By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A 7.7 magnitude earthquake in Myanmar has resulted in over 1,700 deaths, a number expected to climb. While multiple nations, including China, India, Russia, and Thailand, have deployed rescue teams and substantial aid, the United States’ response has been comparatively delayed and limited, despite a pledged $2 million in aid. China, in particular, has taken a prominent role, rescuing several individuals from the rubble and providing significant material support. The delayed US response has drawn criticism, especially considering recent cuts to foreign aid.
Read the original article here
The recent earthquake in Myanmar starkly highlights the consequences of drastically cutting foreign aid. A global superpower’s withdrawal from its leadership role creates a void readily filled by other nations, primarily China in this instance. This isn’t merely about financial savings; it’s about influence, and the potential loss of American soft power on the world stage.
The absence of a US rescue team at the earthquake site, while teams from India, Malaysia, Russia, Thailand, and other countries have arrived, speaks volumes. This vacuum allows other nations, specifically China, to step in and cultivate relationships based on immediate need. Such actions build goodwill and potentially translate into significant geopolitical leverage.
The narrative of a future where China’s presence in Myanmar, cemented by its earthquake response, leads to advantageous deals with the government, like the construction of a military refueling airport, illustrates the long-term implications of reduced American engagement. This showcases how seemingly altruistic disaster relief can transform into strategic political and military gain.
The claim that Myanmar has previously rejected US disaster aid is relevant, but doesn’t entirely excuse the current situation. The fact remains that reduced US involvement created space for other nations to increase their influence. The argument that Myanmar’s regime is among the world’s worst doesn’t diminish the opportunity China seized, nor does it absolve the US of its contribution to the current power dynamic.
The significant financial savings touted by cutting foreign aid haven’t translated into visible improvements in the US. There’s a lack of demonstrable evidence showcasing where the purportedly saved billions have been invested in domestic projects or initiatives designed to “make America great again.” This absence of tangible results undermines the stated justification for the aid cuts.
The situation exposes America’s weakening soft power. Nations that traditionally looked to the US for support may now increasingly turn to China. This shift could lead to a decline in US influence and potentially impact future economic and political dealings. The possibility of conditional aid— assistance offered in exchange for significant concessions – from China further underscores this concerning shift in the global balance of power.
Some argue that many countries couldn’t afford US aid anyway. This perspective, however, overlooks the long-term strategic benefits of foreign aid, namely, building stronger relationships and advancing US political and economic goals. Foreign aid acts as an investment in future partnerships, a concept apparently lost in the current approach.
The comparison to past instances, like the lack of US response to previous disasters in Myanmar or the US’s own wildfire season requiring assistance from neighboring countries, amplifies concerns. It reveals a pattern of reduced US engagement and a potential increase in reliance on other nations, some of which may harbor less-than-benign intentions. This creates a dangerous precedent and underscores the vulnerability of relying solely on domestic resources during times of crisis.
The idea that China’s increased involvement reflects simply filling a void left by the US ignores the long game China is playing. While China benefits from the US’s actions, it has also strategically positioned itself to take advantage of existing relationships with the Burmese military junta. China’s actions are not merely reactive; they represent a carefully calculated expansion of their influence.
Ultimately, the situation in Myanmar serves as a cautionary tale. The drastic cuts to foreign aid, while promoted as fiscal responsibility, have inadvertently weakened the US’s position on the world stage and enabled the rise of other global players. The question remains whether the short-term financial gains outweigh the significant long-term geopolitical losses. The current situation in Myanmar suggests the answer may be a resounding “no”. The potential for further erosion of American influence, both in Myanmar and elsewhere, remains a significant concern, as does the increasing power of China.