DURING THE PAST two weeks, I have spent most of my waking hours poring through reports detailing the Burmese junta’s response to Cyclone Nargis. My initial reaction to the storm was despair. I have been to Burma (now called Myanmar) twice and the Burmese people and their desire for a free, democratic government hold a special place in my heart.

My reaction quickly turned from despair to rage as I read that the military junta failed to alert people about the storm. Four days before the cyclone, Indian meteorologists told the junta about the impending storm. But the junta did not inform anyone in the country about its seriousness. Instead, state-sponsored media promoted the junta’s incredible “constitutional referendum” held May 10.

In the aftermath of the storm, the junta’s reaction has been even more callous. While hundreds of thousands of victims go without water, food and medical supplies, the junta continues to prevent U.S., British and French naval troops from providing aid. This is in sharp contrast to the Indonesian government’s response to the tsunami of 2004, when the U.S. led a nearly $1 billion relief effort within 48 hours of the storm.

The junta has also rejected aid from international organizations. Long after the cyclone, the junta was still refusing to give visas to most United Nations workers and siphoning off international aid. A head U.N. worker called the junta’s response “unprecedented in modern humanitarian relief efforts.”

To those of us involved in Burma’s democracy movement, the junta’s response is not so much surprising as gut-wrenching. This is, after all, the same regime that has burned down 3,200 ethnic villages in eastern Burma, recruited 70,000 child soldiers, and imprisoned Nobel Peace Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi.

However to those not familiar with Burma, the junta’s response is almost unfathomable. Many TV commentators stare in disbelief as their correspondents in Bangkok (the junta has refused entry to foreign journalists) explain that the military is forcing children to perish as aid sits by.

How has the international community reacted to the junta’s cruel response? Western countries, led by France, called for the U.N. to force the junta to open its doors to U.N. aid, regardless of the junta’s decision. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner invoked the “responsibility to protect” principle, which essentially states that international borders can be crossed without a government’s consent when a government fails to care for their own people during genocide, ethnic cleansing, or other crimes against humanity.

But China, Russia, South Africa and Indonesia blocked Kouchner’s effort to pass a “responsibility to protect” resolution at the U.N. Security Council. China refused the effort saying, “We should take full consideration of Myanmar’s willingness and sovereignty.” China is, of course, Burma’s most critical ally, routinely protecting Burma at the U.N. Security Council.

In addition, Indonesia claimed that France was “politicizing” the issue, disregarding the fact that the junta was to blame for making this into a political issue in the first place by refusing aid from certain countries. Even Iran let U.S. aid into the country after a devastating earthquake in 2003.

This week the junta allowed a few U.S. aid flights into the country, hailed by some as a breakthrough. But this is a ploy by the junta to string out the international community, much as it did by allowing U.N. envoys into the country after the crackdown on monks last September.

At this point, it is clear that the Security Council, led by China, will continue to prevent any meaningful action. Meanwhile, Secretary Gen. Ban Ki-moon keeps stating his “immense frustration” with the junta’s response. That is nice. Really. But I am not sure how many sick and starving people that will save in Burma.

So what should be done? This week, Aung San Suu Kyi’s party, the National League for Democracy, said the international community should provide aid “by any means.” It is now time that the U.S., French, and British navies go into Burma to provide aid regardless of the junta’s response.

This raises a lot of questions about international sovereignty, Western neo-imperialism, the invasion of Iraq and other matters of international law. But I also know this: During the tsunami in 2004, 234,000 people died. Tens of thousands more would have died if the U.S. had been forbidden to provide aid. Right now, if the junta continues to block aid, as many as 2 million people could perish. That is five times the number of deaths thus far in Darfur and more than twice the number of those killed in Rwanda.

Furthermore, such a move would not be unparalleled: The U.S. provided aid in Bosnia in the 1990s, Kosovo in 1998, and to the Kurds in northern Iraq in 1991.

Given the long period since the cyclone, deaths from waterborne diseases have been spiking. The first large outbreak of cholera has been reported. Burma has one of the worst health-care systems and almost no ability to cope with the overwhelming public-health crises.

A French aid worker recently said of the junta’s response, “It’s a crime against humanity. . . . It’s like they are taking a gun and shooting their own people.” I agree. The U.N. had its time to talk and the junta should have allowed a full-fledged international response long ago.

President Clinton has said his biggest regret is not taking action over the genocide in Rwanda. I hope that President Bush will not have to say the same thing about Burma when he leaves office. It is time for the U.S. to form a coalition of willing navies and enter Burma, regardless of whether Burma’s homicidal rulers agree.

The clock of death is now ticking fast.

Patrick Cook-Deegan is a regional coordinator for the U.S. Campaign for Burma. He is about to graduate from Brown University.