Democratising the Right to Violence? – A 3D-Printed Revolution

On the 1^st February 2021, Myanmar’s armed forces, known as the Tatmadaw, seized power from Aung San Suu Kyi’s democratically elected civilian government in a coup. Almost immediately, ordinary citizens of Myanmar took to the streets to protest the move. The history of Myanmar is a bloody one, dominated by the military in a series of dictatorial regimes. This appeared to be coming to an end in 2015 following resistance leader and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi’s rise to de-facto leader of the country through democratic elections. However, national and international excitement at the emergence of such a peace icon in real power in the country was quickly quashed, as Suu Kyi oversaw the Tatmadaw’s brutal repression and ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya in Rakhine state, before succumbing to the will of the real dominant powers in the country.

Despite international disillusionment with Suu Kyi’s government, however, nobody domestically or abroad wanted to see the return of the brutal military regime to power in Myanmar. When protestors took to the streets in response to the coup, they came armed with signs, slogans, and the support of the international community. Such assets provided little protection when the Tatmadaw met them with guns. On February 20^th, just a few short weeks after the coup, two unarmed protestors were gunned down by security forces. In response, thousands more took to the streets. By the 31^st March 2021, more than 520 civilian protestors had been killed, and thousands had been arrested. Journalists were targeted, freedom of speech was curtailed, and the body count kept rising.

Max Weber on the legitimate use of violence - “Politics as a Vocation” (1918)

The state is often seen as a governing body that has the monopoly on the use of violence in a country. In liberal democracies, this is (problematically) framed as meaning only the state has the right to wield violence in order to protect its citizens against outside aggressors (through the military) or dangerous people within its borders (via policing). However, in illiberal autocracies and dictatorships, this means that the state wields its force in order to subjugate and control its population. As has been demonstrated throughout history, in establishing their monopoly on the use of violence, dictators can sometimes end up ruling only over the debris that remains of what was once a nation. To them, this does not appear to matter, providing the state’s capacity to use force as it pleases has been firmly restored.

In Myanmar, it doesn’t matter whether the people wanted Tatmadaw Commander-in-Chief Min Aung Hlaing as their leader or not, because Min Aung Hlaing holds the biggest guns. As we have unfortunately seen in Syria, the capacity of Bashar al-Assad to effectively utilise overwhelming violence against his citizens has allowed him to continue his rule. Now, in Ukraine, western governments struggle to decide how best to provide weapons to Zelenskyy and his militias, for fear of drawing NATO into conflict with Russia. Though the fears of nuclear escalation are no-doubt warranted, and many international experts are rightly extremely concerned about the risks associated with establishing a NATO-enforced no-fly zone in Ukraine, the calls from Ukrainians desperately trying to defend their homes from vastly superior firepower are getting harder to bear.

But modern technology is changing this dynamic. As has been expertly described in the four-part podcast series of It Could Happen Here: Printing the Revolution, tech-savvy protestors in Myanmar have found new ways to arm themselves in opposition to the military junta. 3D printed guns can be as effective as more traditional weapons, especially given the open access nature of weapons blueprints. Many young protestors-turned-revolutionaries in Myanmar have been using Reddit and other social media sites to access gun blueprints, and this has changed the capacity of various militia groups across the country to respond to the military crackdown.

A militia fighter in Myanmar holding a 3D printed gun

Since the early massacres of the Tatmadaw in the spring of 2021, an effective resistance movement has emerged across Myanmar. A national unity government has been established in opposition to the junta, and the NUG has led on the creation of a “People’s Defence Force” made up of resistance movements across ethnic and religious lines, in a show of solidarity not seen previously in the country. Even the Rohingya minority have been included in the alliance against Min Aung Hlaing. Such a unifying force is able to put up a real challenge to the would-be oppressors of Burmese civil society, but without access the weaponry to defend themselves, any opposition would have undoubtedly been quashed before they were able to organise. Rebel fighters credit the 3D printed guns with giving them a chance at surviving long enough to plan their actions against the government.

The ability to print guns obviously raises many very serious issues, most notably in countries with strict gun control laws. The history of 3D printed guns is also filled with very dangerous individuals and has been in many cases advocated for by violent, terrorist organisations, particularly on the far right. The capacity for states to regulate this is also legally murky. But in Myanmar, it has allowed ordinary citizens to defend themselves against a brutal regime. In the US, the 2^nd amendment was intended as a way for citizens to defend themselves against tyranny, and in the modern world 3D printing is demonstrating the necessity of those protections.

More 3D printed guns being constructed in Myanmar. Source: Jake Hanrahan on Twitter @Jake_Hanrahan

Despite this, a world where anyone could have access to lethal weaponry is not one that I think many of us would want to live in. Regulation is vital, but access to high quality guns that can be easily produced could give communities the capacity to protect themselves from external threats. As Ukraine finds itself increasingly cut off from its western allies, and the delivery of weapons and aid becomes harder, one wonders if 3D printing weapons and ammunitions might be a route to strengthen the defensive capacity of the beleaguered country.

The issues raised by this cutting-edge technology are extremely complicated, and I’m not sure what the future should be. For now, I’ll say that I value the capacity of oppressed communities in Myanmar and elsewhere to defend themselves from dictatorial regimes.

Easy access weaponry can be incredibly useful for allowing civilians of undemocratic, oppressive states to protect themselves. It reduces the need for so-called “lethal aid” initiatives by allies in the international community, skirting geopolitical barriers and helping to democratise access to protective mechanisms. In peaceful countries, access to such technology should be restricted to prevent unnecessary harm, but in times of civil strife, the use of the internet to gain blueprints for self-defence equipment can make a tangible difference on the battlefield. It can make the difference between a clash of forces and an unmitigated massacre.

However, such technology should be utilised with extreme caution. The long-term solution for durable peace is never reached through more weapons. Technology cannot end a war. Only humans can do that.

The issue of 3D printed guns is one that I find difficult to know exactly how I feel about. By nature, I am pro gun control and the limiting of access to weapons, but this is a very European, western world view based on the experience of gun control in the UK following the Dunblane massacre, and the continued horrors of mass killings in the US. For a deep dive into the issues around 3D printed weapons, I'd recommend Myanmar: Printing the Revolution from It Could Happen Here.