Myanmar: Civil War and Instability
The military coup in Myanmar on February 1, 2021, marked a pivotal moment in the nation’s political history, abruptly ending a decade-long experiment with semi-democratic governance. The Tatmadaw, Myanmar’s powerful military, seized control of the government, detaining civilian leaders including Aung San Suu Kyi and declaring a state of emergency. This action triggered a massive wave of civil disobedience, public protests, and, eventually, an armed resistance movement known as the People’s Defense Forces (PDF). As the conflict has deepened, the situation in Myanmar has evolved into a full-blown civil war, with ethnic armed organizations (EAOs) and civilian resistance groups engaging in guerrilla warfare against the military regime.
Beyond Myanmar’s borders, the ongoing crisis has begun to exert a profound impact on regional stability. With hundreds of thousands displaced, international humanitarian concerns mounting, and foreign powers grappling with the strategic consequences, Myanmar’s internal conflict is now a pressing issue not just for its people, but for Southeast Asia as a whole. This article explores the key issues emerging from the civil war, the responses by regional actors, and the potential avenues toward resolution.
Humanitarian Crisis: Refugees and Internal Displacement
The civil war has generated a severe humanitarian crisis. According to United Nations estimates, over 2 million people have been internally displaced due to military operations, aerial bombings, and ground skirmishes. Entire communities have been uprooted, with civilians caught in the crossfire or deliberately targeted by the military in reprisal attacks. Internally displaced persons (IDPs) are often left with inadequate shelter, food, and medical care, especially in remote or conflict-prone areas.
Moreover, the conflict has driven a significant number of refugees across Myanmar’s borders, particularly into Thailand, India, and Bangladesh. In India’s northeastern states such as Mizoram and Manipur, ethnic kinship with those fleeing from Chin State has led to grassroots humanitarian efforts, though national policy remains ambivalent. Bangladesh, already overwhelmed with Rohingya refugees from the earlier 2017 crisis, faces additional pressure and security risks.
Health infrastructure has collapsed in many parts of the country. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated these challenges, especially after the military targeted healthcare workers and facilities associated with the Civil Disobedience Movement. Food insecurity, lack of access to clean water, and interrupted education for millions of children now pose long-term developmental threats.
ASEAN’s Response: Divisions Over Intervention
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has faced criticism for its tepid and fragmented response. While ASEAN traditionally adheres to a principle of non-interference, the sheer scale of the humanitarian disaster and its regional fallout have compelled some level of engagement. In April 2021, ASEAN leaders agreed on a Five-Point Consensus, calling for an end to violence, dialogue among all parties, humanitarian assistance, and the appointment of a special envoy.
However, implementation has been inconsistent. The Myanmar junta has repeatedly ignored ASEAN’s calls, refused to grant full access to the envoy, and continued military offensives unabated. Internal divisions within ASEAN—notably between democratic members like Indonesia and authoritarian governments more sympathetic to Myanmar’s military regime—have undermined collective action.
Cambodia’s rotating ASEAN chairmanship in 2022 saw little progress, though Indonesia, as chair in 2023, attempted a more assertive diplomatic role. Nonetheless, the lack of enforcement mechanisms and the military’s intransigence have rendered ASEAN largely ineffective in influencing outcomes.
China and India’s Interests: Strategic Stakes in Myanmar
Both China and India have strategic interests in Myanmar and have approached the crisis from a geopolitical rather than humanitarian lens. For China, Myanmar is a critical component of its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), with key infrastructure projects like the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor (CMEC) linking Yunnan province to the Indian Ocean. Beijing maintains ties with both the junta and several EAOs, playing a delicate balancing act to safeguard its interests.
China has blocked strong UN Security Council action against the junta and prefers quiet diplomacy to maintain regional stability. It is concerned about the instability spilling over into its border regions and the safety of its investments. Chinese nationals and infrastructure have occasionally been targeted by resistance groups, adding a layer of complexity to its engagement.
India, for its part, values Myanmar as a buffer against Chinese influence and a partner in counter-insurgency cooperation along its northeastern border. India has been cautious, avoiding open condemnation of the military coup and maintaining engagement with the junta while quietly supporting humanitarian relief in border areas. However, escalating violence and refugee flows into Indian territory pose domestic political and security challenges for New Delhi.
Potential Resolutions
International Mediation: Pushing for Political Dialogue
Given the impasse, international mediation may offer a viable path forward. While Western powers have imposed sanctions and called for a return to democracy, meaningful change will likely require a broader coalition including ASEAN, China, and India. The United Nations has a role to play in facilitating dialogue, but its influence is limited without the backing of regional powers.
A neutral third-party mediator—potentially a trusted ASEAN country like Indonesia or a non-aligned nation such as Norway—could broker preliminary talks. However, for dialogue to succeed, the military must be pressured into concessions, and resistance groups must be included as legitimate stakeholders. Any process must address federalism, ethnic minority rights, and constitutional reform to ensure sustainable peace.
Targeted Sanctions: Pressuring the Junta
Sanctions remain a key tool for the international community to pressure the junta. The United States, the European Union, and other Western countries have implemented targeted sanctions against military leaders, arms suppliers, and military-linked businesses. These measures have disrupted some of the regime’s financial networks but have yet to significantly alter its behavior.
To be effective, sanctions must be coordinated and comprehensive, minimizing loopholes that the junta can exploit. Pressure must also extend to countries and companies continuing to do business with the regime. Financial transparency initiatives, arms embargoes, and diplomatic isolation can collectively raise the cost of the military’s actions.
At the same time, care must be taken to ensure that sanctions do not worsen the humanitarian situation or alienate local populations. Support for civil society organizations, cross-border aid, and investment in post-conflict recovery planning are essential complements to punitive measures.
—
Myanmar’s civil war has transformed from a domestic political crisis into a regional emergency with far-reaching implications. The humanitarian toll is staggering, ASEAN’s unity is strained, and the strategic interests of major powers like China and India complicate any straightforward resolution. Yet, inaction is no longer viable. The international community must adopt a multifaceted approach combining diplomacy, pressure, and support for grassroots resilience. Only through coordinated efforts can Myanmar hope to emerge from this crisis and rebuild a future rooted in peace, justice, and inclusive governance.