The current genocide in Myanmar against the minority Rohingya muslims is forcing numerous Rohingyas to flee, finding difficulty at getting a home in other nations. The US has also been criticized of not using its right as a world superpower to help this nation at such unfortunate times. While others say that getting involved with another nation would anger the world. The Rohingya genocide is a very horrendous crisis that the government will not solve in Myanmar. The US, as said on one side of the argument, should use its right to protect a developing nation as a world superpower. Yet others claim that given our past in helping other nations during crises (the Middle East), it hasn’t ended well and was always in the US’ interests. Hence, should the US use its right to protect in this crisis, and to what extent should it use such power? Although the US hasn’t always been successful in protecting other nations in times of crises, I believe they should use their right to protect carefully, keeping the interests of the Rohingya people in mind, to help aid victims of the genocide.
The government of Myanmar has been ordering persecutions of Rohingya muslims. Military force has been used to kick out these people, with the aim of making Myanmar homogeneously Buddhist. Suu kyi, although awarded nobly for her leadership and humanitarian work, has been ignoring this series of persecutions. The US is a world superpower and has the power to help this nation. It has done so in the past. Day by day the Rohingya people are fleeing, trying to find refuge in nations like India and Bangladesh. In the past, however, like Afghanistan, the US has intervened to protect and it ended in wars, entanglements, and extremist groups.
Although it’s important for the United States to use its responsibility to protect within the Myanmar crisis, many oppose further intervention in other nations. Looking at past experiences, whenever America attempted to aid states facing crises, it’s done more bad than good. Take our previous aid to Afghanistan. We attempted to help the freedom fighters against the Russians, however in doing so we planted our own spies to spy on the Russians. In addition, we supplied numerous weapons to the Afghanis to overthrow the Russians. In the end we did help them kick out the Russians, however extremism arose. The spies that we planted in Afghanistan turned into the extremist organization the Taliban, which led the path to other groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIS. Also, with our weapons, the groups were supplied to fight back against the US in the future when tensions arose. Hence, many have argued that the US intervening in Myanmar would have a similar effect. That this could end up hurting the Burmese people, and worsening the Rohingya situation.
The issue isn’t the fact that US intervened with nations like Afghanistan, it’s how they did it and for what interests they were doing it for. When we intervened in Afghanistan, it wasn’t necessarily to help the people there. It was a tactic to oppose Russia, to protect democracy and make sure communism doesn’t spread. With this, the US didn’t consciously act on the interests of the Afghanis to take out the Russians, but rather on the anti-Russian sentiment of America. Because of that we didn’t clearly about the implications of our actions in placing spies and supplying them with weapons. However, in the case of Myanmar, we would need to think in terms of the interests of the Burmese and Rohingya people. We would need to make sure that we don’t irrationally place military out of fear on our party. We would strategically place military to pressure and not act, in areas of Rohingya people. With that, the Rohingya people will still be ensured protection while the government’s executions are watched over by a stronger foreign army.
The US could come into Myanmar and go about this as peaceful as possible. They would destabilize military forces by bringing in US troops for pressure. They would set up camps for refuge for the Rohingyas attempting to flee. America could request the government to end the crisis, and if not they would extend their troops nationwide for pressure. The Us would still have to use some military in order to do so, yet the military would be used for purposes of pressure and intimidation. The US going into Myanmar with some troops rather than a few troops is the better option because with no troops there wouldn’t be any intimidation and pressure. Having some troops there, with no purposes of attacking, could intimidate the Myanmar military and pressure the government further. However, the US should go about this carefully, as previously in Afghanistan such troops turned into extremist groups.
This crisis is for sure a humanitarian issue, whether or not a genocide. The US being a world superpower should use its responsibility to protect to go into the nation, use its military to pressure, and destabilize Myanmar troops that are attacking the Rohingya people. That being said, the US must responsibly use such a responsibility to aid with the crisis, rather than previously in Afghanistan.