In 2005, the UN General Assembly and Security Council agreed that each State has the responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. With this responsibility comes the idea that sovereignty can, in some circumstances, be breached when a State fails in its duty.
It is now more than 12 days since Cyclone Nargis struck Burma's delta region with devastating force, causing many thousands of deaths — a number that is set to spiral due to subsequential disease, starvation and exposure. Yet the Burmese Government continues to conduct business as usual, making no effort to speed up visas for foreign aid agencies desperate to get relief teams, supplies and infrastructure into disaster zones.
Given the UN doctrine regarding 'responsibility to protect', should concerned nations intervene in Burma in order to stem the humanitarian crisis?
China, Burma's great power ally and protector, and a permanent UNSC member, wouldn't countenance invasion or military threat. Nor would ASEAN, though it is Chinese power that counts here. This leaves persuasive diplomacy.
But the Burmese junta will not be persuaded by governments, like ours, which it knows would be pleased to see it fall. Because Australia has an embassy in Burma, we will make representations (as other embassies will) to get the aid moving. These will be met with indifference, because the junta knows we are not its friends.
Effective pressure may be exerted through a willing China, the one country whose views it heeds. So the issue becomes how to influence China.
There are two ways to do this. First, through quiet bilateral diplomacy by countries such as Australia, which have good relations with China. Here is Mr Rudd's opportunity. If he succeeds, we won't necessarily know about it. Quiet diplomacy works best when its successes are not trumpeted. I pray this is being done, for the Burmese people's sake.
Secondly, through the UNSC. Cyclone Nargis, an internal Burmese civil disaster, has nothing to do with international peace and security. But then, nor did East Timor.
Timor was the template. Since Timor, the UN Security Council can take interest in a major human rights crisis within a country that is being badly managed by its government. If the Burmese government is causing mass deaths through gross neglect of its duty to protect its people, the UNSC can legitimately take an interest.
How might this be done?