Since the devastating 7.7-magnitude earthquake struck Myanmar two weeks ago, the official death toll now exceeds 3,600 – and the real number is likely to be much higher.
Many ancient cultural and religious sites have been completely destroyed. Homes have collapsed. Thousands of people are sleeping in the open air without shelter, risking outbreaks of disease as a consequence of extreme heat and heavy rains.
Secretary-General of the United Nations Antonio Guterres described Myanmar as a “scene of utter devastation and desperation” and appealed to the international community “to immediately step up vitally needed funding to match the scale of the crisis.”
Among the first responders to the crisis were the military regime’s closest allies.
Within a day of the earthquake, China had dispatched an 82-person team of rescuers and a second 118-member search and rescue team followed two days after the quake. Those sent included earthquake experts, medical workers and rescue dogs. China provided an initial batch of relief worth $13.78 million, including tents, blankets and first aid kits. A further $3.8 million for emergency relief was sent by Hong Kong, along with a team of 51 rescue workers.
Russia flew 120 rescuers, a medical team and emergency supplies to Myanmar.
India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Vietnam were also quick to respond to the crisis.
But the question on everyone’s minds was: where is the United States?
The country that until recently was one of the most generous providers of humanitarian assistance committed an initial $2 million – a fraction of China’s support – and three officials from the soon-to-be defunct United States Agency for International Development (USAID). They did not arrive in Myanmar until almost a week after the earthquake – and were then fired by the Trump administration three days later. These three US aid workers received notice of their termination while working in the rubble of Myanmar’s second city of Mandalay, which had been flattened by the earthquake a week earlier.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio – who during his 14 years in the United States Senate was a tireless and compelling voice for human rights and democracy around the world, and for U.S. leadership – shrugged off questions about the delayed response, saying “we are not the government of the world.” While pledging to “do our part” to help Myanmar, Rubio added: “There’s a lot of other rich countries in the world. They should all be pitching in.”
On one level, he is not entirely wrong. The United States is not a world government. Perhaps for too long it has shouldered a larger burden than other countries when it comes to humanitarian relief and emergency assistance. Others should indeed do their part.
One could also argue – not unreasonably – that Myanmar’s neighbors were able to organize and dispatch teams and supplies more quickly, given their proximity to the region. To go from Yunnan to Mandalay the day after the disaster is much easier than sending teams from Washington D.C. (Although before the dismantling of USAID, they would have had pre-positioned regional disaster response teams closer by.)
And one could argue that, despite junta leader Min Aung Hlaing’s appeal for aid from “any country, any organization, or anyone in Myanmar,” the regime was always more likely to give immediate access to its traditional allies. Rubio made that point, saying that the junta “doesn’t like us” and “that would have impeded our response no matter what.”
But on another level, Rubio’s remarks are profoundly short-sighted and dangerous.
For decades, the United States has been defined by three things: its leadership, strength, and generosity.
It may well be right that other wealthy and free nations should now share more of that responsibility by stepping up their efforts. We are seeing the United Kingdom, along with allies in the European Union (EU), rising to the challenge by increasing defense spending and leading the effort to support Ukraine. And in response to the earthquake in Myanmar, despite drastic cuts to its own aid budget, the U.K. has already pledged $12.9 million, while the EU has given $14 million.
Over a week after the earthquake, the United States announced a further $7 million – which is welcome. Nevertheless, it is still a fraction of China’s aid.
There are two dangers with the United States’ approach.
First, it risks forfeiting – if it has not already done so – any moral authority it once had, and trashing its role as an inspiration for freedom, democracy, human rights, and humanitarianism. This reputation has already been severely undermined by the Trump administration’s cuts in the United States’ apparatus of democracy promotion, with the slashing of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the Voice of America, Radio Free Asia, and USAID. The damage is compounded by its apparent abandonment of the people of Myanmar in their hour of need.
Second, it cedes this ground to China, and to a lesser extent, Russia and other authoritarian powers. Even if moral or humanitarian factors do not bother Trump’s administration, geopolitical strategic consequences should. If the Cold War taught us anything, it was that creating a vacuum is dangerous, because malign powers will always fill it. Yet the value of “soft power” in the fight between freedom and authoritarianism – something past presidents of both parties in the United States understood so well – appears to have been abandoned by the current administration. Of all Trump’s predecessors, Ronald Reagan – whose Westminster Address was pivotal – would be turning in his grave.
The world today is riddled with crises. Wars, natural disasters, and economic challenges confront us all. Budgets are tight and government debt is rising. But few difficulties are more existential than the fight for survival amid the rubble of an earthquake and the impending monsoon rains. And few choices hold greater danger than a great democracy choosing to cede ground to brutal, repressive dictatorships.
Yes, we must all play our part in responding to the challenges we face. Yes, we must all step up. But the wealthiest and freest among us must not abandon the world’s poorest and most vulnerable with a shrug. That approach only heralds more danger for us all.
