America’s Double Standard: The Abandonment of Myanmar’s Struggle for Democracy
Protest in Myanmar Against the Military Coup. Image Taken from Wikimedia Commons.
On February 1st, 2021, the military seized power from the democratically elected government in Myanmar.
The change in rule initially came as a shock to the international community, making global headlines and sparking outrage. However, more than two years after the Myanmar military took power, talks about the crisis in Myanmar have taken a backseat in U.S. politics, news headlines, and international affairs. Poor U.S. relations with Myanmar, in comparison to other U.S. allies, and other pressing issues domestically and abroad, have reduced U.S. involvement in Myanmar. This leads to a double standard of U.S. interests and commitments, in which the U.S. prioritizes allies that are strategically beneficial despite advocating for democratic institutions worldwide.
The military previously held considerable power in Myanmar politics, having ruled as a military dictatorship for 50 years from 1958 to 2008. Even though the military transferred power to a democratic government in 2008, a military-drafted constitution still guaranteed the military 25% of parliamentary seats, allowing them to veto any reforms.
Prior to the 2021 coup, however, democracy in Myanmar was gaining momentum. In Myanmar’s 2020 elections, the pro-democracy party, National League for Democracy, gained 396 out of 476 parliamentary seats, highlighting the population’s shift towards democratic values. Despite the election outcome, the Myanmar military rejected the results of this election, claiming that there was election fraud without providing evidence. Soon after, the military seized power by force, using election fraud as the justification for the coup.
The coup sparked armed resistance against the military across the country. Civilians began protesting and taking up arms to fight for their democracy, while the democratically elected government formed a shadow government, which controls various territories across the country, known as the National Unity Government. In turn, the military junta attempted to suppress the uprising through brute force, indiscriminately killing civilians and resistance fighters alike.
Throughout the coup, the United States condemned the military junta in Myanmar, placed sanctions on top Myanmar officials, and provided humanitarian aid totaling over $2.1 billion to civilians. However, these tactics were insufficient to support Myanmar’s fight for democracy, as the sanctions do not prevent U.S. rivals from supporting the military junta and humanitarian aid does not help the people of Myanmar improve their economy and restore democracy to the country. Although U.S. action was swift toward the beginning of the coup, the United States has generally stayed out of Myanmar’s internal crisis due to poor diplomatic relations with the country from previous military dictatorships.
There has been a lack of effort to build relations between the two countries in comparison to allies such as Ukraine or Taiwan, which actively send diplomats to the U.S. in order to negotiate and improve relations. As different conflicts sparked up—such as Russia-Ukraine, the South China Sea, or China-Taiwan—the United States chose to prioritize these allies over Myanmar due to their supposed strategic value such as defense treaty commitments, congressional laws, and location.
Thus, it is clear that the U.S. is not doing enough to support Myanmar’s struggle for democracy, and the U.S.’ lack of involvement undermines its commitments and responsibility to support democracy and human rights abroad. After two years of unrelenting military rule, the Myanmar military is unwilling to return to democracy, instead pursuing a brutal campaign to wipe out any opposition to its control. The U.S.’ current actions remain futile, relying only on the usage of condemnations, sanctions, and humanitarian aid, ultimately doing nothing to intervene significantly in the ongoing conflict and Myanmar’s lack of democracy.
U.S. Policy Restraints and Opposition to Intervention
One reason for the U.S.’ opposition to intervention is the America First policy, an agenda actively pushed by Republicans, calling for the U.S. to reduce spending on allies and partners abroad in support of investment in domestic projects at home. However, the aforementioned American commitment to support democracy and human rights abroad, as well as the United Nations’ Responsibility to Protect principle, serve as justifications for potential U.S. intervention in Myanmar. Additionally, the United States has offered its support for democratic values abroad to allies such as Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, sending vast amounts of military and economic aid to support their ambitions for strong democratic institutions. These aid packages potentially include $100 billion for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. The United States has also spent more than $2 trillion over 20 years in an attempt to build democratic institutions in Afghanistan. If the U.S. is willing to support allies and partners with this tremendous amount of assistance, the U.S. should also lend its support to the people of Myanmar and their struggle for democracy.
Another reason behind the lack of U.S. intervention is the belief that the United States should not fuel the fire in Myanmar and draw its rivals, such as China or Russia, to the region to compete. China may view U.S. intervention as a threat to its influence and interests in the region, which may cause them to take more drastic measures to directly challenge U.S. power. This counterargument however, is detached from reality, as China and Russia have already implicitly intervened in Myanmar, selling the military junta billions of dollars worth of military arms, including fighter jets that are used to commit human rights violations and suppress democratic ambitions in Myanmar. Even though the U.S. has sanctioned arms dealers in Myanmar, they have failed to deter China and Russia, as the sanctions only target Myanmar companies, allowing China and Russia to continue selling arms to the military regime.
We should not let this illusion of America First affect U.S. commitments to support their diplomatic partners abroad in the fight for democratic institutions. The United States’ double standard in supporting some countries in their fight for democracy, while failing to support others, damages U.S. credibility and reputation abroad. The U.S. cannot possibly call itself a champion of democratic values and human rights if it only chooses to select certain countries to support. The United States should help promote democracy in Myanmar, providing economic assistance and the tools to transition back to democracy.
As countries across the globe continue their fight for independence and democratic values, the U.S. should not forget the people of Myanmar and their long struggle for democracy. The United States should strive to support them in achieving a stable future and a democratic society while also preserving American national interests and securing democratic institutions globally.
Allen Cai (CC’ 27) is a staff writer for CPR. Interested in studying biology and political science with a focus in international relations and American politics, he is involved with other International Relations related clubs such as CMUNCE and CESIMS.