UN Security Council paralyses as Myanmar descends into chaos

By Anna Luiza Fagundes and Cecília Dias - CNN

08/11/2025

As world leaders gathered at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) this week, the situation in Myanmar remained at the center of a profound struggle between geopolitical interests and the defense of democratic ideals. Since the 2021 military coup, Myanmar has devolved from a brief experiment in civilian government to a country ruled by force, where young people are either forced into the military or risk their lives joining informal resistance movements.

The junta continues to claim it is safeguarding democracy, yet international human rights organizations argue that this rhetoric masks a campaign of systemic oppression — evident in the mounting civilian casualties and displacement of ethnic minorities. Once again, these realities test the international community’s commitment to the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), a doctrine that appears increasingly fragile within the Council’s deliberations.

Inside the Council chamber, the debate this week exposed deep conceptual divisions over the meaning and universality of human rights. Myanmar’s representative argued that human rights are relative and must be interpreted within national and cultural contexts. In response, the United States delegate countered that there is no relativism in the concept of human rights, but rather differing priorities among states. The exchange raised an essential question: are some rights considered more important than others depending on who defines them?

The discussion remained largely stuck on theoretical definitions rather than practical measures, a reflection of how the Council often becomes paralyzed by debates over principles instead of mobilizing concrete action. Adding to the gridlock, Russia’s representative insisted that humanitarian assistance should only be delivered with the explicit consent of the state concerned—a stance that, in practice, could empower regimes accused of the very abuses prompting international concern. This insistence on sovereignty, while consistent with Moscow’s broader foreign policy line, raises the question of whether state consent should outweigh human need in crisis situations such as Myanmar’s.

The specter of veto may hang heavy over any push for more robust action in Myanmar. Attempts by Western nations to introduce stronger language or authorizations for humanitarian intervention repeatedly hit a wall, with Moscow and Beijing favoring dialogue over condemnation. This situation highlights how consensus around meaningful measures remains elusive, even in the face of escalating violence, humanitarian catastrophe and targeted repression against ethnic minorities.

Furthermore, negotiations within the Security Council remain deeply fragmented, with multiple working documents circulating among members and entire sections bracketed as diplomats contend with veto threats and divergent national interests. For Myanmar’s people, and the international community, the test is not just the UN’s ability to forge resolutions but its willingness to act beyond the boundaries of veto-driven diplomacy. The result: a Council immobilized, whose ability to protect democratic transitions is undermined by structural limitations as much as by the conflicting priorities of its most powerful members.