Myanmar has a history of coups and long periods of military rule. The depth, size and persistence of the protests means a return to civilian control of the government is not an impossibility, but the legacy of past military brutality means indefinite junta rule is also possible.

This is not an article I had expected, intended or wanted to write. I have politely declined requests to write on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in relation to the current crisis in Myanmar and the climbing civilian death toll. The turning point was visuals of people with R2P banners, T-shirts, umbrellas and candle-lit vigils, as in the photo accompanying this article. The images have touched my conscience and should pull at the world’s conscience.

On Friday, 5 March, as the UN Security Council was meeting in its solemn chamber in New York, people across Myanmar held peaceful vigils to protest against the bloody reimposition of military rule in their country. Despite a strict night-time curfew, protesters came into the streets of Yangon and Mandalay to write “We Need R2P” and “R2P – Save Myanmar” in candlelight.

Countries spend vital funds to stockpile expensive weapon systems at the cost of making actual necessary investments to protect their populations. National security calculations presuppose that power and status equate with costly weapons accumulation. However, none of the challenges that pose existential dangers to nations in the 21st century can be tackled with weapons, or solved by one country acting alone, or even fought with military means.

Polarisation has torn the United States apart. Under former US President Donald Trump, it almost tore US democracy to shreds.But America is not only polarised within. It faces a polarised Pacific. Relations with China have reached their post-normalisation nadir after Trump’s years in office, when Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping propagated their strongman cults of personality in parallel.