much less suspicious.

But what if even thatoption is unacceptable? Should aid be delivered by force if the alternative is people dying in their thousands? There would be a better legal base for such an intervention than there has ever been in the past.

The UN Security Council, in 2006, imposed a responsibility on the international community to protect people whose governments failed to do so. It referred in particular to "the intentional denial of humanitarian assistance". In our domestic law a person commits a crime not just by the deliberate killing of a fellow citizen but by leaving them to bleed to death when one had the means to save them.

So the ethical argument is not a difficult one to sustain. The real problem is one of practicality. How would one ensure aid reached the right people? How would aid workers deal with the Burmese military if they intervened? These considerations would limit the extent to which unilateral action would be practical.

However, refusal of consent by the junta must not be assumed to be the end of the debate. For victims, it does not matter whether their deaths were deliberate or the result of criminal neglect by governments. If it does not matter to them it should not matter to us.

Sir Malcolm Rifkind is the Tory MP for Kensington and Chelsea. He was Foreign Secretary from 1995 to 1997