This is nothing that we have not seen before. Domestic disputes of one country often turn into international conflicts as global forces vie for their own personal interests. This might be to gain a sphere of influence, or to oppose that of another country.
In Myanmar, what started off as a pro-democracy rebellion against the military has now turned into a full-blown war involving the US, Russia and China. There is no end in sight and if Yemen and Syria are any examples, countries that are involved are gearing up for a long drawn-out and violent confrontation.
To give some background, in February 2021, Myanmar’s military staged a coup. The junta detained and charged de facto civilian leader Aung San Suu Kyi with corruption and other crimes, and placed her party workers from the National League for Democracy (NLD) under house arrest.
Opposition forces against military rule have formed a shadow government called the National Unity Government (NUG). It comprises the ousted NLD lawmakers, protest leaders and activists. Military (also known as the Tatmadaw) has instituted a brutal crackdown on dissent. It has burned entire villages believed to be supporting the opposition, killing at least 1500 people and displacing many more. It has also created a refugee crisis for neighbouring countries.
NUG’s military wing, known as the People’s Democratic Force (PDF), has met fire with fire. Clashes are now occurring in most major cities and PDF has dealt significant losses to the Tatmadaw undermining their control and grip on the country.
This conflict is not going to end anytime soon. Much can be learned about the future course of events in Myanmar by looking at Syria.
In 2011, pro-democracy demonstrations erupted throughout Syria, fuelled by frustration against high unemployment, corruption and lack of political freedom. Opposition forces demanded the resignation of President Bashar al-Assad. In response, he used deadly force to crush dissent and protests. The country descended into a civil war. However, what started off as a conflict between Syrians for or against Assad turned into a proxy war between foreign powers, with their own competing interests.
Russia launched air strikes in support of Assad in 2015. Their support was crucial in tilting the war in Assad’s favour even though Putin does not even believe in Assad as a leader. His involvement carries deeper significance, rooted in his own personal interests.
The Soviet Union gained a lot of influence in Syria in the 70s and 80s, giving them aid and arms. However, after the fall of the Soviet Union that influence began to wane. Ever since taking power, Putin has been obsessed with the idea of restoring Russia’s sphere of influence to its former glory. In the Middle East, he saw an opportunity in Syria. By backing the Assad led government in the ensuing civil war, Russia was able to flex its own military might and send a message to other countries.
Iran has deployed thousands of troops and spent billions of dollars to support Assad. Iran has its own strategic interests in Syria. The fall of the Assad regime would reduce Iran’s ability to project power, and use air and land routes for trade.
US, UK and France are standing firm behind rebel groups, partly because it is supporting the pro-democracy movement in Syria, but also because it wants to counteract Russia and Iran’s pursuit for a sphere of influence in the region. Turkey has also emerged as a major supporter of the opposition. But their regional interest lies in containing the Kurdish militia that forms part of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).
As the Syrian conflict shows, global forces that become involved in a domestic dispute do not do so to support one side over the other. Rather, they have their own regional and strategic interests and war provides a perfect opportunity to sweep in and exert the level of control and influence they desire. Russia does not care for Assad. Similarly, the US does not care for the SDF. Russia only cares about expanding its own sphere of influence and the US cares about resisting that. Such is the nature of proxy wars.
Signs of a proxy war are already beginning to emerge in Myanmar. China has openly backed the Tatmadaw as it gave them de facto recognition after the coup. Their strategic interests are mostly economic as it is looking to protect its projects and infrastructure in Myanmar, including the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor. Russia has also emerged as a strong supporter of the junta, as it is looking to expand its own military might by cooperating with Myanmar’s military in the fields of defence and science and technology. In the process, they continue to expand their influence in SouthEast Asia.
The US, on the other hand, has passed legislation to impose sanctions on Myanmar. They have also started pressuring countries supporting the junta to withdraw their support. Biden has pledged more aid to NUG, essentially legitimising the opposition group standing up against the Russian backed military. The US has chosen their player in this war.
History teaches us many lessons, if we wish to learn them. If Syria is any example, a proxy war in Myanmar will not only be long, but it will also inflict many casualties, displace many more lives, damage infrastructure, destroy economies, waste resources and create a humanitarian crisis. So how can such a situation be averted?
Firstly, the UN Security Council must take stronger action to put pressure on the military to restore democracy. International response to the war has lacked force and urgency.
Secondly, the international community must make a more concerted effort to make sure humanitarian aid reaches those in need. The 2021 UN Myanmar Humanitarian Response Plan has received only 46 percent of requested funds to date. Such aid is critical as the junta have forcibly displaced more than 230,000 people since taking power. They have burnt entire villages using airstrikes and committed open assault on the healthcare system, believing doctors to be supporters of civil disobedience.
Thirdly, Myanmar must adopt a new constitution. The current constitution was passed in 2008 by the military after the Saffron Revolution, during their previous stint in power. It allowed them to relinquish some control to relieve international pressure and attract foreign investments. However, it was devised in a way that gave military widespread powers even under civilian rule. The Tatmadaw retained control over security and domestic and foreign policy. The 2008 constitution also contained provisions to protect the military’s dominance by reserving seats for the military in the parliament.
A long-drawn-out proxy war in Myanmar can be averted, but swift and firm action will need to be taken now. If instead, global forces use this as an opportunity to exert their own influence in the region, then this will quickly turn into a situation similar to Syria.
As stated, history teaches us many lessons, if we choose to learn them.