“From Ashes to Arms: How Tragedy Awakens the Best in Us All”

​On March 28, 2025, at approximately 12:50 p.m. local time, Myanmar was struck by a devastating earthquake measuring 7.7 in magnitude. The epicenter was near Mandalay, the country’s second-largest city, situated in the Sagaing Region. Due to its shallow depth of about 10 kilometers (6.2 miles), the quake caused intense shaking, leading to widespread destruction and loss of life.​
AP News
+4
USGS
+4
Earthquake List
+4
Wikipedia
+1
USGS
+1

Humanitarian Impact
Casualties: The earthquake resulted in over 3,700 confirmed deaths, more than 5,000 injuries, and at least 129 individuals reported missing.​
AP News
+1
AP News
+1

Displacement: Approximately 200,000 people were rendered homeless, exacerbating the country’s existing humanitarian crisis.​
AP News

Infrastructure Damage: The quake destroyed over 65,000 structures, including homes, schools, hospitals, religious sites, and government buildings. ​
AP News

Ongoing Challenges
Aftershocks: In the ten days following the main quake, the region experienced over 400 aftershocks, hindering rescue and recovery efforts.​

Resource Shortages: Essential services such as clean water, electricity, and healthcare remain largely unavailable in the affected areas. The United Nations estimates that 2.5 million tons of debris need to be cleared.​
AP News

Funding Shortfalls: The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) launched an emergency appeal for 100 million Swiss francs ($122.4 million) but has received only 10% of the needed funds. ​
Reuters

Political and Social Context
Ceasefire Extension: In response to the disaster, Myanmar’s military junta extended a temporary ceasefire until April 30, 2025, to facilitate relief and reconstruction efforts. ​
Reuters

International Aid Efforts: Regional leaders, including Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra, have engaged in discussions to coordinate humanitarian aid and support recovery initiatives. ​
AP News
+1
Reuters
+1

Historical Seismic Activity
Myanmar is situated in a seismically active region due to the tectonic interaction between the Indian and Eurasian plates. Notable past earthquakes include:​

1839 Ava Earthquake: Estimated magnitude of 8.1–8.2, causing widespread destruction.​

1930 Bago Earthquake: Magnitude 7.3, resulting in significant damage and loss of life.​

1988 Myanmar–India Earthquake: Magnitude 7.7, leading to substantial casualties and structural damage.​

These events highlight the country’s vulnerability to seismic hazards and the importance of preparedness and resilient infrastructure.

WTF WEST

The anger and frustration among many Burmese people regarding the West’s focus on the earthquake in Thailand rather than the catastrophic 2025 Myanmar earthquake stem from several intertwined factors:

1. Neglect of Myanmar’s Crisis

Myanmar has been enduring significant suffering since the 2021 military coup, including widespread violence, human rights abuses, and displacement of millions of people. Despite this, the international response has been inconsistent, and many Burmese feel that the world has turned a blind eye to their suffering. When a major earthquake hit Myanmar in April 2025, many expected a much more robust response from the international community, including aid, media coverage, and condemnation of the military regime. However, media outlets and foreign governments seemed to focus more on Thailand, which had a smaller impact from the earthquake, amplifying feelings of neglect and injustice among Burmese citizens.

2. Perception of Favoritism Towards Thailand

Thailand is seen by many in Myanmar as a more politically stable and economically important country in Southeast Asia, with strong ties to Western nations. The country has also been more successful in cultivating diplomatic relations with the West. As a result, there is a perception that the West is prioritizing Thailand, a regional partner, over Myanmar, where the situation is more complex due to the ongoing military dictatorship. This exacerbates the sense of isolation felt by the Burmese, particularly in their most desperate moments.

3. The Impact of the Military Regime

The military junta’s brutal control over Myanmar has strained relationships with international organizations, and while some Western countries have imposed sanctions and offered support to pro-democracy movements, many Burmese believe these efforts have been insufficient. When the earthquake struck Myanmar, there were calls for humanitarian aid and international relief, but the military’s control over resources and borders severely hampered aid distribution. In comparison, Thailand, despite its challenges, was able to access global aid more swiftly, further adding to the frustration felt by Burmese people.

4. Underreporting of Myanmar’s Suffering

The Burmese people feel that international media outlets often fail to adequately report on the suffering of the Burmese under military rule, focusing instead on more “stable” or “neutral” countries like Thailand. For instance, Myanmar’s earthquake is often overshadowed by news coverage of Thailand’s regional economic success or its own political issues. As a result, many Burmese feel that the world is indifferent to their struggles and more willing to invest in countries that are seen as more favorable to Western interests.

5. Lack of International Support Post-Coup

Following the coup, Western governments imposed sanctions on Myanmar’s military regime, but many Burmese believe these sanctions have had limited impact on the generals in power and have largely hurt the general population, worsening their already dire situation. The lack of a substantial and consistent international response to the ongoing human rights violations in Myanmar and the natural disasters like the earthquake has led to growing frustration and feelings of abandonment.

Conclusion

The frustration of the Burmese people over the West’s response to the earthquake is not just about the disaster itself, but also about the ongoing systemic neglect of Myanmar’s suffering. There is a sense that the world is not giving them the attention or aid they desperately need, particularly when compared to neighboring countries like Thailand, which are seen as receiving more favorable coverage and support. For the Burmese, this is a symbol of a much larger issue: the international community’s failure to fully recognize and address the crisis in their country.

THAI PRIMINISTER IN BED WITH MIN AUNG HLAING

In April 2025, Myanmar’s military leader, Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, made a rare international appearance by attending the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) summit in Bangkok, Thailand. This visit occurred amid the aftermath of a devastating earthquake in Myanmar that resulted in over 3,000 deaths. His participation sparked significant controversy and anger among the Burmese population and international observers.​

🇹🇭 Min Aung Hlaing’s Visit to Thailand

Min Aung Hlaing’s attendance at the BIMSTEC summit was his first official trip outside of Myanmar’s primary allies—China, Russia, and Belarus—since the military coup in 2021. The summit focused on enhancing regional cooperation in trade, transportation, and disaster relief efforts. During the event, Min Aung Hlaing engaged in bilateral discussions with Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra, addressing issues such as disaster relief and border security. Critics, including Myanmar’s shadow National Unity Government (NUG) and advocacy groups, condemned his participation, arguing that it legitimized a regime widely rejected by Myanmar’s population. The Thai Foreign Ministry defended the decision, citing obligations under the BIMSTEC charter AP NewsAP News.​

😡 Public Outrage in Myanmar

The timing of Min Aung Hlaing’s visit, coinciding with the ongoing earthquake disaster in Myanmar, fueled widespread anger among the Burmese people. Many viewed his international engagement as a stark contrast to the dire situation at home, where the military regime’s control over aid distribution and ongoing conflicts hampered relief efforts. The junta’s announcement of a temporary ceasefire to facilitate aid distribution was seen by some as insufficient and self-serving, further intensifying public frustration .​Reuters

🇹🇭 Thailand’s Support for the Junta

Thailand’s decision to host Min Aung Hlaing and engage in bilateral talks with the Myanmar military leader has drawn criticism from various quarters. Advocacy groups and international observers have expressed concern that such interactions may embolden the junta and undermine efforts to isolate it diplomatically. Thailand’s role as a facilitator in the BIMSTEC summit has been defended by its government, but the optics of engaging with a regime accused of widespread human rights abuses have raised questions about Thailand’s stance on Myanmar’s crisis .​The Independent

🇮🇳 India’s Position on Myanmar

India has maintained a complex relationship with Myanmar’s military regime, balancing security concerns with human rights considerations. While India has engaged with the junta on issues such as border security and counterinsurgency, it has also expressed concerns over the humanitarian situation in Myanmar. India’s approach aims to prevent instability from spilling over into its northeastern states, which share a border with Myanmar. The Indian government’s decision to fence its border with Myanmar, allocating nearly $3.7 billion for the project, underscores its focus on security and control over cross-border movements .​Indo-Pacific Defense FORUMReuters

⚠️ Repercussions and International Response

The international community’s response to Min Aung Hlaing’s visit and Thailand’s engagement with the Myanmar junta has been mixed. While some countries have called for increased pressure on the regime, others have emphasized the importance of dialogue and regional cooperation. The situation remains fluid, with ongoing debates about the most effective strategies to address Myanmar’s political and humanitarian crises.​

Myanmar’s Military Leader Attends BIMSTEC Summit Amid Earthquake Aftermath

AP News

Head of Myanmar’s military government visits Thailand in rare trip abroad

21 days agoAP NewsLeaders in the Bay of Bengal region agree to improve trade ties and disasters relief efforts

YOU WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH ME FIRST SAID THE FEARFUL “LEADER” – MIN AUNG HLAING = “THE VILLAGE IDIOT”

The Burmese military junta’s handling of aid, especially in the aftermath of disasters like the 2025 earthquake, has been a source of profound frustration and anger among the Burmese people, the international community, and humanitarian organizations. The junta’s policies are rooted in a combination of power consolidation, self-preservation, and complete disregard for the suffering of the general population. Here’s a detailed look at how the military junta operates with respect to external aid and how it takes resources for its own benefit:

1. Control of Humanitarian Aid

The military junta in Myanmar has long maintained tight control over humanitarian assistance, especially during crises like natural disasters or civil unrest. They often refuse to allow foreign aid to reach the people without their direct involvement. The reasons for this are twofold:

• Political Control: By controlling the flow of aid, the junta ensures that international organizations and foreign governments are forced to engage with them, legitimizing their rule.
• Financial Control: Aid is viewed as a resource that the junta can seize for its own benefit. Humanitarian aid, whether in the form of food, medicine, or financial resources, is often diverted to bolster the regime’s own survival efforts, rather than to support those in need.

2. Diversion of Resources for Military Interests

The junta has been known to divert international aid away from the people who need it most. There are several ways this happens:

• Military Infrastructure and Funding: A significant portion of foreign aid is siphoned off to support military operations or to fund the junta’s lavish lifestyle, including the maintenance of their palaces, private military fleets, and high-security compounds. Resources meant for reconstruction or civilian aid are used to perpetuate the military’s stranglehold on power.
• Arms Procurement: Another key issue is the junta’s use of diverted funds to purchase arms and maintain their military supremacy. Despite the economic collapse in Myanmar, the military continues to prioritize its spending on weapons, military operations, and maintaining its authoritarian regime.

3. Aid Access Restricted for NGOs

Humanitarian organizations and NGOs operating in Myanmar face severe restrictions under the junta. If they are allowed to operate, they must work under the supervision of the regime, ensuring that aid and resources are diverted toward the military’s interests:

• Military Scrutiny of NGOs: The junta requires that all aid and NGOs operating in Myanmar work with local military officials who scrutinize the distribution of aid. This means that any aid that enters the country must go through military channels and can easily be redirected for the junta’s benefit.
• Taxation and Red Tape: Even when international aid is provided, the military often imposes excessive taxes or bureaucratic hurdles that slow down or entirely block the distribution of essential resources. This bureaucracy ensures that only a fraction of the aid actually reaches the people who need it.

4. Junta’s Reluctance to Accept Aid

The junta’s unwillingness to accept aid from outside unless they are directly in charge of its distribution further highlights their self-centered approach:

• Selective Acceptance of Aid: The military regime often rejects or delays aid from international organizations unless it’s funneled through the government, allowing the junta to skim off a portion for themselves. When the Myanmar earthquake hit in 2025, international bodies offered assistance, but the junta’s refusal to allow independent aid organizations to act freely meant that the people had to rely on a system that prioritized military interests over humanitarian needs.
• Manipulating Aid for Political Gains: The junta uses foreign aid as a bargaining chip in diplomatic talks. By controlling the distribution of resources, the junta creates a leverage over international donors and foreign governments, demanding political recognition or favorable treatment in exchange for allowing aid to reach the people.

5. Public Perception and Distrust of the Military

• Cynicism and Fear Among the People: The people of Myanmar have learned over the years that the military junta’s handling of aid is less about helping the public and more about strengthening its grip on power. This has led to widespread cynicism among the population. Many believe that aid reaching their communities is either delayed or distributed only to those loyal to the military, further entrenching divisions and suffering.
• International Condemnation: The military junta’s refusal to cooperate with international aid agencies has drawn harsh criticism from the global community, but it has had little impact on the junta’s behavior. In fact, the military often uses its control over aid to gain leverage over neighboring countries and international powers, further prolonging the suffering of ordinary Burmese citizens.

6. The Junta’s Complete Disregard for the Population

• Neglect of Humanitarian Needs: The military regime’s indifference to the suffering of its people is a glaring feature of its rule. During times of disaster or conflict, the junta prioritizes its own security over the well-being of the general population. In times of disaster, while people are left to fend for themselves, the regime’s primary concern is maintaining control and power, not alleviating the crisis.
• Undermining of Civil Society: The junta has systematically dismantled Myanmar’s civil society and institutions. Organizations that once served as a vital lifeline during natural disasters have been silenced or co-opted, with their operations either suppressed or redirected by the military.

Conclusion: The Military’s Complete Control Over Aid and Resources

The military junta’s management of resources, especially during times of crisis, reveals their priorities: maintaining control and enriching themselves at the expense of the population. By blocking or diverting aid, the junta ensures that its own survival takes precedence over the lives of Myanmar’s citizens. The people of Myanmar remain caught in a vicious cycle of political oppression, economic collapse, and humanitarian neglect, while the military continues to enrich itself with resources that should be used to heal and rebuild the nation.

THAI PRIMINISTER IS IN BED WITH BURMESE MILITARY JUNTA

​Thailand has not arrested Myanmar’s military leader, Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, during his visits to the country because it is not a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Although Thailand signed the Rome Statute—the treaty establishing the ICC—on October 2, 2000, it has not ratified it. This means that Thailand is not legally bound to cooperate with the ICC’s requests, including the arrest of individuals for whom the ICC has issued arrest warrants .​AP NewsWikipedia+2Bangkok Post+2ABA ICC+2

In November 2024, the ICC’s chief prosecutor requested an arrest warrant for Min Aung Hlaing, alleging crimes against humanity related to the persecution of the Rohingya Muslim minority . However, since Myanmar is also not a party to the Rome Statute, the ICC’s jurisdiction is limited. The court can only prosecute crimes committed on the territory of a member state or by nationals of a member state, unless the United Nations Security Council refers the situation to the ICC. In this case, the ICC’s jurisdiction is based on the fact that many Rohingya victims fled to Bangladesh, which is an ICC member state .​Human Rights Watch+4AP News+4AP News+4Reuters

Given that Thailand is not obligated under international law to arrest Min Aung Hlaing, and considering regional political dynamics, it has not taken action against him during his visits. This situation underscores the challenges the ICC faces in enforcing its mandates when key countries are not members or choose not to cooperate.​Reuters

FRIENEMY THAILAND

​Thailand’s relationship with Myanmar’s military junta is shaped by a blend of economic interests, security concerns, and geopolitical strategies. This multifaceted relationship influences Thailand’s cautious approach toward the National Unity Government (NUG), the opposition group formed after the 2021 coup.​

🇹🇭 Thailand’s Interests in Myanmar’s Military Junta

1. Economic Ties and Energy Dependence

• Natural Gas Imports: Thailand relies on Myanmar for approximately 15% of its natural gas supply, crucial for electricity generation.
• Investments: Thai state-owned enterprises, such as PTT, have significant investments in Myanmar, including joint ventures with military-linked companies. ​teacirclemyanmar.com+1FULCRUM+1

2. Financial Channels

• Banking Services: Thai banks have become key conduits for the Myanmar military’s financial transactions, facilitating the purchase of arms and military equipment despite international sanctions. ​Prachatai English+3The Diplomat+3CNN+3

3. Security and Border Stability

• Border Management: Thailand shares a long border with Myanmar, and stability in the region is vital to prevent refugee influxes and cross-border conflicts. ​FULCRUM

4. Diplomatic Engagement

• Regional Influence: Thailand maintains diplomatic relations with the junta to preserve its influence in regional matters and to play a role in any potential peace negotiations. ​CEIAS

🤝 Reasons for Thailand’s Cautious Stance Toward the NUG

• Non-Recognition: Thailand, like many ASEAN countries, has not officially recognized the NUG, adhering to the bloc’s principle of non-interference in internal affairs.
• Economic Considerations: Engaging with the NUG could jeopardize existing economic ties and investments in Myanmar.
• Security Concerns: Supporting the NUG might escalate tensions along the border, leading to increased instability.​Wikipedia

In summary, Thailand’s approach to Myanmar’s political crisis is influenced by a complex interplay of economic interests, security concerns, and regional diplomacy. While this strategy serves Thailand’s national interests, it also draws criticism for indirectly supporting the military junta and sidelining pro-democracy movements.​

Thailand’s Involvement in Myanmar’s Political Landscape

Reuters

Thai PM meets Myanmar junta chief on sidelines of summit in China

168 days agoAP NewsThailand’s prime minister expects fishermen seized by Myanmar to be repatriated soon142 days agoTimeWhy Southeast Asia Just Can’t Seem to Cut Off Myanmar’s Junta552 days ago

Sources