Burma represents one of the clearest tests of whether the world still believes that democratic legitimacy, human dignity, and accountability matter.
The situation there has faded in and out of international attention for decades. But since a military coup in 2021 overturned the results of a democratic election and imprisoned elected leaders, Burma’s brutal civil conflict has displaced millions, devastated the economy, targeted civilians, and shattered the country’s fragile institutions.
It was only this past January that the junta finally completed long-promised elections – though they banned many opposition parties, coerced voters, and were widely labeled a sham by observers. Then, in April, Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, who led the coup, was elected president of Burma by the new, military-dominated parliament.
Burma is an American national security issue because it sits at the intersection of strategic fault lines: Chinese regional influence; trafficking networks enabling transnational crime; refugee flows; and maritime security. China, in particular, has sought to maintain ties with the junta to protect its own infrastructure and economic interests, including the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor, which promises to connect China’s Yunnan Province with Burma’s Indian Ocean port of Kyaukphyu in Rakhine State. And Russia has deepened military cooperation with the regime.
And while it’s slipped off the world’s front pages, the scale of suffering in Burma is staggering. The United Nations estimates that more than 18 million people in Burma depend on humanitarian assistance. Millions have been internally displaced or forced to flee to neighboring countries, straining the region’s stability. Airstrikes have destroyed communities. Men and women are subject to arbitrary detention, surveillance, and intimidation.
The impact of this violence will be felt for generations: Children have lost access to schools, health systems have collapsed, and communities have broken.
The treatment of the Rohingya – members of a predominantly Muslim ethnic minority from Burma’s Rakhine State – remains among the gravest moral injuries of this conflict.
Burma has wrestled with the Rohingya question for decades, having historically stripped members of this community of their citizenship and passed laws that restricted their civil liberties and political rights.
While displacement of this vulnerable population began after a brutal 2017 military campaign, the situation has only become more desperate in recent years. Credible human rights and international institutions have documented atrocities, including murder, sexual violence, and forced displacement. Among them was the U.S. State Department, which determined in 2022 that the Burmese military’s actions constituted genocide and crimes against humanity.
The targeting and treatment of the Rohingya by Burma is now in front of the International Court of Justice as a genocide case, a significant step toward accountability.
On a broader scale, the junta has torn Burma’s very societal fabric: The conflict has transformed the country into a battlefield involving ethnic armed organizations, trafficking networks, gangs, and criminals, as well as competing outside powers.
This autocratic alignment degrades the democratic ideals that the United States represents but also extends the influence of U.S. adversaries with hardly any challenge from Washington. Regionally, instability has spilled across borders into Bangladesh, India, and Thailand with the flow of refugees, trafficking routes, and increased lawlessness, especially as the junta loses control of key areas of Burma.
However, America shouldn’t view Burma solely through the lens of competition with China or regional instability. A core belief of the United States is that democracy and human rights aren’t Western luxuries, but universal rights. Burma is one of the clearest places where those principles and America’s commitment to them are being tested in real time.
The Burmese people have demonstrated extraordinary courage in their struggle for democracy. Teachers and students, medical professionals and religious leaders, journalists and human rights advocates daily risk prison to reject military rule. These ordinary citizens continue to fight for their freedoms, documenting abuses despite widespread internet blackouts and oppressive government surveillance. Against all odds, civil society organizations work to provide education, healthcare, and humanitarian support under impossible conditions.
And in a moment of democratic backsliding around the world, Burma’s young pro-democracy leaders continue to risk their lives in pursuit of a freer and more democratic future. That determination deserves the support of the United States and fellow democracies before adversaries fill the vacuum.
At the George W. Bush Institute, we have had the privilege of working with some of the country’s most inspiring young leaders, carrying forward a legacy that began when Mrs. Laura Bush became the first First Lady to visit the Thai-Burma border. The resilience and belief of these young people in a democratic Burma remain a source of hope, but they cannot succeed alone, and that is where sustained American leadership alongside global partners remains essential.
Crises around the world today can feel exhausting. Headlines scream for attention, from famine on the continent of Africa to conflict in the Middle East to the grinding war in Ukraine. As other conflicts dominate headlines, Burma risks becoming normalized, another distant catastrophe managed through occasional official statements of concern, U.N. sessions, and periodic sanctions.
That would be a mistake.
We know from history that deeply rooted instability, forced migration through conflict, and impunity from human rights violations don’t stay contained. The junta’s poor governance of Burma is spawning trafficking networks, creating fertile ground for the birth of extremist groups, and carving new pathways for geopolitical exploitation from our adversaries.
More crucially, global inattention sends a message to authoritarian governments everywhere that democratic reversals can ultimately be absorbed by the international system without lasting consequences. It may also inspire these adversaries to question and test America’s resolve for defending the liberal world order that it built over the past century.
Three recommendations should guide American policy in Burma.
First, the United States should dramatically expand cross-border humanitarian assistance and civil society support in areas operating outside junta control. Reports indicate that aid struggles to reach vulnerable populations because of the state structures the junta manipulates or blocks. American assistance can identify and prioritize trusted local organizations, including faith-based groups, that support on-the-ground health workers, education, and other humanitarian assistance working directly with displaced communities.
Secondly, the United States, working with partners and allies, can deepen diplomatic and economic pressure on the junta while increasing formal engagement with Burma’s democratic opposition and civil society leaders. We have seen that sanctions alone can’t resolve the conflict, but sustained international isolation of junta leadership, combined with visible political legitimacy for democratic actors, reinforces an essential principle: Governments derive legitimacy from the consent of the governed, not the force of a gun.
Thirdly, the United States can play a role in championing religious freedom – particularly as it relates to the Muslim Rohingya, Christians, and other religious minorities – in the predominantly Buddhist country. Toward this end, the administration and Congress should prioritize nominating and confirming the legally mandated position of ambassador at large for international religious freedom. It’s important for America to have dedicated leaders – bolstered by the legitimacy of congressional approval – who can be strong advocates for advancing religious liberty abroad and within internal policy formation.
Americans believe that human dignity matters regardless of geography or politics. The international community should stand clearly on the side of those seeking the right to determine it themselves.
