The devastating 7.7-magnitude earthquake that struck Myanmar on 28 March has wrought widespread destruction and immense human suffering, made far worse by the military’s response, which repeats its heavily criticised conduct seen after Cyclone Nargis in 2008.
Although the military made a rare plea for international aid and belatedly announced a temporary ceasefire, these gestures appear designed more to regain political legitimacy among regional leaders than to provide genuine humanitarian relief.
Emerging evidence reveals a recurring pattern of the military obstructing vital humanitarian aid and instrumentalising the disaster. This conduct raises serious concerns under international law regarding whether it constitutes another crime against humanity.
The precedent set by Cyclone Nargis
In 2008, Cyclone Nargis left approximately 140,000 people dead in Myanmar. While some died immediately from the massive four-meter-high wave, many perished in the days that followed due to the ruling military’s deliberate obstruction of international aid, denial of access to relief workers, and arrest of civilians trying to help. This systematic manipulation of relief efforts transformed a natural disaster into a man-made catastrophe.
International actors, including the European Parliament and the French Ministry for Foreign Affairs, condemned the military’s response and urged the UN Security Council to invoke the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine and intervene to deliver aid in Myanmar. The military’s Nargis response serves as a crucial, and ominous, precedent for assessing current actions.
Benefits of recognising a crime against humanity
Establishing the military’s earthquake response as a crime against humanity carries significant legal and political benefits. Crimes against humanity apply to individuals, not states, so would hold General Min Aung Hlaing and his top aides personally responsible. It provides another legal basis for prosecuting them at the International Criminal Court (ICC) or in national courts exercising universal jurisdiction.
It would also label the military’s response as an atrocity, thereby delegitimising the military’s forthcoming January 2026 “elections” and dissuading regional leaders from continuing their recent reproachment to the regime. Moreover, given the international community’s weak support so far, this designation would compel global actors under the Responsibility to Protect doctrine to increase aid and ensure it reaches those in need.
Evidence of a crime against humanity in the earthquake response
A “crime against humanity,” as defined by the Rome Statute (Art. 7), involves acts such as murder, inhumane treatment, extermination, and persecution when knowingly committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack on a civilians. Establishing whether the military has committed a crime against humanity requires examining whether its actions meet each element of this definition.
Which criminal acts are the military committing?
Despite widespread internet shutdowns, press restrictions, and other repressive measures, journalists, aid workers, and opposition groups have documented clear instances of military obstruction, diversion, and denial of aid to earthquake survivors. The intentional deprivation of essential resources, knowing that it could lead to death, could amount to “murder”.
After the earthquake, and even since a declared nationwide ceasefire, the military reportedly continued airstrikes on civilian areas, resulting in further displacement and fear. These ongoing attacks, alongside information restrictions, exacerbate pre-existing conflict vulnerabilities and may collectively be considered “inhumane acts”.
Moreover, reports indicate that aid has been intentionally diverted or denied to specific demographic groups in Sagaing, Bago, and Shan regions with strong opposition to the military. Such discriminatory actions, calculated to deprive a segment of the population of fundamental rights, may constitute “persecution” and, if it results in significant deaths, could even reach the threshold of “extermination”.
Is the military committing the crime of omission?
Beyond active measures, the military’s failure to deploy available resources and coordinate effective relief may constitute a culpable omission. With de facto control over large parts of the State, the military is legally obligated to protect civilians, even if it is an unlawful government. Its failure to ensure access to humanitarian aid may also satisfy the threshold for crimes against humanity.
Is the military committing the acts intentionally?
Establishing intent is crucial for establishing a crime against humanity. The military is unlikely to admit it, so international law says intent can be inferred from circumstantial evidence. For instance, the military’s history of restricting access to conflict-displaced populations from opposition-controlled areas suggests an established pattern of “weaponising” aid. Post-earthquake, continued airstrikes on civilian areas, despite a belated ceasefire, demonstrate that military objectives are consistently prioritised over humanitarian assistance. The military may also lack capacity, but such actions, reinforced by pervasive surveillance and administrative burdens on aid distribution, strongly indicate that these measures are taken intentionally.
Are the military’s acts a widespread and systematic attack?
A crime against humanity involves a series of individual criminal acts, such as obstructing aid to cause death, that are known as an “attack” when coordinated together. An “attack” involves acts of violence but does not need to be violent itself. Therefore, the mistreatment of a population after a natural disaster such as an earthquake meets the definition of an “attack”.
A crime against humanity also requires that individual acts are committed on a large “widespread” scale and in an organised “systematic” manner. Multiple diverse sources indicate that thousands of people may be affected, out of 17 million living in earthquake-affected areas. Organised restrictions on local aid and the systematic surveillance of relief deliveries, combined with historical patterns, confirm that the military’s actions are both widespread and systematic.
Is the military targeting the civilian population?
Finally, a crime against humanity is an attack directed against civilians. Deliberately obstructing aid because it is destined for resistance-controlled areas deprives vulnerable civilians of life-saving resources, is never a legitimate war aim, and qualifies as an “attack” under international law.
Urgent call for international action
The earthquake was a tragedy, but the military regime’s response has been a deliberate, systematic effort to control and suppress Myanmar’s population, echoing the atrocities seen after Cyclone Nargis. Recognising the military’s response as a crime against humanity demands immediate accountability and international intervention to prevent further needless suffering in Myanmar.
Recommendations
- Invoke the Responsibility to Protect (R2P): The international community must recognise that the disaster is partly man-made and that the military’s actions are not just human rights violations but potential international crimes requiring urgent intervention.
- Ensure immediate humanitarian access: Governments and UN agencies must increase their support and pressure Myanmar’s military to allow unrestricted aid—delivered via cross-border operations and in cooperation with all local stakeholders, including opposition groups.
- Hold perpetrators accountable: The UN Human Rights Council should investigate the obstruction of aid, and the United Kingdom, as “penholder” at the UN Security Council, should lead a new resolution on Myanmar, including targeted sanctions and a referral to the ICC. The ICC must issue the long-awaited arrest warrant for Min Aung Hlaing and his accomplices.
- Support civil society and journalists: The international community must allocate resources and protection to independent media and local actors documenting these abuses.