Myanmar: Response to the 2021 Declaration of a State of Emergency (2021)

On 1 February 2021 – the day before the newly elected members of Parliament were to be sworn in – the Myanmar military declared a state of emergency and transferred power from the democratically elected Government under Aung San Suu Kyi to a military junta. It declared the 2020 election results to be invalid and arrested leading political figures associated with the National Unity Government (NUG), including Aung San Suu Kyi, President Win Myint and other ministers and members of Parliament.

Although the situation in Myanmar was considered before the SC, no draft resolution was put forward.¹ Instead, in March 2021, the SC issued a presidential statement condemning the violence against protestors and expressing continued support for the democratic transition in Myanmar (S/PRST/2021/5).

Subsequent to this presidential statement, on 25 June 2021, the GA passed a resolution expressing grave concern at the declaration of a state of emergency, and called upon the Myanmar military to respect the results of the prior elections (A/RES/75/287). The resolution, which passed with 119 votes in favour and only Belarus voting against, also called on the military to release members of the elected civilian Government who had been detained, stop all violence against peaceful protestors and reopen the democratically elected Parliament (ibid., paras. 1–4). The resolution also called upon “all Member States to prevent the flow of arms into Myanmar” as a means of de-escalating the violence (ibid., para 7). This recommendation was notable given the overall trend against the GA recommending sanctions measures such as arms embargoes in the modern era (see further discussion in part II).

Subsequently, in December 2022, the SC adopted resolution 2669 (S/RES/2669) expressing concern at the state of emergency imposed by the military, demanding an end to all forms of violence, the release of detained political figures and a return to democratic processes. In many ways the language and recommendations in SC resolution 2669 mirrored that of GA resolution 75/287, except there was no mention of an arms embargo. The resolution passed with 3 abstentions (China, India and the Russian Federation).