For those of you who have been living in a cave for the last few months, Myanmar is the latest Third World shitstorm that has come up in the news recently. Formerly Burma, it is located on the Southeast Asian peninsula, and has been governed by a military junta for roughly twenty years. Recently, the Buddhist monks of this nation launched a massive public demonstration campaign, in an effort to bring democracy and basic freedoms to their nation. The junta, not surprisingly, responded aggressively, with dozens of monks being imprisoned, injured, and killed. This is a clear case of violent oppression by the powerful against the weak.
The American record in response to this type of situation is mixed. Iraq and Afghanistan are ongoing messes, and we intervened in those nations under similar conditions. On the other hand, Rwanda was mostly ignored until the genocide was over, and we still haven’t figured out what to do in the Sudan. Trying to stick to a consistent policy, then, will be difficult, as it is not clear what our policy is. Sometimes we get involved, other times we don’t.
Foreign policy aside, which is clearly not going to help us much anyway, what is our responsibility in Myanmar? It seems that we must choose between respecting Myanmar’s sovereignty and protecting the rights of its citizens. We should therefore examine each of these concerns closely.
Regarding the sovereignty of Myanmar, it seems like we ought to have some respect for the rights of other nations to make themselves in the image that they choose. This is not the most popular view, but I think it is the most reasonable one, as democracy is not the agreed upon gold standard of governance, and there are clear examples of other types of government that have been arguably more successful, i.e. democratic socialism. Thus, we want to claim that sovereign nations have a right to their own autonomy. But what about the rights of the human beings that make up their citizenry?
I am not troubled by stating that the rights of humans should trump those of nations. Nations are essentially human constructs, and it does not seem appropriate to place them on a pedestal that we essentially built for them in the first place. Additionally, if we make sovereignty rights primary, we risk having a horribly oppressed citizenry that we cannot justifiably defend. I think most people would agree that personhood is more important, and although popularity is not justification, it doesn’t hurt.
From this, it seems that we have a duty to protect the human rights of Myanmar’s citizens. We should be cautious here, however, and evaluate the whole situation as a reasonable person would. From a foreign policy position, we should also consider the role of China. Myanmar and China have close economic ties, and China has traditionally protected the military junta from international sanctions, which is something that they recently stopped doing. However, rationality requires that we consider the Chinese juggernaut and what the likely reaction to our intervention might be.
As we often do, it is helpful to consider both a consequentialist and a deontological view. Although an initial assessment suggests that we could maximize positive consequences by making Myanmar a freer place and ending the junta’s reign, further investigation makes this less clear. Were this to cause an aggressive response from the Chinese, it would seem that this was not the right thing to do. In addition, we should consider the likelihood that our intervention will actually lead to better lives for the citizens of Myanmar. Consequentialists are mostly concerned with actual consequences, not simply good intentions.
A deontologist might come to a similar conclusion. Although we seem to have a duty to protect the rights of others, it seems that we also have a duty to act in a way that doesn’t lead to massive military conflicts among superpowers. Thus, the likelihood of Chinese response makes our duty to preserve the peace paramount.
This could be debated, but I am comfortable claiming that some oppression in Myanmar is preferable to maximal violence due to armed conflict between the US and China. The degree to which one agrees with this is dependent upon how likely you think this result is. Although Kantian duties are traditionally binding for the most part, certain duties can trump other duties. Duty does not necessarily require intervention in Myanmar.
Although our initial reaction to the Myanmar mess is that we ought to do something, a careful evaluation makes this conclusion seem less clear. Under ideal circumstances, we might be able to claim that intervention in Myanmar is the right thing to do. However, the unique political situation and uncertainty of international reaction makes it less obvious that this is so.
Comments
2 Responses to “What is Our Ethical Responsibility in Myanmar?”
Leave a Reply
[...] Mindful Articles:What is Our Ethical Responsibility in Myanmar?Is Hypocrisy Sometimes Okay?Pleasantville and the Meaning of LifeHow Much Is Too Little? Ethics and [...]
None…
None…