US Response to Myanmar Earthquake Criticized Amidst Budget Cuts

A devastating earthquake struck central Myanmar on March 28, causing extensive damage and loss of life and affecting nearby regions including Thailand. The 7.7 magnitude quake has left over 2,000 dead and millions homeless, triggering urgent calls for international humanitarian aid, especially considering the region's longstanding political instability. Amidst this catastrophe, current and former staff members of USAID have expressed deep concern regarding the sluggish and potentially insufficient U.S. response. This critique emerges in the context of significant budgetary constraints and staffing reductions at the U.S. Agency for International Development, consequences of prior administrative decisions under the Trump administration. Tammy Bruce, speaking for the State Department, indicated that the US is currently evaluating its aid strategy but emphasized the agency's continuity through global partnerships. Nevertheless, the persistent discontent among USAID veterans like Sarah Charles hints at an unprepared and diminished ability of the U.S. to act decisively post-disaster. Comparisons are drawn with past U.S. responses, such as the mobilization after Turkey's earthquake two years prior, highlighting the disparity in current U.S. deployment, which involves only a handful of personnel traveling to assess urgent needs in the affected area. Critics argue this reflects a systemic failure, exacerbated by organizational dismantling and funding suspensions initiated in the previous administration. Former deputy USAID administrator Jim Kunder underscores this, pointing to the chaotic disruption of essential relief systems and expertise, which is mirrored by a conspicuous absence of U.S. teams on the ground in Myanmar, unlike countries like India, China, and Russia that have already deployed assistance. The situation is dire, and disaster response encompasses not only immediate search-and-rescue missions but also long-term health concerns due to poor sanitary conditions. The need for coordinated global response remains crucial as the infrastructure to handle such crises has become fractured, particularly affecting the burgeoning humanitarian crises in regions like Sagaing, already strained by civil conflict. The U.S. response strategy, or lack thereof, is also seen through a geopolitical lens: aiding Myanmar not only assists in human rights and disaster mitigation but serves broader strategic interests. Yet, with USAID's diminished presence and wariness about previously committed aid payments, executing effective relief operations becomes challenging. There is an urgent appeal for the U.S. to recalibrate and assert leadership within international aid frameworks to preclude similar debacles post-disasters.