This article originally appeared at: https://newsable.asianetnews.com/world/geopolitical-games-in-south-asia-how-external-powers-exploit-myanmar-humanitarian-crisis-opinion-snt/articleshow-mcgzsgs#google_vignette
South Asia’s delicate regional balance faces unprecedented challenges as major powers pursue competing geopolitical goals that threaten to undermine the fragile stability achieved over decades. The combination of great power competition and humanitarian crises has created a perfect storm of instability. Myanmar‘s ongoing crisis is a clear example of how external interventions can exacerbate regional tensions and overshadow genuine humanitarian needs.
China’s Strategic Penetration Through Myanmar
An example of how outside powers can use humanitarian crises to further their geopolitical goals is China’s relationship with Myanmar. In a clever hedging move that supports Beijing‘s larger regional goals, China has maintained friendly ties with Myanmar’s military junta since the February 2021 military coup while also interacting with ethnic armed groups.
The strategic calculation behind Beijing’s humanitarian rhetoric is demonstrated by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s promise of unwavering support for Myanmar’s military government, saying that China will support Myanmar “no matter how the situation changes”. With China recently promising $3 billion in aid to the junta, including funds for a census and planned “elections” that would legitimise military rule, this support has increased considerably.
A key component of China’s strategy to use Myanmar’s isolation to gain strategic access to the Indian Ocean is the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor (CMEC), a pillar of the Belt and Road Initiative. This economic engagement accomplishes two goals: it builds dependencies that can be used as geopolitical leverage and provides China with vital infrastructure to circumvent the Strait of Malacca.
China’s treatment of ethnic armed groups along its border is a prime example of how it manipulates humanitarian spaces. China maintains ties with different ethnic groups while openly backing the military junta, justifying its engagement in internal conflicts on the basis of humanitarian concerns. Beijing is able to maintain border security and establish itself as a crucial mediator thanks to this dual engagement, successfully manipulating the humanitarian narrative to further its strategic goals.
US Strategic Responses and Their Destabilising Effects
Humanitarian intervention can become entangled with wider geopolitical competition, potentially undermining both humanitarian goals and regional stability, as demonstrated by the United States’ approach to the Myanmar crisis. Competing strategic priorities and the legacy of a larger US-China rivalry in the region have complicated US efforts to achieve its goals through diplomatic outreach, sanctions, and support for resistance actors.
The US has attempted to exert pressure on Myanmar’s military while assisting pro-democracy forces, as evidenced by the BURMA Act and the stringent sanctions regime. However, this strategy has had unforeseen repercussions that could destabilise the entire region. Despite its moral justification, the US’s designation of Myanmar’s treatment of the Rohingya as genocide has exacerbated the crisis’s geopolitical divisions.
The humanitarian situation in Myanmar has changed significantly as a result of the US Indo-Pacific Strategy’s focus on limiting China’s influence. By framing the crisis within broader strategic competition, the US has inadvertently pushed China to deepen its support for the military junta, creating a dynamic where humanitarian needs become secondary to geopolitical positioning. The international response has been divided mainly by this strategic rivalry, with the US and its allies pursuing unilateral sanctions, while China and Russia have obstructed UN Security Council resolutions.
Changing US priorities can lead to power vacuums that destabilise regional humanitarian systems, as demonstrated by the Trump administration’s cuts to humanitarian programs and the recent dissolution of USAID. The humanitarian situation is further complicated by these policy changes, which provide China with opportunities to increase its influence through various aid channels.
Humanitarian Spaces as Battlegrounds for Influence
A larger trend of how outside powers use crises to further their strategic objectives is reflected in Myanmar’s manipulation of humanitarian spaces. Chinese diplomatic protection and economic support have made it possible for the military junta to implement its strategy of blocking life-saving humanitarian aid from reaching those in need. This manipulation illustrates how geopolitical considerations can supersede humanitarian principles, with devastating consequences for populations already vulnerable.
A broader geopolitical game has made Myanmar’s estimated 1.5 million internally displaced people into pawns. By preserving border stability and hindering the rise of a democratic government that might be more aligned with Western interests, China supports the junta’s restrictions on humanitarian access, which benefits Beijing strategically.
Regional Spillover Effects and Future Implications
External intervention in Myanmar has destabilising effects that spread throughout South Asia and go well beyond its boundaries. While the wider Myanmar crisis poses a threat to destabilise ASEAN and jeopardise regional cooperation mechanisms, the Rohingya crisis has already put a strain on Bangladesh’s resources and strained relations with India.
The concentration of external powers’ attention on Myanmar has created a template for similar interventions across South Asia. The crisis demonstrates how humanitarian emergencies can become vehicles for broader geopolitical competition, with smaller states increasingly caught between competing power centres. This dynamic threatens to fragment South Asian regionalism and create new sources of instability.
Given South Asia’s susceptibility to natural disasters and climate change, the long-term effects of this geopolitical rivalry are especially worrisome. Given the growing humanitarian challenges in the region, the precedent set by the outside manipulation of Myanmar’s crisis raises the possibility that future crises will be handled more strategically rather than through sincere humanitarian cooperation.
The Myanmar crisis serves as a cautionary tale about how external geopolitical ambitions can transform humanitarian emergencies into instruments of strategic competition. China’s calculated support for Myanmar’s military junta and the US response has created a dangerous precedent where humanitarian needs become secondary to broader strategic calculations. This dynamic threatens not only the immediate welfare of Myanmar’s population but also the stability of South Asia as a whole.
The manipulation of humanitarian spaces by external powers represents a fundamental challenge to the principles of humanitarian action and regional stability. As South Asia faces an uncertain future marked by climate change, resource scarcity, and continued geopolitical competition, the lessons from Myanmar’s crisis underscore the urgent need for mechanisms that can protect humanitarian principles from geopolitical manipulation. Without such safeguards, the region’s fragile balance will remain perpetually vulnerable to the competing agendas of external powers.
