Muslim World Report

U.S. Response Lags as Myanmar Faces Earthquake Devastation

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Apr 6, 2025 9:53 AM | 5 min read | 965 words

TL;DR: The recent earthquake in Myanmar underscores the U.S.’s diminishing role in global humanitarian efforts, especially as China responds swiftly. The U.S. has sent minimal assistance, raising concerns about its global influence and relationships with other nations.

The Diminishing Role of the U.S. in Global Humanitarian Efforts: A Case Study from Myanmar

The devastating earthquake that struck Myanmar on April 1, 2025, tragically claimed hundreds of lives and decimated numerous communities. This crisis has laid bare the inadequacy of U.S. involvement in global humanitarian responses. In stark contrast to the rapid deployment of rescue teams from China, which successfully saved lives within 48 hours, the U.S. government’s response was shockingly minimal. It deployed just three non-specialist advisers from a regional USAID office in Thailand, raising urgent questions about America’s diminishing role on the global stage.

The Consequences of Diminished Engagement

This limited response illustrates a troubling trend of reduced U.S. engagement in international crises. Key points include:

  • Broader budget cuts to humanitarian agencies, which have gained momentum since the Trump administration (Bloom et al., 1999).
  • The implications of a weakened U.S. presence in humanitarian efforts extend beyond the immediate crisis, affecting perceptions in regions strained by geopolitical rivalries, particularly with China.

The ramifications are profound:

  • Loss of life and damage to the U.S.’s reputation in areas beset by geopolitical strife.
  • Recent staffing cuts at USAID, particularly among personnel designated for crisis response, have undermined operational capabilities (Paul, 2005).

What If: The U.S. Reevaluates Its Humanitarian Approach?

A critical question arises: What if the U.S. re-evaluates its humanitarian approach? Acknowledging its historical shortcomings and committing to a comprehensive humanitarian response could dramatically alter U.S. foreign relations. Potential actions include:

  • Revitalizing humanitarian strategies with substantial investments in agencies like USAID.
  • Ensuring agencies are proactive rather than merely reactive in addressing crises (Leslie & Pryce, 2020).

Understanding the Shift in Geopolitical Dynamics

As the world witnesses the ongoing disaster response in Myanmar, the long-term geopolitical consequences of a diminished U.S. role become evident. If nations perceive that they have no reliable support from the U.S., they risk aligning themselves more closely with China. Key consequences include:

  • Countries relying on Chinese humanitarian assistance may become less critical of China’s domestic policies.
  • A potential irony arises: as China emerges as the primary humanitarian actor, it could portray itself as a benevolent leader in international affairs, relegating the U.S. to a position of reactive diplomacy (Johnsen, 2016).

Additionally, failure to respond adequately risks promoting a perception of ineffectiveness in U.S. foreign policy, which could dilute democratic principles and local governance (Sayigh, 2007).

The Potential for a Revised U.S. Humanitarian Strategy

Reassessing and revitalizing the U.S. humanitarian approach not only addresses current inadequacies but also strategically positions the U.S. to counteract China’s burgeoning influence. This could involve:

  • Leading coordinated international efforts in disaster response.
  • Actively engaging with international institutions and enhancing participation in multinational forums dedicated to humanitarian aid (Reinhart & Rogoff, 2004).

The Role of Multinational Engagement in Humanitarian Assistance

The current humanitarian crisis in Myanmar serves as a poignant reminder of the importance of strategic multinational engagement in disaster response. The U.S. could play a pivotal role in:

  • Leading efforts that prioritize efficiency and effectiveness in aid distribution.
  • Collaborating with other countries, NGOs, and regional organizations to enhance response times and create goodwill.

However, revitalization requires:

  • Political will and additional funding.
  • A significant rethinking of the U.S.’s role in global humanitarian crises.

Balancing China’s Growing Influence

While enhancing its humanitarian response mechanisms is essential, China must navigate its humanitarian engagements with care. Key considerations include:

  • Assessing the long-term consequences of its aid strategies to ensure contributions lead to sustainable recovery (Xu, 2011).

For Myanmar, effective recovery from this devastating earthquake will require a multifaceted approach involving:

  • International assistance and prioritization of local voices and needs.
  • Engaging both international partners and local communities transparently to foster an inclusive recovery process.

Long-Term Implications for Global Humanitarian Efforts

The situation in Myanmar thus serves as a crucial juncture for understanding global humanitarian responses and shifting paradigms of international power. The responses from both the U.S. and China in this pivotal moment will significantly shape future humanitarian aid discourse.

To be effective, the U.S. must:

  • Recognize humanitarian assistance as a strategic imperative.
  • Reverse detrimental budget cuts to agencies like USAID.
  • Foster reliable partnerships to enhance crisis response capacities.

Engaging in proactive measures could facilitate faster and more effective responses to crises in the future. An integrated strategy, including collaboration with other nations, NGOs, and regional entities, can solidify the U.S. position as a dependable ally in times of need.

In the broader context, the dynamics between the U.S. and China regarding humanitarian aid will likely have lasting implications for global governance and the future of geopolitical relationships. As both nations navigate their respective positions, their actions now will indelibly influence the narrative surrounding humanitarian aid and the broader geopolitical landscape for years to come.

References

  • Bloom, B. R., Bloom, D. E., Cohen, J. E., & Sachs, J. D. (1999). Investing in the World Health Organization. Science, 284(5416), 911. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.284.5416.911
  • Hepburn, C., O’Callaghan, B., Stern, N., Stiglitz, J. E., & Zenghelis, D. (2020). Will COVID-19 fiscal recovery packages accelerate or retard progress on climate change? Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 36(3), 359-386. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/graa015
  • Johnsen, D. E. (2016). When Responsibilities Collide: Humanitarian Intervention, Shared War Powers, and the Rule of Law. Unknown Journal.
  • Paul, T. V. (2005). Soft Balancing in the Age of U.S. Primacy. International Security, 30(1), 46-71. https://doi.org/10.1162/0162288054894652
  • Reinhart, C. M., & Rogoff, K. S. (2004). The Modern History of Exchange Rate Arrangements: A Reinterpretation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119(1), 1-48. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355304772839515
  • Sayigh, Y. (2007). Inducing a Failed State in Palestine. Survival, 49(2), 67-99. https://doi.org/10.1080/00396330701564786
  • Xu, C. (2011). The Fundamental Institutions of China’s Reforms and Development. Journal of Economic Literature, 49(4), 1076-1150. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.49.4.1076
← Prev Next →