***The difficulty with military interventions is that your intervention is one thing and mine is another. George Bush may want to help the Iraqi people by invading that land; you may wish to use force to insure that hundreds of thousands in Myanmar are saved from starvation and deprivation.***

THERE are currently four major national disasters that burden human compassion: Darfur in the Sudan, Zimbabwe, Somalia, and Myanmar. All are dreadful examples of man's cruelty. All are difficult for a sane man to understand.

In the first of these, Darfur, a rebel movement has been fought by the Sudanese government with a brutal campaign aimed at the destruction of the local population that might otherwise support these rebel groups. This type of terror campaign in a civil war is not new: Sherman's army in the American Civil War had a similar purpose. This tenor campaign in Darfur has largely been aimed at women and children Apparently the Sudanese government believes the way to fight the rebels is to abuse their women and children. This from a government that professes to believe in Islam?

The second of the three is Zimbabwe where a repressive government has over the years destroyed a multi-racial prosper-

ous society, deliberately failed to deal with the devastation of HIV/Aids and destroyed an economy, leading to the displacement of millions of persons. In an environment where food is in short supply the government has now decided to keep the aid donors from providing food to those who are without. What kind of leader starves his own people? This from a government that professes to be Christian?

The third is Somalia a "nation" abandoned by the world. When Clinton pulled US troops out of Somalia this country essentially ceased to have a government. The position of the people continues to get worse with food shortages, violence, and drought destroying the livestock herds. Here is a truly failed state where no one has any serious interest.

The fourth is Myanmar where the government is unwilling to help its own citizens preferring them to starve, to be sick, and to be miserable. The difficulties facing farmers arc likely to increase since the second rice crop has been largely destroyed and the wet season crop

may not be planted in large parts of the country due to a lack of seeds, animals for field preparation, and destruction of the paddy fields. Help has been denied. This from a nation that professes to be Buddhist?

There are always cases like these where a repressive government acts in a way that is destructive of the population over which it rules. Somalia is the extreme where there is no government. In a true democracy government must respond as it is representative of the people. But in autocratic states the leadership feels no commitment to its people. All that matters is that the autocratic leadership continue in power.

The UN claims that there is a duty to protect one's citizens and failure to do so justifies international intervention. Whatever one may think about the responsibility of a government for its own citizens, whatever one may think about a ' social contract," formal or unwritten, the repeated reality is that there are some governments that will do great harm to their own people. For Bangladeshis it was the

recognition that Pakistan had no such concern for the citizens of East Pakistan that triggered the uprising and the battle for independence.

This abuse of citizens by a government is all too common. The question is whether the rest of the world should do anything about it. One thing that must be done is moral suasion, trying to shame the government into looking after the welfare of this own citizens. But it seems strange that one has to persuade a government to look after its own citizens. Shame does not go very far.

Do any of these examples justify intervention by the rest of the world to save the people who are being crushed by the inhuman, cruel behaviour of a sitting governments? Is there a case for intervention?- Of course the intervention may be with the agreement of the government concerned or it may be intrusive without waiting for the approval and support of the legal government. Should the Myanmar government be forced to allow other countries to save their people? Should the rest of the world intervene in Zimbabwe to prevent a fraudulent election, the starvation of a people, and widespread abuse of political opponents? Should armed intervention be carried out against the will of the Sudanese government to save

people in Darfur? Should military forces be sent into Somalia to enable people to be fed?

There is really no case for such interventions. If the Sudanese government wishes to cause hundreds of thousand of its citizens to die, be made destitute, and be gang raped, on what grounds should the rest of the world step in to prevent or to deal with the consequences? The NGOs and the do-good organisations try to encourage or force sovereign governments to look after their own citizens. If the government of Zimbabwe wants to starve its people, let them do so. If the people of Somalia cannot form a government, why should die rest of the world do so? We are not responsible for all of the sins of the world. The terrible consequences in Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Somalia, and Darfur should be accepted.

The difficulty with military interventions is that your intervention is one thing and mine is another. George Bush may want to help the Iraqi people by invading that land; you may wish to use force to insure that hundreds of thousands in Myanmar are saved from starvation and tieprivation. The difficulty is not the need for unanimous support from the great powers to carry out such intervention, but the difficulty of successful completion of a task that requires the use of armed force.

Perhaps it is different. People get the government that they want. People may get tired of the government and want to change, but cannot. Any help from outside often supports the incumbent government and contributes to their remaining in power. In the cases discussed above, perhaps it is better to stay away. There are enough difficulties in the world. Why is there so much attention to these peculiar cases when people are at risk everywhere due to bad governance?

It is really not possible for an externa) group to bring such conditions to an acceptable conclusion except at enormous cost. The development of human societies is evolutionary. Some will fail and their unfortunate citizens will suffer. The responsibility of a state is not to humanity as a whole but to one's own group.

As humanity develops it is not extended sympathy that matters, but rather competition, war. and achievement. The failed societies Sudan, Zimbabwe, Somalia, and Myanmar are groups discarded on the ash heap of history. Our responsibility is to make our own societies prosperous and strong. Intervention in the plight of others is neither feasible nor desirable. We should follow nature: reinforce success and turn our back on failure.