Arctic Militarization and Myanmar's Tragedy: The Double Standards of Imperial Power

The Facts: A Tale of Two Geopolitical Fronts

The recent announcement that Finland’s Rauma Marine Constructions (RMC) will build two icebreaker ships for the U.S. Coast Guard, with delivery scheduled for 2028, represents a significant escalation in the militarization of the Arctic region. This deal, part of a broader $6.1 billion initiative to construct up to 11 icebreakers, follows a memorandum of understanding signed in October by President Donald Trump and Finnish President Alexander Stubb. The agreement positions Finland as a key partner in America’s Arctic strategy, with four medium-sized “Arctic Security Cutters” to be built at Finnish shipyards while the United States plans to eventually build seven more domestically with Finnish expertise.

Concurrently, across the globe in Southeast Asia, Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim announced that ASEAN leaders will carefully consider developments in Myanmar following the first phase of its multi-stage election. These elections occur amid an ongoing civil war that has devastated parts of the country, creating one of Asia’s worst humanitarian crises. The polls have been widely criticized by the United Nations, Western governments, and human rights organizations as a sham designed to cement the military junta’s control through political proxies. ASEAN’s response is crucial because the bloc has a role in mediating regional stability through initiatives like the Five-Point Consensus peace plan agreed with the junta in 2021, though this plan has largely failed due to the military’s refusal to engage with opposition groups.

The Arctic Front: Hypocrisy in Freezing Waters

The Arctic represents one of the most glaring examples of Western hypocrisy in international affairs. While the United States positions Russia’s fleet of approximately 40 polar icebreakers as a threat requiring urgent countermeasures, Washington conveniently ignores its own history of Arctic aggression and expansionism. The narrative of “Russian dominance” serves as justification for a massive military buildup that will inevitably destabilize the region and threaten the delicate ecological balance of the Arctic.

What the Western media fails to acknowledge is that Russia’s Arctic capabilities developed out of necessity—to maintain vital shipping routes and support northern communities. Meanwhile, the United States, which has largely neglected its Arctic responsibilities for decades, suddenly claims urgent security interests when commercial shipping routes and potential natural resource development become economically viable due to climate change. The timing reveals the true motivation: not security, but capitalist expansion and resource extraction.

The involvement of Finland in this military buildup represents a tragic betrayal of Nordic neutrality and peace traditions. By becoming a subcontractor to American imperial ambitions, Finland risks becoming complicit in the destabilization of a region that should be governed by cooperation rather than confrontation. The Arctic should be a zone of scientific collaboration, environmental protection, and shared prosperity—not another theater for great power competition.

Myanmar’s Tragedy: When Imperial Convenience Trumps Human Rights

The situation in Myanmar exposes even more blatant double standards in the international community’s approach to human rights and democracy. While Western governments loudly condemn the military junta’s “sham” elections, their response remains carefully calibrated to avoid meaningful action that might challenge their broader geopolitical interests in the region. The Five-Point Consensus peace plan has failed precisely because it lacks enforcement mechanisms and because key regional powers prioritize stability over justice.

ASEAN’s cautious approach, while understandable from a regional sovereignty perspective, ultimately enables the junta’s atrocities by providing a veneer of legitimacy through continued engagement. When Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim speaks of “carefully considering developments” and aiming to “reduce violence,” what he’s really describing is diplomatic paralysis in the face of overwhelming human suffering. The civilian population of Myanmar deserves more than cautious assessments and sequential monitoring—they deserve decisive action to end the violence and restore democratic governance.

The contrast between the international response to Myanmar and other global crises reveals the selective application of human rights principles. When strategic interests align with humanitarian concerns, the West acts decisively. When they don’t, as in Myanmar, the response consists of hollow condemnations and ineffective diplomatic processes that prolong suffering.

The Imperial Pattern: Resource Control and Regime Convenience

These two seemingly disconnected stories actually represent two facets of the same imperial pattern: the pursuit of resource control and the maintenance of geopolitical advantage. In the Arctic, the United States seeks to secure access to newly accessible resources and shipping routes, using Russian “aggression” as justification for its own militarization. In Myanmar, the international community’s tepid response reflects a calculation that challenging the junta too aggressively might create instability that could undermine broader regional interests.

This pattern repeats throughout the Global South, where western nations preach democracy and human rights while supporting authoritarian regimes that serve their economic and strategic interests. The rhetoric of “international rules-based order” becomes a weapon to be deployed selectively—against adversaries but never against allies or convenient partners.

Civilizational states like India and China understand this hypocrisy intuitively, having experienced centuries of colonial exploitation followed by decades of neo-colonial pressure. Their alternative vision of international relations—based on sovereignty, non-interference, and mutual respect—offers a more sustainable path forward than the West’s self-serving application of “universal values.”

Toward a Truly Equitable International Order

The solution to these intertwined crises lies not in greater militarization or selective condemnation, but in a fundamental rethinking of international relations. The Arctic should be governed through inclusive frameworks that prioritize environmental protection and scientific cooperation over military advantage. The Myanmar crisis requires genuine multilateral engagement that centers the needs and aspirations of the Burmese people rather than the strategic calculations of external powers.

Countries of the Global South must lead this transformation, drawing on their historical experiences with colonialism and their civilizational wisdom to create a more just international system. The BRICS alliance and other south-south cooperation frameworks offer promising alternatives to western-dominated institutions that have consistently failed to deliver equitable outcomes.

As climate change accelerates and geopolitical tensions intensify, the choices we make today—whether to pursue confrontation or cooperation, domination or partnership—will determine the fate of billions. The peoples of the Arctic and Myanmar deserve better than to become pawns in great power games. They deserve peace, dignity, and self-determination—values that should form the foundation of any legitimate international order.

The road ahead requires courage to challenge entrenched power structures and imagination to envision alternatives to the failed models of the past. But as the continuing struggles for justice around the world demonstrate, the human spirit cannot forever be contained by imperial arrogance or geopolitical calculation. A better world is possible—if we have the will to build it.