Addressing Human Rights Abuses in Myanmar

Author: Shelley Nguyen

April 3, 2025

[Image credit: Unsplash/Pyae Sone Htun]

Introduction

Myanmar used to be well on its way to democracy, being ruled by civilian rulers, and supposed to pave the way for other Southeast Asian countries to achieve regime change and democratization. However, in the past three years, its democratic regime was overtaken by the junta, the military group, causing violence and the rise of many armed opposition groups. The military conflict has led to violence and human rights violations, and the situation has worsened since the military coup in February 2021. 

Background

Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, had its first election in 2010, which was the first step towards democracy and a push for civilian rule despite the restrictions on opposition parties. In 2015, the National League for Democracy (NLD) party, led by Aung San Suu Kyi, won the election and became the legitimate ruler of the country to the United Nations (UN) and other international actors. The NLD's victory was a major shift in civilian and democratic governance. Meanwhile, the junta still had power in security matters and the constitutional amendment process because it guaranteed its influence in politics by drafting a constitution in 2008 that allowed it to control parts of national security and have significant influence in parliament. At this point, the government was shared by civilian and military actors. 

The balance between civilian and military rule was changed when the junta started a coup in February 2021 after losing another national election. The junta, fearing loss of control of the government, decided to take over and create an illegitimate government that coerced others to abide by its rule through violence and intimidation. Its action sparked protests from opposition groups from all ethnicities in Myanmar. In response, the junta began cracking down on armed opposition groups and any individuals critical of the regime. The battle between the two sides and violence intensified and spread all over Myanmar. In addition, the junta escalated its “‘Four Cut’ strategy, which cut opposition groups off from funding, food, intelligence, and recruitment”, resulting in human rights violations, including the right to life, health, and an adequate standard of living. By restricting food supply, it contributed to starvation and health deterioration. 

Significance

The ongoing human rights violations in Myanmar are of domestic and international concern. The junta has implemented policies and used weapons to intentionally endanger and injure their citizens. 

For example, the justice system has been corrupted. The junta unjustly arrested pro-democracy supporters, such as activists, journalists, lawyers, and armed ethnic groups, by depriving them of a fair trial. In addition, these detainees have faced ill-treatment while in custody. In one instance, a journalist stated that “guards raped and beat him in detention”. There was even evidence of killing. According to Human Right Watch, the deaths of six detained activists involved “apparent torture”, indicating that law enforcement and its correctional system are corrupt and infringe on the citizens’ human rights. 

Additionally, the junta has arrested opposition activists to suppress their freedom of speech. For example, the military regime enacted a social media endorsement, which sentenced anyone who liked or shared any social media posts that were opposed to the junta to 10 years of imprisonment. 

Moreover, the junta has committed war crimes. It was supplied with weapons and artillery to execute air strikes and raids on civilians and villages, damaging villages and their infrastructures and causing civilian deaths, injuries, and displacement. In one instance, on September 16, 2022, the junta’s helicopters carried out an infantry attack on a school in Let Yet Kone, Sagaing Region, firing rockets and machine guns at children.  

Opposition activists and children were not the only targets of the junta; so were the Rohingya. Before the military coup, the Rohingya had already been restricted to living in the Rakhine state, where they faced apartheid, persecution, and loss of liberty. The persecution progressed as they were also sent to detention camps, where they were poorly treated as outsiders. After the coup, the junta initiated Pan Khin, or the Flowerbed project, coercing the Rohingya to accept identification as foreigners in their own country. As a result, some international actors, such as the U.S., China, and ASEAN, argue that the treatment of the Rohingya people is genocide, some even calling it an ethnic cleansing. 

The collection of human rights violations has displaced many Burmese, forcing most of them to flee to Bangladesh or Malaysia. As of January 2025, Bangladesh is hosting over 1 million Burmese refugees, approximately 70% of the total refugee population. Malaysia hosts about 171,100 Myanmar refugees, accounting for 12.6% of this population. The junta has blocked humanitarian aid to refugee camps and displaced people with their “Four Cuts” strategy. According to Human Rights Watch, security forces have imposed travel restrictions on humanitarian workers, blocked access roads and aid convoys, destroyed non-military supplies, and attacked aid workers. By weaponizing international aid, Myanmar is also affecting other states’ behavior. 

Historical Involvement of International Powers

The U.S. has been involved with Myanmar’s situation. Previously, the U.S. had supported democratic regimes and the promotion of democratic values by sanctioning military actors or anyone involved in repressive military rule. In 2015, when the NLD party won the election, the U.S. lifted its sanction for the first time in decades. Now that the repression by the military regime has intensified, the U.S. is more drawn to the situation. In addition, the U.S. has an incentive to impose its influence on Southeast Asia and counter China’s goals for the region by imposing human rights and diplomatic principles. 

China, another great power, has also taken an interest in Myanmar. At first, China exercised a non-interference policy and belief in sovereignty. As a result, it did not interfere with Myanmar’s affairs and the military coup, refraining from criticizing its human rights violations. However, this policy has changed since Myanmar’s criminal activities and violence has reached China’s borders. For example, the junta has taken over the city of Laukkai, which is near the Chinese-Myanmar border, causing mass population displacement into China. Therefore, China has facilitated a ceasefire with the Three Brotherhood Alliance. In addition, Laukkai is a hub for “pig butchering” scams, which allow Myanmar gangs to lure Chinese citizens into “cyber slavery”. China has become impatient with Myanmar’s inability to crack down on criminal activities against Chinese citizens, and wants some control over the illicit trade to ensure that it will benefit its businesses and protect its citizens. In summary, China has been more involved with Myanmar because criminal activity has reached its borders. 

Similarly, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is concerned about the current state of Myanmar. Human rights violations have destabilized the region, driving Burmese civilians to neighboring countries, such as Bangladesh and ASEAN members Thailand and  Laos. The goal of ASEAN is to protect regional stability and the unity of member countries. However, Myanmar’s human rights violations impede this objective, dividing ASEAN countries that have different opinions. For instance, Thailand and Cambodia have a history of military coups and military presence, so they would be contradicting their regime by being anti-junta. On the other hand, Singapore, Laos, and Vietnam have called for a peaceful resolution and anti-junta actions. 

Course of Action: the United States

The U.S. takes a liberalist approach to addressing the human rights abuses in Myanmar. Specifically, it uses the republican liberalism theory, which emphasizes democratic peace. First, the U.S. has responded to these violations by providing humanitarian aid by funding NGOs that send aid to Burmese people at the Myanmar-Thai border. Also, the USAID has worked with the Burmese civil society to facilitate regional elections and media usage, supporting the promotion of democracy and freedom of the press. Since the military coup, the U.S. has also taken steps to pressure the junta in an attempt to steer Myanmar back to democracy. For example, on February 10, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 14014, setting a framework for U.S. sanctions to impose costs on the military regime by holding military leaders accountable for human rights abuses while preventing economic harm to the people. In addition, the U.S. has set travel restrictions on the military leaders and temporary protected status for Burmese citizens in the U.S. By doing so, the U.S. helps Burmese people eligible for asylum while ensuring that the military coup does not spread beyond Myanmar. 

By using humanitarian aid and sanctions to uphold democratic values and human rights norms, the U.S. is consistent with liberalism. However, Executive Order 14014 has limitations. For example, Myanmar has alternative sources and can turn to China for weapon supplies. Sanctions also prevent the U.S. from having ties with military leaders, thus reducing its influence in the country. 

Course of Action: China 

China takes a realist approach to Myanmar’s human rights issues. Realism is the idea that states only act when there is a present security threat to their state. Such as in this case, China only has an interest in Myanmar’s affairs when there is a cybersecurity threat to Chinese citizens targeted by gangs linked to the junta and because it also wants to protect its economic interests there.

That said, China has also responded to the human rights violations and increased violence in Myanmar. It was involved in facilitating a ceasefire between the junta and the Three Brother Alliance, a coalition of opposition groups. At first, China played both sides by supplying weapons to both. For example, it aided armed opposition groups in Operation 1027. This operation was carried out on October 27, 2023, by ethnic armed groups in the northern Shan State whose objective was to gain territory and overthrow the junta. Now, China is calling for a ceasefire to ensure that the Three Brothers Alliance does not launch offensive attacks, and the junta agrees not to use airstrikes and heavy weapons, potentially enhancing its regional influence and advancing diplomatic solutions and dialogue. 

However, China’s proposal is a short-term solution. Although it will stop the violence, it does not address human rights violations. Also, all parties remain uncommitted. Both the opposition groups and the junta do not want to appear weak; as a result, they refuse to uphold the ceasefire and continue the territorial dispute. As for China, it is opposed to Western democratic values and has a commitment to uphold sovereignty; therefore, it is less inclined to fully commit to enforcing a ceasefire. 

Course of Action: ASEAN 

ASEAN takes a constructivist approach to addressing Myanmar’s human rights abuses by prioritizing identity and norms to shape state behaviors. The Burmese conflict has divided the ASEAN community, with different states having differing opinions on whether to support the military regime, according to the state’s identity and domestic politics. For instance, Thailand has had military coups; therefore, it is reluctant to intervene in Myanmar's affairs. In contrast, other countries, such as Singapore, Laos, and Vietnam, are inclined to call for a peaceful resolution. Overall, ASEAN upholds the norm for the settlement of disputes by peaceful means and cooperation among its member countries. Thus, it is pushing for a peaceful dialogue to promote negotiation and, eventually, a peaceful resolution. 

ASEAN has taken a similar approach to that of China. Previously, ASEAN abided by its “ASEAN Way”, i.e., not interfering in the internal affairs of other countries. However, this has changed due to the escalation of the situation in Myanmar. In April 2021, a summit was held in Jakarta, Indonesia, to discuss moving away from non-interference in the case of Myanmar. Since then, ASEAN has constructed the “Five Point Consensus", which calls for providing humanitarian aid to the Burmese people19. It also hosted a summit in Laos to facilitate dialogue among ASEAN countries to discuss human rights violations by Myanmar’s junta. Like China, ASEAN has gone from non-interference to sending aid to Myanmar. 

If ASEAN can maintain an internal dialogue, it will enhance its influence on the region and strengthen its legitimacy, leading to regional stability. In addition, it may increase cooperation and diplomatic progress, leading to negotiation and peaceful resolution for all parties in Myanmar. 

However, there are limitations to this approach. Evidently, Myanmar is not incentivized to cooperate with other countries and participate in the dialogue. Moreover, ASEAN does not have economic leverage or enforcement power over Myanmar to enforce compliance with the Five Point Consensus and engagement in the dialogue. Without dialogue and participation from all parties in Myanmar, human rights issues will not be addressed, and the resolution process will be impeded.

Recommendation 

All of these countries have a common goal, which is to address the human rights issues and violence in Myanmar perpetrated by the junta, despite their different motives. It is also clear that both China and ASEAN want to achieve this objective through dialogue. However, ASEAN lacks the leverage, and China lacks the incentive to prioritize human rights. On the other hand, U.S. policies have been to impose sanctions on anyone affiliated with the junta; this strategy is ineffective, as it does nothing to influence the military. Therefore, the U.S. must take a more active role in promoting human rights and engaging with the military instead of targeting it. 

On the other hand, the best and alternative approach to the proposed policies is a multilateral diplomatic engagement, which requires the U.S., China, and ASEAN to work together to facilitate dialogue between the junta and opposition groups. China can provide the leverage that ASEAN lacks, as it is the only country that can get the two sides to come to an agreement. The only impediment to this strategy is that China does not have an incentive to promote human rights. However, the U.S. does have that motive and can contribute. To implement this strategy, ASEAN can provide a platform for dialogue through summits. China can work off of the already-established ceasefire and push for progress in diplomatic conversations. The U.S. can agree to attend the summits as an advocate for human rights and strengthen the legitimacy and effectiveness of ASEAN. In summary, the success of a multilateral diplomatic engagement requires an active role of both regional and external powers. 

Conclusion

The military coup in Myanmar has led to human rights violations against the citizens. As a result, world powers, such as the U.S. and China as well as ASEAN, have acted to alleviate the situation. The U.S., wanting to uphold democracy and human rights norms, has imposed sanctions against military personnel and provided aid to the Burmese people. Meanwhile, China, motivated by security reasons, has called for a ceasefire between opposition groups and the junta. On the other hand, ASEAN has attempted to facilitate a dialogue for all parties of Myanmar through the Five Point Consensus to maintain stability in the region. However, all these policies have limitations, such as a lack of influence or commitment. The alternative policy choice will be a multilateral diplomatic engagement that requires active participation from regional and external powers. The complexity of the regime should be further analyzed, as well as the consideration of different ethnic groups.

---

Glossary

• ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations): A regional organization of Southeast Asian countries, promoting political and economic cooperation and regional stability. Apartheid: A system of institutionalized racial segregation and discrimination. Ceasefire: A temporary suspension of fighting between conflicting parties, typically arranged as part of peace negotiations. 

• Democratic Peace Theory: A theory in international relations suggesting that democratic nations are less likely to engage in armed conflict with one another. 

• Four Cuts Strategy: A counter-insurgency strategy used by Myanmar’s military to cut off opposition groups from food, funds, intelligence, and recruits. 

• Junta: A government led by military leaders after a coup d'état. 

• National League for Democracy (NLD): A political party in Myanmar led by Aung San Suu Kyi, advocating for democracy and civilian governance. 

• Pan Khin (Flowerbed Project): A policy initiative by the Myanmar military government that coerces the Rohingya people to accept foreigner-like identification documents. Rohingya: A Muslim minority group in Myanmar subjected to persecution and discrimination by the government and military. 

• Sanctions: Economic and political penalties imposed by one country or a group of countries to influence the behavior of another nation. 

• Sovereignty: The authority of a state to govern itself without external interference.

• Three Brotherhood Alliance: An alliance of opposition ethnic armed groups in Myanmar.

• USAID (United States Agency for International Development): A U.S. government agency responsible for providing foreign aid and development assistance.

• War Crimes: Serious violations of the laws and customs of war, including attacks on civilians and the use of prohibited weapons.

---

Sources

1. “ASEAN Urges’ Myanmar-Owned and Led Solution’ to Crisis Triggered by Coup.” Al Jazeera, Al Jazeera, January 30, 2024, www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/30/asean-urges-myanmar-owned-and-led-solution-to-crisis-triggered-by-coup

2. “Burma: Background and U.S. Relations - CRS Reports.” Congressional Research Service, Congressional Research Service, February 21, 2023, crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12331

3. Ewe, Koh. “Why Southeast Asia Just Can’t Seem to Cut off Myanmar’s Junta.” Time, Time, 20 Oct. 2023, time.com/6326274/asean-myanmar-junta-trade/

4. Hnin, Phyu. “How a Fractured Myanmar Is Navigating U.S.-China Rivalry.” United States Institute of Peace, April 4, 2024, www.usip.org/publications/2024/04/how-fractured-myanmar-navigating-us-china-rivalry

5. “Human Rights in Myanmar.” Amnesty International, 2024, www.amnesty.org/en/location/asia-and-the-pacific/south-east-asia-and-the-pacific/myan mar/report-myanmar/

6. International Relations of Asia, edited by David Shambaugh, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated, 2022. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/umw/detail.action?docID=6954745

7. “Myanmar’s Military, Ethnic Armed Groups Agree to China-Mediated Truce.” Al Jazeera, Al Jazeera, January 13, 2024, www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/12/myanmars-military-ethnic-armed-groups-agree-to-china-mediated-truce

8. Palmer, James. “Is China Playing Both Sides in Myanmar?” Foreign Policy, Foreign Policy, January 10, 2024, foreignpolicy.com/2024/01/09/myanmar-china-border-offensive-cyberscams-three-brothe rhood-alliance/

9. Sun, Yun. “Operation 1027: Changing the Tides of the Myanmar Civil War?” Brookings, The Brookings Institute, January 16, 2024, www.brookings.edu/articles/operation-1027-changing-the-tides-of-the-myanmar-civil-war/

10. “U.S. Relations with Burma - United States Department of State.” U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of State, April 26, 2023, www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-burma/

11. “World Report 2023: Rights Trends in Myanmar.” Human Rights Watch, January 20, 2023, www.hrw.org/world-report/2023/country-chapters/myanmar#:~:text=Since%20staging% 20a%20coup%20on,amount%20to%20crimes%20against%20humanity