Double Standards? Examining Western Sanctions On Myanmar's Military And The Arakan Army

Axel S�rensen

6 min read

Post on May 13, 2025

4.6

Share

The Tatmadaw's Actions and Western Sanctions

The Tatmadaw's brutal crackdown on ethnic minorities, most notably the Rohingya genocide of 2017, has resulted in widespread condemnation and the imposition of various sanctions. These actions, documented by numerous human rights organizations and international bodies, constitute grave breaches of international law. The atrocities inflicted upon the Rohingya population, including mass killings, widespread rape, and the burning of villages, represent crimes against humanity.

The international community responded with targeted sanctions, including:

• Asset freezes: Freezing assets held by key military officials and entities in Western banks.
• Travel bans: Preventing sanctioned individuals from entering Western countries.
• Arms embargoes: Restricting the sale and transfer of weapons to the Myanmar military.

However, the effectiveness of these sanctions remains a subject of debate. While some argue they have limited the Tatmadaw's access to certain resources and put pressure on the regime, others point to the ongoing violence and the military's continued defiance as evidence of their inadequacy.

• Specific examples of Tatmadaw atrocities: The systematic destruction of Rohingya villages in Rakhine State, the mass killings in the 2017 crackdown, and ongoing human rights violations against other ethnic groups.
• Details of specific sanctions imposed: The EU and US have imposed sanctions on numerous high-ranking military officials, including Min Aung Hlaing, the head of the Tatmadaw.
• Evidence of the sanctions’ effectiveness (or lack thereof): The continued flow of arms from other countries, and the persistence of human rights abuses, indicate limited effectiveness.

The Arakan Army's Activities and the Lack of Equivalent Sanctions

The Arakan Army (AA), an ethnic armed organization fighting for autonomy in Rakhine State, has also been accused of human rights violations, including attacks on civilians and the use of landmines. While the AA’s actions are undeniably concerning, the absence of comparable Western sanctions against them raises questions about consistency in applying international pressure. This discrepancy fuels the perception of double standards in the international response to the Myanmar conflict.

Potential reasons for this different treatment include:

• Geopolitical considerations: Western powers might prioritize engagement with certain actors based on strategic interests or regional alliances.

• Information asymmetry: The information available on the AA's actions might be less comprehensive than that on the Tatmadaw’s, hindering the imposition of targeted sanctions.

• Differing levels of international condemnation: The scale and severity of the Tatmadaw's atrocities might outweigh those allegedly committed by the AA, although this requires further investigation.

• Specific instances of alleged human rights abuses by the AA: Reports of attacks on civilian populations and the use of landmines.

• Comparison of AA’s actions with those of the Tatmadaw: The scale and systematic nature of the Tatmadaw's violence significantly outweighs that attributed to the AA.

• Discussion of potential geopolitical factors influencing sanctions: The relative lack of Western influence in the AA’s sphere of operations and a potential focus on containing the Tatmadaw's influence in the region.

Exploring the Perceived Double Standard

The disparate treatment of the Tatmadaw and the AA highlights a perceived double standard in the application of Western sanctions. This inconsistency undermines the credibility of international efforts to promote accountability for human rights violations in Myanmar. Geopolitical factors, strategic alliances, and the complexity of the conflict itself all play a role in shaping foreign policy decisions.

Arguments against the double standard include the significantly greater scale and systematic nature of the Tatmadaw’s atrocities and the potential for applying different strategies depending on the nature of the conflict participants.

• Examples of double standards in international relations: This situation mirrors other cases where sanctions are inconsistently applied based on geopolitical factors rather than solely on human rights violations.
• Analysis of the strategic interests of Western powers: Balancing the need to protect human rights with broader strategic concerns in the region.
• The impact of the perception of injustice on civilian populations: The perception of uneven application of justice exacerbates suffering and fuels further conflict.

International Law and Humanitarian Concerns

International humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law (IHRL) are both relevant to the situation in Myanmar. The Tatmadaw’s actions clearly violate numerous provisions of these laws, providing a legal basis for sanctions. The alleged human rights violations committed by the AA also fall under the purview of IHL and IHRL, raising questions about why equivalent sanctions have not been applied.

The ongoing conflict has resulted in a devastating humanitarian crisis, with widespread displacement, civilian casualties, and a severe lack of access to basic necessities.

• Relevant international treaties and conventions: The Geneva Conventions, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and various human rights treaties.
• Legal arguments for and against sanctions against both groups: The clear violation of IHL and IHRL by the Tatmadaw justifies sanctions; the lack of similar action against the AA raises questions about legal consistency.
• Data on civilian casualties and displacement: Numerous reports from UN agencies and human rights organizations document the scale of suffering among Myanmar's civilian populations.

Conclusion: Re-evaluating Western Sanctions on Myanmar

The perceived double standards in the application of Western sanctions on Myanmar's military and the Arakan Army raise serious concerns about the efficacy and fairness of the international response to the crisis. A consistent and just approach is crucial for holding all actors accountable for their actions and promoting lasting peace. The current system seems to fall short, failing to address the root causes of the conflict and leaving vulnerable populations exposed to violence.

We need a more comprehensive and equitable sanctions regime that addresses human rights abuses irrespective of the perpetrators' political affiliation. This requires greater transparency, a thorough investigation into all sides of the conflict, and a commitment to applying international law consistently. We encourage readers to further engage with the issue, researching the human rights organizations involved and advocating for a more just and effective approach to the ongoing crisis in Myanmar. The future of Myanmar depends on a re-evaluation of current strategies concerning Western sanctions on Myanmar's military and the Arakan Army.