Navigating double standards: The U.S. role in Myanmar’s political turmoil
37
Tin Zar Lynn (NP News) - Sep 26
As the United States maintains its status as a superpower, many countries that cannot align with or oppose policies of the United States often become targets of its double standards.
Consequently, several nations may experience the impact of these double standards in various ways. The U.S. has been critical of Myanmar's State Administration Council (SAC), particularly since the declaration of the state of emergency. Although the U.S. imposes sanctions and condemns the Myanmar government, the intensity and consistency of its pressure can vary significantly compared to its actions in other regions.
U.S. approach to Myanmar's political crisis
The U.S. strongly condemned the declaration of a state of emergency by Myanmar's acting president, U Myint Swe, in February 2021, as outlined in Section 417 of the 2008 constitution. Following this, the acting president transferred legislative, executive, and judicial powers to the Commander-in-Chief of the Defense Services to restore the original situation, as permitted by Section 418(a) of the constitution. Despite the SAC holding sovereign power legally, the U.S. and most Western nations viewed this as a military coup.
In response, the U.S. advocated for international condemnation of the Myanmar government and supported efforts for diplomatic isolation. Simultaneously, the U.S. provided support to activist groups in Myanmar, aligning its policies with them. Later, those US-backed entities turned into the terrorist organizations, such as the People’s Defense Force (PDF), as receiving arms and financial assistance from the U.S. and committing terroristic plots, violence and many extrajudicial killings across the country within more than three years since 2021.
Additionally, the U.S. has played a supportive role in pressuring Myanmar through regional mechanisms like ASEAN for example developing the five-points consensus. This robust response contrasts with the limited reactions to military actions in other countries where U.S. interests are more prominent.
The U.S.'s double standard policy is evident when comparing the situation in Myanmar to that in neighboring Thailand. The U.S. response to Thailand's 2014 coup was significantly less severe. While it suspended some military aid and postponed high-level visits, it did not impose comprehensive sanctions or take extensive actions against Thailand's military leaders. Instead, the U.S. maintained a pragmatic approach, balancing its criticism with the importance of regional stability and strategic interests in Thailand. Despite the coup and ongoing military rule, the U.S. continued its military and diplomatic engagement with Thailand, preserving the U.S.-Thailand alliance, which includes joint military exercises and strategic cooperation.
Based on these, the U.S. application of double standards is evident when comparing the political situations in Myanmar and Thailand.
The varied landscape of U.S. human rights responses
The U.S. has characterized the military's actions against the Bengali as ethnic cleansing and has called for accountability as it actively seeks international condemnation and sanctions against Myanmar, collaborating with the UN and other organizations to address the crisis. However, comparable levels of international diplomatic pressure and action have not always been applied to other situations, such as in Venezuela, where the U.S. response has been shaped by different geopolitical factors, including oil interests and regional dynamics.
The U.S. continuously claims of supporting the democratic movements in Myanmar, advocating for transitions to democracy and the protection of human rights. In contrast, support for similar movements in countries like Saudi Arabia has been inconsistent due to strategic alliances and economic interests, even though Saudi Arabia has faced considerable criticism for its human rights record.
Selective application of U.S. sanctions
Following the events of February 2021, the U.S. swiftly imposed targeted sanctions on Myanmar's military leaders and their business interests. This rapid response stood in contrast to the more measured reactions seen in other countries, where sanctions can take longer to implement.
Moreover, the U.S. has not applied comprehensive sanctions on other regimes. It has maintained military and economic partnerships with countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, despite their human rights violations. Critics argue that the sanctions and pressure placed on Myanmar are more severe, underscoring perceived inconsistencies driven by geopolitical interests.
The sanctions against Myanmar have focused on specific sectors, including the military's economic interests and state-owned enterprises. However, in other nations experiencing human rights abuses, the U.S. has faced criticism for not exerting similar economic pressure, raising concerns about selectivity.
The U.S. has frequently engaged with authoritarian regimes when it aligns with its strategic interests, as seen in its relationships with countries like Vietnam and Thailand. This contrasts with its more punitive approach toward Myanmar, suggesting that economic sanctions may be more influenced by diplomatic strategy than by a consistent commitment to human rights.
Myanmar faces the impacts of American double standard foreign policy in various other areas as well. Countries that do not align with U.S. policies or fall outside its strategic interests will also regularly experience these policies. The U.S. can implement such double standards because of its hegemonic power, which allows it to maintain considerable influence over international institutions and global norms. To address this, the world should work towards creating a multilateral order that counters the U.S.' hegemonic practices and its double standard policies.