Should the world intervene in the internal affairs of a country when it fails to provide the most basic necessities to safeguard its citizens? As Turtle Bay’s best minds contemplate this question, the death toll in Burma is climbing, reaching proportions sure to stand out in the annals of man-made disasters.

Yes, the disaster began as a natural phenomenon, Cyclone Nargis, but the ruling Burmese junta has since created a situation in which hunger, disease, and neglect are expected to raise the stakes significantly. The death toll is estimated now at almost 200,000, but it could double or even triple — some fear millions of deaths — if Burma is left to the mercy of the generals who control the country from Naypyidaw, the fortified mountain retreat they call their capital.

The French ambassador to the United Nations, Jean-Maurice Ripert, described the situation as a “refusal of assistance to people in need” that risks becoming “a true crime against humanity.” He spoke to reporters Friday after clashing with the Burmese ambassador, Kyaw Tint Swe, at the U.N. General Assembly. In Paris, the outspoken foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, said the “responsibility to protect” applies to the situation in Burma.

“Responsibility to protect” became a General Assembly resolution in 2005, and it is now so revered among internationalists that they gave it a hip, text-message-like name: R2P. But as even Mr. Ripert was forced to admit, the concept originally was aimed at human rights violations rather than natural disasters, raising a debate in Turtle Bay over whether it can be applied to the cyclone.

Like the “international community” that is supposed to act on it, incidentally, R2P is a totally fictional concept. The world’s “responsibility” has meant little to victims in Sudan, Somalia, or Zimbabwe, where events like the ones envisioned in the 2005 resolution have taken place since it was enacted. American aid officials tell me that they would rather act alone on Burma, or in concert with a country such as France, than through the U.N. coordinators who should shoulder the world’s collective “responsibility.”

China, which has a strong aversion to outside interference in countries’ domestic problems, has long scuttled most Western efforts at the U.N. Security Council to discuss the problems created by Burma’s tyranny. After Cyclone Nargis hit the country on May 2, and when the junta proved completely incapable of handling the situation, China blocked attempts by well-meaning world players to lean on the junta to accept outside help, and prevented the council from discussing it.

The U.N. humanitarian coordinator, John Holmes, who landed in Burma yesterday, will not meet the junta’s decision maker, General Than Shwe — who so far has declined to return Secretary-General Ban’s phone calls and letters. The junta has long toyed with Mr. Ban’s ineffective envoy to Burma, Ibrahim Gambari, who has never failed to stress the generals’ sensitivities in his reports. The U.N. leadership has been so sensitive for so long that nobody in Naypyidaw expects any pressure now, as hundreds of thousands of people are dying.

American ships near the Burmese coast are ready to distribute food, medicine, and other necessities. Helicopters can drop goods in remote areas. But on Friday, Mr. Swe quarreled with Mr. Ripert about whether a French navy vessel carrying 1,500 tons of humanitarian goods was there as a “warship” or, as France maintains, attempting to help victims of the storm and the regime.

The Burmese ambassador also rebuked his French counterpart for not exclusively using the name the junta has given the country, Myanmar. While most U.N. types expressed shock Friday at Mr. Ripert’s confrontational manner, a few diplomats noted how offensive Mr. Swe’s position was. “People are dying because of his government’s policies, and all he cares about is that everyone will use only the politically correct name,” one such contrarian told me.

Mr. Ripert is considered a leading candidate to take over one of the United Nations’ most prominent departments, charged with peacekeeping. I am told that Mr. Ban’s inner circle views the French ambassador’s public outbursts with suspicion, which may explain their reluctance so far to finalize the appointment, despite strong backing for Mr. Ripert from President Sarkozy. Mr. Ban values behind the scenes diplomacy, but in cases like Burma, an outspoken personality could complement his team of quiet diplomats — and perhaps bring a semblance of reality to the lofty promise of R2P.

bavni@nysun.com