Decoding The Double Standard: An Analysis Of British And Australian Actions Towards Myanmar

Aria Freeman

5 min read

Post on May 13, 2025

4.3

Share

British Policy Towards Myanmar: A History of Engagement and Limitations

Historical Context:

The UK's colonial past in Burma significantly shapes its current relationship with Myanmar. British colonial rule, lasting for over a century, left a legacy of complex political and economic structures. Post-independence relations were often strained, marked by periods of cooperation and conflict, reflecting the evolving geopolitical landscape.

• British colonial rule: A period of significant exploitation and political control.
• Myanmar's independence: A transition marked by both opportunity and ongoing challenges.
• Post-colonial relations: A fluctuating relationship characterized by periods of engagement and estrangement.
• Burma's transition to Myanmar: The changing nomenclature reflecting shifts in political identity.

Response to the 2021 Coup:

Following the February 2021 military coup, the UK swiftly condemned the actions of the Myanmar military junta. Their response included:

• Sanctions on Myanmar: Targeting specific individuals and entities within the military regime.
• Diplomatic pressure: Working through international organizations to exert pressure on the junta.
• Support for international investigations: Backing initiatives to document human rights abuses.

However, criticisms have been raised regarding the limitations of this response, questioning its effectiveness in curbing the violence and restoring democracy.

Criticisms and Contradictions:

The UK's approach has faced significant criticism, with accusations of insufficient action and inconsistency. These criticisms stem from several factors:

• Comparison with actions against other regimes: Critics point to instances where the UK has taken stronger action against other authoritarian regimes.
• Criticisms from human rights groups: Organizations like Amnesty International have highlighted the inadequacy of the UK's response.
• Perceived prioritization of economic interests: Concerns remain about the potential for economic interests to overshadow human rights concerns in British foreign policy. This inconsistency in foreign policy has fueled accusations of a double standard.

Australian Policy Towards Myanmar: Balancing Interests and Ideals

Historical Ties and Regional Influence:

Australia's engagement with Myanmar is intertwined with its regional strategic considerations, particularly its involvement with ASEAN.

• ASEAN engagement: Australia’s active role in ASEAN forums has influenced its approach to Myanmar.
• Economic ties with Myanmar: Australia has maintained some economic connections, albeit with increasing scrutiny.
• Historical relationship with the region: Australia's historical connections to Southeast Asia shape its broader foreign policy approach.

Response to the Humanitarian Crisis:

Australia's response to the Rohingya crisis and the post-coup situation has involved:

• Humanitarian aid: Providing financial and logistical support to refugees and internally displaced persons.
• Participation in international forums: Actively participating in discussions and initiatives related to Myanmar at the UN and other international bodies.

However, the scope of Australia's actions has been limited, prompting similar critiques of inaction and inconsistency, reflecting the challenges of balancing humanitarian concerns with broader geopolitical realities.

Balancing Act: Economic Interests vs. Human Rights:

Australia faces a complex balancing act between its economic interests and its human rights commitments concerning Myanmar.

• Trade relations with Myanmar: The potential economic implications of sanctions have influenced the government’s decision-making.
• Investments in the country: Australian businesses have investments in Myanmar that may be affected by sanctions.
• Ethical dilemmas involved: Balancing economic ties with ethical considerations poses a significant challenge to policy formulation.

Comparing and Contrasting British and Australian Approaches: Evidence of a Double Standard?

Similarities and Differences in Responses:

Both Britain and Australia have condemned the military coup and the human rights violations, but the intensity and effectiveness of their responses differ:

• Sanctions imposed: While both countries have imposed some sanctions, the scope and impact vary.
• Diplomatic pressure exerted: The levels of diplomatic pressure applied differ, reflecting varying levels of engagement.
• Humanitarian aid provided: Both countries have offered humanitarian assistance but to varying degrees.
• Engagement with regional organizations: Both countries engage with ASEAN, but their strategies and approaches vary.

The Role of Geopolitical Factors:

Geopolitical factors significantly influence both countries’ policies toward Myanmar:

• Regional alliances: Their relationships with other regional powers impact their approach to the crisis.
• Economic considerations: Economic interests play a significant role in shaping foreign policy responses.
• Domestic political pressures: Domestic public opinion and political priorities influence the government’s responses.

Assessing the Double Standard Accusation:

The accusation of a double standard stems from the perceived inconsistencies in the responses of both nations. The arguments for and against a double standard are compelling, highlighting the complex interplay of factors affecting their policies. A conclusive assessment requires further analysis of the effectiveness and impact of their actions.

Conclusion:

This analysis has explored the responses of Britain and Australia to the crisis in Myanmar, revealing complexities stemming from historical ties, geopolitical considerations, and domestic political pressures. While both countries have condemned the military junta’s actions, inconsistencies in their actions have led to accusations of a double standard. Further research and critical analysis are needed to fully understand these complexities. We must continue to decode the double standards and push for consistent and effective international action to address the human rights violations and restore democracy in Myanmar. Understanding the nuances of British and Australian policies towards Myanmar is crucial for developing a more effective strategy for resolving this ongoing crisis and for improving the international response to similar situations in the future.