A policy report compiled for the incoming Obama administration appeals for the prioritization in U.S. foreign policy of combating genocide around the globe, although it is uncertain what ramifications the incorporated recommendations may have regarding Burma.

Preventing Genocide, released on Monday in Washington, D.C. and compiled by a distinguished task force, aims to carve out an effective U.S. policy in both preventing and responding to cases of genocide around the world. The report argues that it is imperative for the U.S. to take stronger action in the face of genocide as such a stance corresponds with both American values and interests.

Though the report does not make use of case studies, numerous analysts and organizations label the existing situation in Eastern Burma genocide, as the Burmese Army continues with its attacks and coercive policies against local ethnic minority populations.

According to the Genocide Prevention Network, over 650,000 people have been displaced and some 3,500 villages destroyed in Eastern Burma, an area of the world that the international genocide watchdog identifies as a region of concern.

Confronting genocide is of definitive national interest to the U.S., argues the paper, as genocide is said to fuel instability, creating weaker states which in turn can have a spillover effect across international boundaries in areas such as refugee flows.

The assessment certainly holds true for Burma, which has seen millions flee to neighboring Thailand, China, Bangladesh and India, abetting often insecure border situations and facilitating in the transfer of both illicit goods and infectious disease.

However, the policy study seems to offer little hope for a structurally enhanced U.S. effort in confronting genocide in Eastern Burma, barring a drastic shift in policy adopted by the incoming Obama administration.

Ominously, and pertinently in the case of Burma, the report's authors caution: "Geographically remote countries that are autocratically governed and have limited integration into the global economy are generally harder targets to influence through diplomatic and economic means."

Potential success of the U.S. playing a vital role in rolling back genocide is further said to heavily rely upon the relationship of the state in question with both its neighbors and major powers.

There can be little question that Burma is geographically removed from the traditional U.S. sphere of influence and that the Southeast Asian country is autocratically ruled and largely exists outside the integrated global economy. Additionally, the foreign policy's of regional countries vis-à-vis Burma, including major powers China and India, are well documented to often be at odds with that of the U.S.

Ultimately, in situations such as that in Eastern Burma, the study concludes, "Military options are especially relevant when opportunities for pre­vention have been lost."

Having already exhausted most coercive tools at its disposal with respect to Burma, including sanctions and legal charges, it would appear that the only outlet remaining for the U.S. is "military options."

Military options are in turn defined as not only those aimed against the perpetrators, but additionally said to include military assistance to opposition forces opposing the guilty party.

However, it is also said to be important to understand the potential limitations of relying too heavily, or even singularly, on coercive measures, as the U.S. "should not dismiss the potential benefits of rewarding 'bad people' for 'good behavior'."

In the end, any decision by a U.S. administration to use military force to intervene in situations of genocide is understood to be a "fundamentally political decision," reflecting national security interests, domestic politics and the international system.

And regarding the international system, the report hints there must first be a change within the United Nations, which as it currently operates is said to stand little chance of authorizing the use of force in cases such as that in Burma. This is a crucial obstacle, as the report's authors also emphasize the need for a multilateral approach if a military option is to be pursued.

The task force that compiled the 174-page report was co-chaired by Madeleine Albright and William Cohen.

Albright, who met with Burmese democracy opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi in 1997, is an outspoken critic of the situation in Burma and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and Secretary of State, while Cohen previously served as Secretary of Defense.

The report was co-sponsored by the U.S. Institute for Peace, U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and The American Academy of Diplomacy.