In late March, a devastating earthquake hit Myanmar’s Mandalay region, claiming thousands of lives and worsening an already severe humanitarian and political crisis. Since the February 2021 military coup, the country has faced escalating insecurity, economic paralysis, and failing healthcare systems. While military leader Min Aung Hlaing has pledged elections by the end of 2025, doubts persist over whether such a vote would be either credible or inclusive.
The catastrophe has drawn comparisons to Cyclone Nargis, which tore through the Irrawaddy Delta in May 2008 and left over 130,000 people dead or missing. Back then, the ruling junta, known as the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), delayed aid, blocked international relief workers, and diverted supplies intended for victims.
The World Food Programme temporarily halted operations after its assistance was seized. Even as the humanitarian emergency deepened, the regime proceeded with a constitutional referendum, prompting widespread condemnation abroad.
Mounting global pressure led to limited concessions. Ban Ki-moon, then Secretary-General of the United Nations, traveled to Myanmar and secured a narrow opening for foreign relief workers. Still, international military or direct emergency teams were barred from operating on the ground. That episode remains a powerful example of how authoritarian systems can worsen natural disasters through political control.
In contrast, the current leadership responded to the 2025 earthquake with a rare public appeal for international help. Governments quickly signaled support, and messages of solidarity circulated on social platforms.
Yet many inside Myanmar, particularly resistance groups and civil society, remain suspicious of any cooperation with the military regime. Carefully coordinated humanitarian aid, if transparent and neutral, might serve as leverage to demand more accountable governance, including fair elections.
However, access to the most affected zones—especially those under opposition control—remains highly restricted. Allegations of aid obstruction continue to surface. Meanwhile, military strikes in quake-stricken regions have drawn sharp rebukes from rights monitors.
The military’s election pledge has raised concern, not least because it maintains limited territorial control. Opposition entities like the National Unity Government (NUG) have rejected any vote managed by the junta as illegitimate.
Within the country, tensions are intensifying. Public distrust of international engagement with the regime is widespread, even when it’s justified by humanitarian intent. For donors and NGOs, the challenge is to support the people without reinforcing military authority.
ASEAN, long hesitant to interfere in member states’ domestic affairs, now faces a pivotal moment. The scale of suffering and regional instability is testing that principle. Frustration with Myanmar’s defiance is growing, particularly in Thailand, Indonesia, and Malaysia.
Despite the tragedy, the earthquake may present a diplomatic opening—one where humanitarian priorities could help unlock political change. But that opportunity hinges on bold and coordinated pressure by regional and international stakeholders. Myanmar’s suffering demands more than sympathy—it demands strategy.