Guest contributor

James Shwe

Throughout modern history, atrocities against civilians have consistently proven to be a failed strategy, leading to long-term defeat despite short-term tactical gains. 

The Myanmar military’s brutal “Four Cuts” strategy is no exception. While it has yielded some cynical short-term “successes,” it is ultimately a strategically flawed approach that mirrors historical failures. 

Compounding this tragedy is the complicity of regional powers like China, India, Thailand, Malaysia, and Bangladesh, whose actions not only enable the junta but also risk destabilizing the region and tarnishing their own reputations. 

Meanwhile, the democratic resistance in Myanmar remains under-supported by the international community, despite its critical role in restoring stability and justice.

Historical precedents of failed atrocity strategies

1. Vietnam War (1955–1975): U.S. atrocities such as the My Lai Massacre alienated Vietnamese civilians, strengthened opposition forces, and eroded domestic support, contributing to America’s eventual withdrawal.
2. Soviet-Afghan War (1979–1989): Soviet brutality against Afghan civilians galvanized resistance movements like the Mujahideen, leading to the USSR’s withdrawal and subsequent collapse.
3. Iraq War (2003–2011): Civilian casualties from coalition forces fueled insurgency and sectarian violence, undermining U.S. objectives and destabilizing the region.

These examples demonstrate that targeting civilians often strengthens resistance movements, erodes legitimacy, and leads to strategic failure.

Myanmar’s military: Cynical “successes” and strategic myopia

The military’s campaign of terror has yielded some perverse short-term gains:

1. Discrediting Aung San Suu Kyi: The military exploited the 2017 Rohingya crisis to tarnish Aung San Suu Kyi’s international reputation, paving the way for the 2021 coup by weakening global support for her leadership and the National League for Democracy (NLD).
2. Re-Isolation from democratic nations: The junta has successfully re-isolated Myanmar from democratic countries while aligning itself with authoritarian allies like China, Russia, Thailand, and India—nations that prioritize economic or strategic interests over human rights.
3. Forced returns of refugees: Regional countries like Thailand, Malaysia, and Bangladesh have deported thousands of Myanmar refugees—both Rohingya and non-Rohingya—back into junta-controlled territory. These forced returns bolster the junta’s conscription efforts by providing fresh recruits for its dwindling forces.
4. Exploiting ethnic divisions: The junta has sought to pitch ethnic groups against one another to weaken opposition unity. Bangladesh’s alleged encouragement of Rohingya armed groups against the Arakan Army (AA) in Arakan (Rakhine) State further exacerbates these divisions and risks fueling prolonged conflict in an already volatile region.

Atrocities as acts of desperation

The Myanmar military’s atrocities against civilians are not only morally abhorrent but also clear signs of desperation. Confronted with growing resistance, mass defections, and dwindling legitimacy, the junta has turned to terrorizing the population in a futile attempt to maintain control. 

Yet, these brutal tactics have backfired, uniting opposition forces and deepening public outrage. Each act of violence further isolates the junta and accelerates its decline, proving that fear cannot substitute for legitimacy.

Destruction of urban centers: A self-defeating strategy

In response to resistance forces capturing urban areas, the military has unleashed indiscriminate airstrikes and artillery bombardments, leaving cities in ruins. This scorched-earth strategy has destroyed vital infrastructure, displaced thousands, and created a humanitarian crisis. 

However, rather than weakening the resistance, these actions have only strengthened opposition resolve and alienated urban populations. By targeting its own cities, the junta is not just losing territory—it is eroding any remaining support and hastening its own downfall.

The impossibility of isolation

The junta’s attempts to isolate Myanmar in a manner akin to North Korea are fundamentally flawed due to its geography and geopolitical significance:

1. Porous borders: Myanmar shares long borders with five countries—China, India, Thailand, Laos, and Bangladesh—making complete isolation impractical.
2. Extensive coastline: With nearly 2,000 kilometers of coastline along the Bay of Bengal and Andaman Sea, Myanmar is accessible by sea for trade and movement.
3. Strategic transportation routes:
   • The China-Myanmar Economic Corridor (CMEC) connects Yunnan Province to the deep sea port in Kyaukphyu, Rakhine State.
   • The Kaladan Multi-Modal Transit Transport Project links India’s northeastern states with Myanmar.
   • The India-Myanmar-Thailand Trilateral Highway supports regional connectivity.

These factors make it impossible for Myanmar to achieve true isolation like North Korea. Instead, its geography ensures that instability within its borders will ripple outward across Southeast Asia.

Regional enablers: Complicity in a failed strategy

Despite historical evidence of failure and geographical realities, several regional powers continue enabling the junta:

1. Thailand: It has deported over 2,000 refugees since 2023—including non-Rohingya groups fleeing persecution—violating international refugee law while maintaining economic ties with the junta.
2. Malaysia: It has forcibly returned both Rohingya refugees and other ethnic nationalities fleeing violence back into junta-controlled territory—a betrayal of human rights principles that directly aids the junta’s conscription efforts.
3. Bangladesh: By negotiating unsafe repatriation agreements for Rohingya refugees without addressing their security concerns or citizenship rights in Myanmar—and allegedly encouraging Rohingya armed groups against the AA—Bangladesh risks enabling further atrocities while destabilizing Rakhine State even further.
4. India: It continues engaging with the junta under its Act East Policy while avoiding open support for democratic resistance forces like the National Unity Government (NUG).
5. China: Through CMEC projects that devastate local environments while enriching both Beijing and the junta, China prioritizes short-term economic gains over regional stability or human rights.

The strategic costs of complicity

The actions of regional enablers are not only morally reprehensible but also strategically shortsighted:

1. Strengthening resistance: Atrocities are unifying opposition forces like ethnic armed organizations (EAOs) and People’s Defense Forces (PDFs).
2. Regional destabilization: The forced return of refugees to Myanmar, where they face the grave risks of forced conscription, unjust imprisonment, torture, or even death, is not only morally reprehensible but also a blatant violation of international laws and norms. Beyond the immediate human toll, these forced repatriations threaten to destabilize the entire region. 
3. Economic uncertainty: Myanmar’s ongoing instability poses a significant threat to major regional infrastructure projects such as the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor, the Kaladan Multi-Modal Transit Transport Project, and cross-border highways vital to regional trade and connectivity. Beyond the immediate logistical challenges, the lack of goodwill among Myanmar’s people—driven to desperation by military oppression—further jeopardizes these initiatives. Public resentment toward foreign-backed projects that benefit the junta risks fueling local resistance, sabotage, and unrest. The use of private security personnel to protect these projects exacerbates tensions, as such measures are often perceived as prioritizing corporate and foreign interests over local welfare. This approach not only deepens public hostility but also increases the likelihood of violent confrontations, further destabilizing the region. For these projects to succeed, stability and trust must be restored through inclusive governance and alignment with the aspirations of Myanmar’s people.
4. Reputational damage: Nations complicit in enabling atrocities risk being remembered as collaborators in crimes against humanity – a stain that will endure for generations.

Imbalanced accountability measures

The international community’s response to Myanmar’s Rohingya crisis has been disproportionately focused on punitive measures while neglecting critical aspects of rehabilitation, reconciliation, and addressing the root causes of the conflict. 

1. Selective scrutiny: The AA is often accused of atrocities without thorough investigation, while the perspectives of AA and other ethnic groups are dismissed as unworthy of consideration. This lack of balanced scrutiny undermines efforts to understand the complexities of Myanmar’s conflict.

2. Punitive focus: The international community’s focus on punitive measures against Myanmar’s people, rather than supporting their democratic aspirations, risks alienating them further. The recent Argentine court arrest warrants for Myanmar leaders exemplify this trend, potentially repeating past mistakes where waning international support killed Myanmar’s budding democracy.

3. Ignoring local voices: The perspectives of Aung San Suu Kyi and the people of Myanmar are being swept aside in favor of external narratives. This oversight neglects the critical role that local voices play in shaping a sustainable peace process.

Accountability measures must be carefully calibrated to support, rather than hinder, the Myanmar people’s struggle for self-determination and liberation from military oppression. International efforts should prioritize empowering local voices, addressing root causes of conflict, and balancing punitive actions with initiatives for reconciliation and rehabilitation. 

This approach would ensure that accountability measures strengthen, rather than undermine, the democratic aspirations of Myanmar’s population. Without a comprehensive strategy that prioritizes rebuilding trust, ensuring justice for atrocities, and creating conditions for coexistence, these measures may inadvertently deepen divisions and prolong the suffering of both the Rohingya and Myanmar’s broader population.

A call for strategic reassessment

To avoid repeating historical mistakes—and to acknowledge Myanmar’s strategic importance—regional powers must:

1. Cease all support for the junta, including financial ties and forced refugee returns.
2. Engage with and support pro-democracy forces like the NUG and the Ethnic Resistance Organizations (EROs).
3. Impose targeted sanctions on businesses profiting from junta ties.
4. Demand environmental accountability from China for CMEC-related devastation.
5. Facilitate humanitarian aid through cross-border networks bypassing junta control.
6. Strengthen international mechanisms for accountability through bodies like the International Criminal Court (ICC), while prioritizing rehabilitation and reconciliation efforts without undermining the democratic aspirations of Myanmar’s population.

Learning from history

The Myanmar military’s atrocities against civilians are doomed to fail strategically—just as similar campaigns have failed throughout modern history. Attempts at isolating Myanmar are equally futile given its porous borders, extensive coastline, and role as a hub for regional connectivity projects like CMEC and the India-Myanmar-Thailand Highway.

Regional powers enabling this brutality are not only complicit in grave human rights violations but are also aligning themselves with a losing strategy that risks long-term instability across Southeast Asia. 

By reassessing their approach now—prioritizing human rights over short-term economic gains—they can help stabilize Myanmar while ensuring their own legacies are not defined by complicity in one of this century’s greatest moral failures.

The lessons of history are clear: atrocities against civilians lead to defeat—and enabling them leads to infamy. It is time for Myanmar’s military—and its enablers—to heed these lessons before it is too late for themselves as well as Southeast Asia at large.

James Shwe is a Myanmar democracy activist in the U.S. and is a member of the advocacy groups Free Myanmar and the Los Angeles Myanmar Movement. He has been trying to organize and motivate the Myanmar diaspora to advocate for democracy in Myanmar.

DVB publishes a diversity of opinions that does not reflect DVB editorial policy. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our stories: [email protected]